Board of Aldermen 02-23-2021 Page 11
Alderman Dowd
So | am going to be paraphrasing from the minutes of the Budget Committee Meeting. It says, so the
fundamentals of the deal have not changed except where we have changed it from being a fee interest to a
lease but otherwise still pretty much the same. It’s a 99 year lease at $900,000.00 lease rate, 144 apartments
so slightly down from the original figure they were looking at. The City would still transfer $100,000.00 to offset
some infrastructure costs, street scaping particularly on School Street where we would be looking to add some
parking space, 20 to 30 parking spaces in and around the street.
The parking itself will utilize the High Street Garage up to 150 parking spaces would be set aside and available
for rent. The first ten years would be $50.00 per space. This would be about a $90,000.00 a year if all spaces
were utilized. The original develooment agreement contemplated closing or execution sometime in May. We
pushed it out to the end of June, June 30" because of the lag getting this agreement in order. It does allow for
the TIF to create the public parking on the first floor as contemplated for $2.5 million. It caps it so the City’s
obligation would stay at just the $2.5 million and the developer would draw down upon any money through
certain intervals as construction proceeds. Going on it says, otherwise the agreement stays pretty much the
same. So that, in essence, is the changes from the original agreement that it was some wording changes to
the original agreement but basically the agreement is the same as it was when it was acted on before.
President Wilshire
The motion is to amend. Further discussion on that motion? Alderman Jette?
Alderman Jette
Thank you Madam Chairman. Part of this amendment is the provision that we are going to pay the builder
$2.5 million dollars in exchange for his providing a parking garage at the ground level of the building. And |
brought this up at the Budget Review Committee Meeting. The agreement that was presented to us does not
specify what the parking is going to be. It doesn’t say how many spaces are going to be in the parking garage.
It really doesn’t describe the parking garage, it does make reference to plans but they are not attached and
during the Budget Review Committee Meeting the Developer said that the plans were being worked on but
they weren't ready yet; but he thought that they would be ready soon.
| have trouble agreeing to vote for something where the specifics are not included. We are agreeing to pay
$2.5 million dollars that’s clear. But it is not clear what we are getting for the $2.5 million dollars as far as this
parking facility is concerned. The agreement makes reference to other attachments which also are not
included. This new concept is that we are not going to be selling this property we are going to be leasing it;
essentially we are going to be leasing the air rights. So the City continues to own the land but we are leasing
the right to build above that land to the Developer. But that air rights lease is not included. So | think there are
some loose ends here and for that reason | don’t want to cut off any discussion, but at some point, | will
reserve this until everyone has had a chance to speak but | guess at some point | would like to move that it be
referred back to the Committee so that these details can be worked out and provided so that when we adopt
this we know exactly what we are getting into.
| am not trying to stop this project, we voted to go ahead with this concept but | just cannot vote for a purchase
and sale agreement or a lease agreement without having the basic elements included. It just doesn’t seem
that we would be fulfilling our obligation to the taxpayers to go into this without knowing what all the details are.
So thank you.
President Wilshire
Alderwoman Lu?
