The Request for Proposals clearly states that applicants “must” identify the zoning of any proposed location, provide signed documentation from the landowner if they do not have possession or control of the property, and describe a clear pathway to obtaining all required approvals, permits, or variances.
These are mandatory submission requirements, not optional guidelines. Failure to meet any of these conditions renders an application incomplete and noncompliant under the stated terms of the RFP.
Allowing a proposal to advance or be awarded funding without satisfying these requirements undermines the integrity of the competitive process and raises legitimate concerns about fairness, transparency, and equal treatment among applicants.
Accordingly, any applicant who did not include the required documentation or demonstrate a clear and lawful right to use the proposed site should have been disqualified or deemed ineligible for award consideration in accordance with the RFP’s published rules.
In the end the question each city council member will need to ask yourself is: Do we play by the rules or do we show favoritism to our preferred organization. Can the City Attorney justify the actions that have been taken by the city council?
Let’s take a detailed look at what the RFP specifically means.
From the Request for Proposal, page 5-6:
Proposals must identify the zoning of any proposed location and demonstrate consistency with allowed uses. Applicants that do not have possession and control of the location at the time of application must include signed documentation from the landowner that the property will be transferred, including the terms of such transfer and acknowledging that the documentation will be made public as provided in Section 3.C., or as required by law. Proposals must describe clear pathway to obtaining necessary approvals, permits, and/or variances.
The difference between the RFP and “Acquisition” of a property:
1. Acquisition (Definition):
Acquisition means the actual purchase or transfer of ownership or control of property or a site.
In other words, it’s when an applicant (such as a nonprofit or developer) buys or legally secures the land or building for their project.
2. What Does the Passage from the RFP Require:|
The passage is about documentation and proof of site control, not necessarily ownership yet.
It says:
- Applicants “must” identify the zoning and show the project is consistent with allowed uses.
- If they don’t yet own or control the site, they must include signed documentation from the landowner stating that the property will be transferred (and under what terms).
- The applicant must also show a clear plan to get all necessary approvals, permits, or variances.
This means the applicant doesn’t have to own the site yet — but they “must” show:
- They have permission or a commitment from the owner,
- A plan or agreement for how they’ll acquire or lease it,
- And that it’s zoned properly or will be if approved.
3. The passage sets “mandatory” proposal requirements
The quoted section isn’t optional — it uses must repeatedly:
“Proposals
must identifythe zoning… Applicants that do not have possession and control…
must include signed documentation… Proposals
must describea clear pathway…”
When an RFP (Request for Proposals) uses “must,” it establishes mandatory conditions for a complete and eligible application.
Failing to include:
- zoning details,
- documentation of ownership or transfer, or
- a clear path for permits and approvals
…means the proposal is incomplete and does not comply with the submission requirements.
4. Standard procurement and grant rules
In both public and private grant processes, an incomplete or non-compliant proposal is typically:
- Rejected before scoring (disqualified at the technical review stage), or
- Given a failing compliance score if the process allows scoring partial compliance.
This ensures fairness — that every applicant follows the same rules and that favoritism isn’t applied.
5. The purpose of this rule
The rule ensures the applicant:
- Isn’t proposing a project on property they don’t control or can’t legally use,
- Knows the zoning fits the project type,
- And has a realistic path to completion.
If an applicant skips these steps, it raises red flags that the project isn’t viable or ready, which defeats the purpose of the competitive process.
Conclusion
If an applicant:
- Did not identify zoning, did not have documentation from the landowner, or did not show a clear path to permits, then under normal RFP procedures, they should be disqualified or ruled non-compliant — unless the city or agency explicitly waived that requirement for all applicants (which would itself be questionable under procurement fairness laws).
