The future of the Roanoke City Market Building remains uncertain after the city council rejected Tuesday the sole proposal submitted to redevelop and manage the increasingly shabby building.

The council voted unanimously to ask city officials to draft a new request for proposals for what has been described as an overdue and necessary makeover for the city-owned, circa-1922 structure.

"This council has made it very clear that the renovation of the market building is a high priority," Councilman David Trinkle said.

The market building currently houses nine interior food vendors and six exterior tenants, five of which do not sell food. Five vendors' leases will expire and be up for renewal in February, according to the city.

The contents of the rejected proposal, submitted by a group of nearly 40 business people known as the Coalition for the Roanoke City Market, have not been made public.

City Manager Darlene Burcham told the council that the committee that considered the proposal found it was "not in the best interest of the city or advantageous to the city." She added that it failed to address certain aspects of the request for proposals.

After the council's vote, Bill Carder, Downtown Roanoke Inc.'s executive director, said he was shocked. DRI helped prepare the proposal for the coalition.

"I think we're frustrated," he said. "I don't think the council has even seen the proposal. We asked to give a presentation to council, but we were never asked to come in."

Several council members confirmed that. But they said they had been briefed by city officials, who routinely evaluate proposals and present their recommendations to the council.

The council's vote instructed Burcham to issue a new request for proposals intended to be written in a broader manner. From the nearly 50 minutes of discussion by council members that preceded that vote, it appears that they want the Coalition for the Roanoke City Market to resubmit its proposal.

"It seems awfully silly to me to throw the baby out with the bath water when there are points in here that are clearly attractive to the city," Councilwoman Gwen Mason said of the existing proposal.

Some of the market building tenants said they're unaware of the specifics of any plans to change the appearance of the building. They just want to know whether or not they'll be able to stay there. Many of their leases end in March.

Several said Tuesday that they like the cosmetic changes made so far. The upgrades include renovating public bathrooms, painting the ceiling a lighter shade and cleaning the windows on the mezzanine level.

"The changes are very good, but we don't know what is actually the second stage," said Adel Eltawansy, owner of Zorba, a Mediterranean restaurant that's been in business at the market building for 21 years. "We need to know if we stay or go."

He'd also like to see a few other alternations, such as new tables and a renovated employee bathroom.

David "Chico" Estrada, owner of Chico's Big Lick Pizza, called the recent upgrades by the city "putting lipstick on the pig."

If it were up to him, "I would like to keep it pretty much the same," he said of the market building's design.

Once March is here and his lease is up, Estrada said he expects that his restaurant, as well as the other tenants, will be leaving the market building. If he opens the pizza restaurant elsewhere, he said, it could be in Floyd, where he lives.

Council members said they don't want to lose the market building's existing vendors.

"When Chico's happy, I'll be happy," Mayor David Bowers said.

Burcham echoed that.

"One of the major reasons why your staff [city officials] rejected this proposal is we did not feel the response gave adequate protection ... to existing vendors," she said.

Carder denied that the coalition's proposal did anything to harm vendors. Instead, he said, it moved them out of the way during renovations and even offered to reimburse them for sales lost during that work.

Burcham cited another concern with the coalition response, saying it relied solely on the city to finance redevelopment.

Carder disagreed, noting that the coalition's research suggested historic and new market tax credits could reimburse about 50 percent of the city's costs. He said the group estimated the building's makeover would cost about $6.9 million.

But Burcham responded that the tax credits wouldn't come until the end of the project, leaving the city to bear the burden of paying all costs upfront. And once the project is completed, she said, the new market tax credits aren't guaranteed.

Burcham told the council that she will share the text of the new request for proposals with the council before it's submitted. In the meantime, Roanoke will move forward with cosmetic improvements to the building in advance of the nearby Taubman Museum of Art's official opening in November.

Councilman Court Rosen said he hoped the council will move quickly on the market building instead of "bandaging the building with hundreds of thousands of dollars for the next however many years."

"I am worried the market building will turn into another Victory Stadium," Rosen said. "We've got to make some decisions soon."

In other business:, the council interviewed applicants for three vacancies on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority's board of directors. The council was scheduled to interview Adam Boitnott, John Cook, Anita Powell and Duane Smith, who were selected from a total of six applicants. The city clerk has re-advertised the vacancies; those who are interested can apply until Sept. 10.

Staff writer Duncan Adams contributed to this report.