Last week’s preliminary vote on the parking lease by City Council was not good news for the winners of said lease. So the officials connected with the winning team took the opportunity in the following days to pay visits to the Council members who voted in opposition to offer modifications to their proposal.
One Council member noted "[the bidders] thought is, OK, we probably see a better way of getting this done. Perhaps we should re-evaluate this lease agreement. Is there a way perhaps to lower the initial payment, decrease the length of the lease, find ways to keep the city more involved?"
The problem with that approach is the ramifications of making an ex post facto series of changes that could open the City, the Parking Authority, and the winning bidder to litigation from at least the two other parties that submitted bids based on the 50 year terms outlined for meters and facilities. Couldn’t the two losing bidders claim that changes to the lease agreement now-one that they were within a reasonable bid range after offers were opened-in an effort to appease those opposed to it is essentially akin to a new bid process?