NORTHAMPTON — More than a year after putting it on the market, the city still hasn’t been able to sell what should be a covetous piece of downtown real estate.

The property, 33 King St., is located across from Hotel Northampton and 150 feet from The Calvin Theater. It formerly hosted the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, whose name still adorns the building located on the 63,500-square-foot property. The property also includes a large parking lot and is located in the Central Business Core zoning district in the city’s downtown.

The property, once owned by the state, was transferred to the city with the idea of Northampton selling it to an interested buyer. But the city has twice put out a request for proposals (or RFP) listing requirements for any interested bidders, and both times failed to come up with any interested parties.

Now, the city is hoping the third time’s the charm, putting out a third RFP to attract interested bidders, one crafted with assistance from the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, also known as DCAMM.

During the City Council’s Dec. 5 meeting, city Planning & Sustainability Director Carolyn Misch told the council that the complexity of the first two bids made it difficult to attract bidders, as well as the overall economic climate for real estate in Massachusetts.

“We got some feedback from perspective bidders about the uncertainties and confusion about, what was really the city’s desire?” Misch said. “There wasn’t enough security and understanding whether or not a project or a proposal would get approved, and the risks were just too high. So we started reflecting on that.”

The first two RFPs put out by the city contained a litany of criteria that interested bidders would be evaluated on when considering applications. Such criteria included a commitment to using a ground-source heat pump to heat and cool any building developments, a high number of stories on any new building and the inclusion of mixed-income housing with a 60-40 split of market rate to affordable, or commercial use being considered most beneficial.

The second RFP made a few alterations, lowering the minimum asking price by $400,000 to $2.1 million, reducing a required deposit for interested bidders from 10% to 2.5% of the asking price, and reducing the financial benefit estimation to the city by $500,000. The timeline for construction to begin after permit review was also reduced by more than a year, from 30 to 12 months.

This time, after receiving assistance from DCAMM, the requirements appear much simpler. According to a draft of the RFP, the only significant criteria for selection is a successful record of carrying out bid proposals, that the bid proposal for 33 King St. includes a permanent easement to allow pedestrian and bike access to the Mass Central Rail Trail, and a commitment to using fossil-fuel free heating and cooling, in keeping with the city’s plans to participate in a state pilot program that would require all buildings to meet such criteria. The draft also lists a submission deadline of March 2025.

During Thursday’s council meeting, Misch emphasized the new RFP means that the property is now open to non-housing development bids, but added that housing also remains a distinct possibility.

“It could be any kind of commercial hotel, mixed hotel, or some other use,” Misch said. “But the quirkiness of the market now is pointing people to look at those [housing] opportunities, to avail themselves of financial incentives from the state for affordable housing.”

Councilor at-large Marissa Elkins said it would be “very disappointing” if the proposal did not include housing, but that she remained optimistic that it could still happen at the property.

“I think our form-based code in the Gateway District zoning incentivizes housing and mixed-use in this particular area,” Elkins said. “As [the property] is right now, it’s a black hole for the state. It’s a sink, it’s a place where we’re not realizing revenue.”

The council voted to approve the new RFP, after also voting 8-1 to suspend the rules to approve immediately instead of sending to the council’s Finance Committee. Ward 3’s Quaverly Rothenberg, the lone dissenting vote on the rule suspension and who abstained on approving the RFP, expressed concern about rushing to once again put the property out for bid.

“By not referring it to finance, I think we’re skipping some of our due diligence,” Rothenberg said. “The energy sounds nice, but I would just put this under the category of going through the motions in a way I’m not comfortable with.”

In response, Ward 1 councilor Stanley Moulton defended the decision to take an immediate vote.

“The previous council did substantial due diligence on this project,” Moulton said. “I would not have voted to suspend the rules if I felt we were abrogating our responsibility.”

Alexander MacDougall can be reached at amacdougall@gazettenet.com.