Last night the Board of Estimates was supposed to make a decision about which of the two remaining developers to choose for Judge Doyle Square? What would our starting point for the millions of dollars of TIF and city assistance be? Not a single member of the public showed up to give input. Not. one. So, they decided to keep both in the running and have a PUBLIC interview with both candidates.
You can watch the brief staff presentation here (1:22). They really don’t say more than what is already here.
The meeting was noticed to go into closed session for this item. The mayor starts off by saying that there is no reason to go into closed session. Of course members of the public did not know this, so that may have contributed to the futile-ness of showing up.
The summary by staff goes on, only George Austin (whom we have paid 1/4 million dollars so far to coordinate) and Dave Schmiedicke (city finance department) do the presentation . . . they aren’t negotiating with either party. They did meet with them. The proposals were not linked to this item in legistar. That may have been another reason people don’t bother giving input, since they didn’t know what they were giving input on. You have to go to this website to find this information:
2016 Judge Doyle Square Request for Proposals – Review Process
- Informational Report from the City Negotiating Team to the Board of Estimates – February 12, 2016
- Beitler Real Estate Services – RFP Update January 19, 2016
- Vermilion Enterprises, LLC – RFP Update January 19, 2016
- Doyle Square Development LLC – Letter January 19, 2016
- Letters of Direction to Development Teams – November 18, 2015
2015 Judge Doyle Square Request for Proposals Responses – May 01, 2015
- Beitler Real Estate Services Joint Venture
- Doyle Square Development, LLC
- JDS Development, LLC
- Vermilion Enterprises, LLC
There is quite a bit more information there . . . documents from 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
The presentation goes on until 1:41. No Board of Estimates members ask questions. Mark Clear, who is not on Board of Estimates, asks about the finances and the TIF and the value of the properties and which is better for the long term financial support of the city (which will collect more taxes in the future.) The Beitler project is the only one that pays back all the TIF.
The mayor says that (1:45) that they should continue talking to both developers, they should have an open discussion with them, he says the Beitler project would abide by labor components even though they would abide by them. He says the only differences are about parking and the quality of the design. He says Vermilion should try to get their costs down and Beitler should work on the parking. He says both proposals are worthy of continuing to explore.
Questions
Barbara McKinney asks about the racial equity, social justice tool and she asks for that to happen.
Sarah Eskrich asks if there are registrants. I think she expected the developers to at least be available for questions, but apparently not. I’m not sure if she expected the public to care, since we’ve been irrelevant the entire time.
Eskrich asks about the hotel and a letter of commitment from a chain. Beitler has one, Vermilion just said they have a relationship with Marriot. Austin says that they aren’t concerned about that at this time.
Eskrich asks about Beitler having the city hold on to ownership of the property. Austin says that the first two floors would be publicly owned and financed and they would lease back the retail part and rent out that space. There would be income to the city from that property.
Marsha Rummel agrees we need to hear from both developers, they made that mistake last time. Rummel has a few comments and asks about a skywalk, she doesn’t want to see one, but she wants to know why they would consider it a good thing.
David Ahrens (also not on the Board of Estimates) asks about long term revenues (99 years) of $500,000 – $700,000 a year, in excess of the property taxes. He asks about the $11M in TIF for Beitler, Beitler says they don’t want TIF, what did you see that leads to that number. Schmiedicke says there is a gap of $26M, the parking utility contribution to the project is $13 (above ground ramp), then there is $13M, $1M for 40 stalls for fleet, and $1M for the bike center, there is a remaining $11M to pay for the parking. I think what the Beitler proposal is saying is they don’t need TIF for the private portions of the project.
Verveer (once he gets to his point) says he wants to continue with both development teams. He hopes there are public interviews. He asks for more details about the interviews with the teams especially where there is not conformance with the RFP. Austin says that they were clarifying what was submitted. Engineering, Parking, Monona Terrace, TIF, Finance and Austin were present for the interviews. They met 2 – 2.5 hours with each of them. They talked a lot about the hotel (flag, size, commitment, operator, room block, labor peace, etc). The spent a lot of time on parking (parking and engineering did some analysis and they gave them feedback on some elements.) They talked about the financing (sources and uses, debt to equity, leases.) They didn’t negotiate, just sought information.
Verveer asks about flexibility to alter their proposals? Verveer asks about if the developers are here. Beitler is. Austin says that both teams were flexible to meet needs of the city in areas they felt comfortable undertaking it. But they both feel strongly about their proposals. Vermilion was trying hard to cross ts and dot i’s on the RFP. Beitler feels strongly about the above grade parking in design and affordability. They are proud of what they presented and have a reason for why they did it. He says the next step should be public interviews with both teams.
Mayor asks if they should ask more questions first, before the interviews. Verveer says yes. Mayor wants to allow developers to ask questions about the report and what they said here today.
McKinney asks about the hotel, she asks about select and full service hotels and the square footage.. She also notes they seem to have more confidence in the report this time. he says this goes back to the RFP, we decided to have a more urban style hotel, less than full service, but lots of amenities. They took different approaches. Beitler went with intercontinental hotel, good flag with good reservation system, it is focused on wellness, grab and go food, no restaurant. The Mariott is a full service product with ballroom space, which is very attractive to the city. They are both responsive, but they came at it differently. A full service hotel will be more expensive.
Greg McManners from Monona Terrace is asked to respond. He says that full service has programming consistent with their model. There is less function space in the Beitler project, but they would be willing to work with them. They could put program space in the retail. The Mariott is more defined.
Clear asks about the difference in rooms. McManners says that they want more, but its not a tipping point. They would like to maximize the rooms and they had that conversation with them.
Clear asks Austin about the parking and planning. Clearly there is a cost trade off, but what are we giving up with above ground parking. Austin says he should leave it to the real planners, he says you are giving up density and the market potential for that. You can design to make it not look like parking, but you can’t put something on top of it in the future. Natalie Erdman is interested in looking at the parking for the office space. Clear asks is the office space is good or bad in the market and if we will have anyone there.
Ahrens says he is an underground parking skeptic. He says that transportation will be changing, we may have underground space that isn’t convertible in the future. He asks if the parking is sloped. That has not come up in discussions with the developers.
Mo Cheeks says the Board is generally in favor of moving forward with both proposals, but what do you want tonight or at a future meeting, to address the questions that you put in the report. What do you need at this stage.
Austin says they don’t want to ask for too much up front, their purpose is to “set the table”. Do you want to do a public interview of one, both or neither. You seem to be leaning towards both. They want to schedule the interview in February yet. It would be about an hour each with questions. They also want an initial discussion on things that are important to the board. Those will go to the teams. They will give them a heads up about what people want to see in the presentation. He doesn’t need the questions tonight, but in the next few days. In March, after the interviews, at the March 7th meeting they would have a more in depth discussion, that might be longer, but the goal would be direction to the negotiating team.
Rummel asks about if there are two Marcus hotels so close to each other, how does that impact the market. George says he will ask that.
Mayor Paul Soglin asks for a motion to give the report to the two teams and ask for a meeting. Mayor asks where they would have the meeting.
McKinney asks that the public interview in a public place. Mayor asks what a “public place” is. She says “in the community. Mayor says this building or the city county building, it is the most public meeting they have, centrally located and most available. McKinney says this is convenient for the Board of Estimates, but she has heard how this is not accessible to others. Mayor says that he is waiting for a motion. Rummel says they could start later so people could attend.
Denise Demarb moves to have the staff talk to the proposers, convey the questions, get them up to speed to be interviewed by us.
Mayor asks what the setting of the public meeting is? Is it the Board of Estimates? Board of Estimates and Plan Commission. DeMarb says Board of Estimates, that is what the council approved.
Demarb says starting later might make it easier for more of the public to be here, she says some would say 8am would allow more of the public to be here. It is difficult to reach a lot of the residents of the city with public meetings, but if we would move the meeting from downtown, it might be equally or more difficult given transportation, this is a hub of transportation, she says they should meet downtown and not move the venue.
Clear says maybe they could have them at Monona Terrace, previous rounds were held there and maybe that feels more community based, not sure why that is, but it feels like there is more community.
Mayor asks if Monona Terrace will charge them, McManners says no. (giggle, giggle, giggle)
Motion passes and they adjourn.
