3rd & Main Request for Proposals

Request for Proposals for the Private Development 

of the City Owned 3rd & Main Lot

 The City of Kalispell is seeking proposals from development firms seeking to privately finance, construct, and manage a redevelopment project on what is currently a City owned parking lot within Downtown Kalispell, Montana. On December 4, 2017, Kalispell City Council adopted The Downtown Plan as an amendment to the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 by Resolution No. 5846. The Downtown Plan addresses key topics that affect the future growth and development of Downtown Kalispell. The Downtown Plan specifically addresses the need to re-develop City owned surface parking lots into more beneficial uses to eliminate blight and increase tax base. The City is looking for development proposals on the 3rd and Main lot (formerly known as “Valley Bank lot”) at the northwest corner of Main Street and 3rd Street West.  This property has been chosen due to its high visibility location along Main Street and its location in the newly established Downtown Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. Redevelopment of this property will further the City’s mission of promoting economic growth, improving area employment opportunities, and expanding tax base.  Following successful completion of a recorded Developer’s Agreement, the selected developer will receive credit against the 2020 appraised value of the property based upon the tax increment generated by the project. 

Proposals Received

The Charles Hotel Proposal

The Charles Hotel Proposal

Questions & Answers

Q1.  We have a question for you regarding parking requirements for the RFP.  We see the parking heading on page 3, under section 2 but we were looking for some help interpreting the intent.

When it states “at a minimum, the building must accommodate the parking requirements for its own development” is the City expecting that we desking parking for the occupancy of the building using the Minimum Parking Standards by Use (27.24.050) outlined in the zoning ordinance?

Or, since the property is in the B-4 zone and subject to Parking District No. 3 (downtown), that no off-street parking is required? (27.24.040 Special provisions, 6. Parking Districts, C. Parking District No 3)  In this case, the required on-site parking accommodation is technically zero.

A1.  Yes, despite there being no parking requirement in the B-4 zone, the 3rd & Main project must accommodate it’s own parking requirements per City Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street Parking Design Standards, Minimum Standards by Use: 27.24.050.


 Is the project limited to just the value ($270k) of the City lot for TIF reimbursement, or is it possible for the project to be eligible for additional TIF funding?

A2. The project may be eligible for additional TIF funding provided it meets the Downtown Kalispell Tax Increment Financing Assistance Program, found on the City's website: www.kalispell.com/DocumentCenter/View/2916/Downtown-TIF-Policies

Ultimately, any and all TIF funding would be determined by the Downtown TIF policies, project scope and projected tax increment revenue generation.   

 Q3. Is the parking data used in the Kalispell Downtown Plan available?

A3. Yes, parking utilization data was collected by City staff in 2015 for the Downtown Plan.  The information is available:
The Downtown Plan
Parking Utilization

  March 2021  parking permit information on City owned and managed parking lots in the Downtown is available: 
March 2021 Parking Permit Information


Is it possible to communicate with City of Kalispell staff regarding a proposal?

A4. Yes. Please contact Jarod Nygren a jnygren@kalispell.com if you have any questions, as he will not be involved in the selection of any proposals. Questions could include but not be limited to zoning requirements, height, parking, TIF Policies, Developer’s Agreements etc. that may need to be clarified as a project proposal is being put together.

Q5. Tab 4. Budget & Operating proforma- how much information do you want to see?  Since the RFP response will be public record and some of financial information is sensitive—and we understand that they City is looking for the assurance that the developer is fiscally capable to complete the project—is there a possibility that some or all of this confidential information can be submitted with the binders, but separated from the rest of the submittal within a sealed envelope?  In some cases, my understanding is that bankers don’t want to see some of that information on the ‘street’ either.  It seems like the digital copy is the one that runs the biggest risk of being shared easily.  Appreciate your consideration here.  

A5. Confidential documents should be clearly marked as such and separated from the rest of the submittal in a sealed envelope.  Please note in the digital copy the location of the hard copy.

Q6. Thank you for removing the watermark from attachment A.  Follow up question regarding that document: the RFP response requires 5 physical copies and one digital.  Initially, we were thinking to include the completed Attachment A form within the copies of the response, but in that case, they wouldn’t be a notarized original.  How would you like submitting groups to approach this?  One loose original and a reproduction included in each of the 5 binders?  Or would you actually like 5 individually notarized originals?  

A6. Please provide one notarized original and copies are fine in the five physical copies.

Q7. Physical samples of materials… how do you want them shared?  We are planning to include pictures of intended materials in our response, but the physical material requirement has us wondering how you want to see these.  Can we save it for a future potential interview?  Obviously, they would be part of an eventual ARC review. 

A7. Photos of materials are sufficient for RFP.  In the event of an interview, please be prepared to bring those materials.