mincow 04-28-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Rader suggested ensuring that a minimum energy standard rating be achieved by the buildings, and suggested onsite generation, solar ready structures, space for recycling/composting, and a potential LEED certification. Councilmember Bullock expressed a desire to make sure the financials of the project perform as advertised. He stated that Council has a duty to make sure the project pencils/profits and ensure the agreement protects taxpayers financially. Director Leininger stated that every development agreement has protections in place. Commercial, residential, and office uses are broken down in the term sheet, which is used to obtain financing. The agreement establishes timelines the developer has to meet to complete components of the project. If the developer defaults on delivery of the terms, it puts CASTO in jeopardy of losing the tax-increment financing (TIF) for the project. The deliverables are baked into the development agreement; however they have not been specified at this point. Councilmember Bullock asked whether the land valuation had been updated. Planning staff referred to a previous appraisal that was done on the property and extrapolated from that value. The value was determined at$5-$6 million before the environmental issues were discovered. They indicated that they'll complete a broker's opinion of the value and that it is currently open ended in the term sheet. It was further explained that the County Auditor's office appraised the entire site at$1.5 million, however it was not aware of the environmental issues. The auditor's number is generally based on free market value. Councilmember Baker stated that there is a benefit in expressing the land value now to corner the developer into a tax value that will benefit the schools and the community, noting that there is a larger difference between the value on the land and what tax will be paid on it. He concluded that land value will be important for the longevity of the site, stating that its value is closer to $6 million. Discussion ensued on a new land value assessment. It was clarified that the city does not have to get one, however how the land is valued will be considered when addressing the $18 million gap in financing that the project presents. Land can sometimes serve as a subsidy that goes into projects like this, with examples found in similar proposals in Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights. The land value assessment could take place before the site is brought to grade, and the city will need to provide environmental information on the site in the event a broker's opinion is pursued. Councilmember Bullock shared his belief that Council should be represented at the negotiating table along with the administration, as the city is a co-applicant for the proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review. Director Leininger explained that the city is the property owner of the site, so it is required to be a co-applicant, despite it being CASTO's proposal. The city has ethical obligations to represent the zoning code. All parties agreed they want impartiality and a thorough review by both boards (PC and ABR). 5