|
Hamilton County Commissioner Phil Heimlich took a page from Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory’s consensus-building playbook during opening remarks to a special session of city council March 21 at Great American Ballpark. The meeting, called by Mallory, invited the commissioners to talk about The Banks, the stalled riverfront development project.
Heimlich thanked Mallory for his “bridge building” efforts that herald a “new day” of cooperation.
“I really mean that,” Heimlich added.
Heimlich focused on delay as the enemy — not the city or county — and an intolerance for any delay that stands in the way of choosing a master developer by April 5.
Then Tom Gableman, the county’s attorney for negotiations over The Banks, narrated a Power Point presentation summarizing the progress of the project and the county’s commitment. He sprinkled the word “collaboration” here and there, but the bulk of the material and his tone of voice seemed to denigrate the city’s commitment to riverfront development.
“From 1998 through 2005 the city of Cincinnati invested approximately $120 million in the riverfront area, primarily focused on the transportation improvements,” he said. “Hamilton County since 1998 has invested over $940 million, including the property acquisition necessary to create The Banks development area.”
Pointing out that the city wanted Paul Brown Stadium moved to a location west of land already owned by the county, Gableman implied the additional $70 million expenditure was the city’s fault, laying the groundwork for the expectation that the city honor the county’s interpretation of the city’s original tax increment financing (TIF) commitment.
Gableman cited agreements between the city and the county dating to 1996 to introduce the county’s position on the most public point of contention between the two governing bodies, use of the TIF money.
“The very first agreement that actually enabled the construction to move forward, which dealt with Fort Washington Way, construction of Paul Brown Stadium, issues relevant to the central riverfront park and so on dealt with tax increment financing, dealt with developer rents in the event that, in fact, development would proceed,” Gableman said of a 1998 agreement. “What that agreement provided was that one half of all the developer rents for the period of 20 years would be paid over to the county in exchange for the county’s agreement to build garages. … In addition to that, the city pledged one half of the TIF that would be generated to the county.”
Characterizing the garages as essential to the development infrastructure, Gableman said they are a public project, therefore an appropriate use of TIF money.
At the end of the presentation, council members had five minutes each to ask questions. In addition to questioning how the county figured its investment at $940 million, Councilman Chris Bortz wondered why the garage would cost less than that built for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in 2004.
Gableman said the Freedom Center was an “extremely unique facility” requiring more infrastructure than the new garage.
Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz questioned how the project can go forward without a request for proposals (RFP) describing the structures to be built on top of the garages.
Gableman said of all the joint planning already done between the city and county precludes the need for RFPs, unlike the “nine out of 10 development projects” that, Ghiz said, require them.
“We don’t want a master developer to come in here and say … ‘We did it this way in Atlanta, and this is what we think fits here,’ ” Gableman said. “(Each developer has) to come forward and submit a proposed master development plan to build that goes in front of the proposed joint city/county design review board to ensure that it is, in fact, consistent with the overall urban design master plan the city adopted in 2000.”
But Commissioner Todd Portune said he didn’t know anything about the makeup of the joint city/county advisory board or its roles and responsibilities.
“It’s been over five years since the city and the county got together in a joint setting like this with respect to riverfront development,” he said. “It was a process that worked very well then. Had we been employing this kind of a process, meeting regularly in open session … a lot of these issues would have been covered and resolved amicably and we’d be a lot further along than we are.” ©
Significant issues about how to develop The Banks remain unsettled between the county and the city. With Phil Heimlich insisting on an April 5 deadline for choosing a developer, there are less than five business days to resolve them.
· The county touts economic development as a major reason for getting The Banks under way, and Heimlich has given a verbal “commitment to inclusion” of minority-owned businesses while saying the project will provide opportunities for many local businesses.
· Tom Gableman didn’t address the need for a project manager but said the county oversaw the construction of three riverfront projects — the Reds and Bengals stadiums and the Freedom Center — proving it could handle this $600 million project. Earlier he’d characterized those projects as “small” when justifying the county’s poor inclusion track record.
· When streets were needed during Freedom Center construction, the county “stepped forward” and paid for the streets instead of “waiting” for the city to do so, Gableman said.
· The county wants TIF money to fund parking garages without making a commitment of using the funds from the garage to help pay back the TIF debt — meaning the city pays for garages for the county to use.
· Todd Portune said only two paragraphs about inclusion were in the request for qualifications. As for concerns about constitutionality, he said the county can use a plan it had received from the American Civil Liberties Union one day earlier.
· Mark Mallory raised the need for a project manager, noting that politicians are not construction project professionals.
· Characterized as a generous act by the county, it could also be seen as the county unilaterally doing as it chose and disregarding the city.
· Even with a guarantee of construction, the financing is risky because the loan and interest will be due regardless of what happens — a flood, a developer backing out, etc. The city wants TIF money used for tax-generating structures such as condos or apartments.
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 4, 2006.