Private/public partnership plan moves forward

Birmingham officials are getting closer to implementing a city policy allowing for private/public partnerships that could prove of benefit to the city in the future.

Discussions about allowing private/public partnerships first began in June of this year when city commissioners were informed that a developer had inquired whether the city had any interest in possibly entering such a relationship involving city property.

At its August 11 meeting, commissioners voted unanimously to have city staff bring a proposal back to the board that could involve hiring of a professional owner’s representative (POR) who could field proposals for private/public partnerships.

On Monday, September 15, commissioners were presented with the first draft of a proposal to regulate private/public partnerships as part of creation of a request for proposal (RFP) in seeking to hire a POR on a one-year contract that could be extended up to two additional years.

City officials were also given a list of potential positive and negative aspects of entering into a private/public partnership on development projects. According to what was presented to commissioners, the possible benefits for the city in pursuing a private/public partnership include access to capital and cost savings; sharing of risks on construction projects; tapping into specialized expertise and innovation from the private sector; and ultimately increasing the tax base of the city.

On the down side, potential negatives include the fact that private investment takes into consideration such items as profits margins and other items that could increase the cost o a joint project; loss of complete public control; and possible loss of transparency and accountability.

City commissioner Clinton Baller raised concerns about possible conflict of interest on the part of the POR if that person shopped private/public partnerships, a concern that was echoed by other commissioners.

The commission did not take a formal vote on what was proposed by city staff but it was generally agreed that the RFP proposal would be changed to include the ethics policies of the city and to remove any references suggesting that the POR would solicit private/public partnership ideas. Instead a revision would include Baller’s recommendation that the city simply announce that it was accepting proposals for private/public projects and the POR would handle analysis of proposals and recommendations to city officials.

The city attorney also recommended that revisions also include reference to the state Open Meetings Act which allows for closed meetings for negotiations on purchases and agreements.

Although generally development of RFP documents are not brought back to the city commission before they are issued, commissioners agreed that because this is a new undertaking by the city, any changes to the related documents would be brought back to the commission for final approval.