It has come to my attention that a local developer will be asking the Champaign City Council for development concessions on a local campustown development. While I appreciate developers investing in our community, I hope Council will take into serious consideration a few concerns of mine.
1) "Three-O-Nine" Green currently has liens on the building while local contractors have been waiting to be paid for "almost a year". I heard number of $2M or more in liens that I don't know how to confirm, but does someone know how to look up liens so that we can get an actual figure?
2) When the council gives concessions to a developer, it is not fair to competing developers who did not benefit from such agressive concessions in the past. Standards should be set that are consistently enforced. This is beneficial on many levels and ensures that those getting special treatment do not benefit from an unfair competitive advantage over other local developers. Will this developer be providing something that nobody else is willing to provide? Is the demand so great for student apartments that we need to ignore existing standards? What do you say to other developers who did not benefit from the same concessions who must compete with the developer who was not required to meet those standards?
I would like to provide you some additional perspective and explain why I think the council should think long and hard before rewarding developers who do not fullfil their obligation to local contractors. I was able to get in touch with a contractor directly impacted by the failure of the developer to pay their bills.
Please take a moment to appreciate how irresponsbile behavior can adversely impact a business provider who sells construction product on low margins. I have confirmed that the situation I'm explaining is actual and not speculation.
- A contractor was required to take out loans against unpaid receiveables to pay for employees and product. They are paying interest cost on a large receivable.
- That same contractor is losing any opportuninity of investing that payment and receiving a return on that investment. So not only is the local employer paying interest to the bank, the local employer is losing out on considerable opportunity cost as well. These are not recovered from the developer even if they were to pay tomorrow.
- There are signficant costs for a small employer to file a lien and hire an attorney to chase down developers who do not pay their bills. Ask Deb Feinen what she would charge. These are not recovered from the developer even if they were to pay tomorrow.
Whether or not the City Council decides to grant concessions to the developer, I hope everyone will take this matter seriously and not encourage and/or reward those who screw over local employers.
This needs to stop right now. Before any more time is invested working with developers who are not paying their bills, we need a clear and very good explanation of the situation I just decribed.
Furthermore, the city needs to acknowledge this problem on their own development projects at Burnham and M2 and work to make sure this doesn't keep happening.
You can search liens for a fee online https://tapestry.fidlar.com/Tapestry2/ and for free by going to the Recorder of Deeds office. Just search by property or last name. Will you search Burnham, Pickus, M2 and Sokolski while you're at it? Interesting post. What concessions are they asking for?
I don't think the developers are asking for any concessions. They propose a trade off to reduce off-street parking requirements, and the fewer cars on campus the better, so its a win-win situation to not force apartment builders to subsidize more student cars on campus by mandating the building of more parking spaces.
Should the city government use city leverage to see to it that private construction firms can collect their debts easier? Maybe, but it doesn't sound like the city's place.
But it would be interesting to hear what concessions B is for Business thinks are being requested.
"I don't think the developers are asking for any concessions. They propose a trade off to reduce off-street parking requirements, and the fewer cars on campus the better, so its a win-win situation to not force apartment builders to subsidize more student cars on campus by mandating the building of more parking spaces."
Yes, I heard from multiple sources that the developer is asking for parking concessions. Yes, if zoning says you need x number of spaces per unit (or whatever it says), then asking the city to waive that requirement is indeed a concession.
If these parking concessions are going to be granted, can everyone assume that you can add more density without adding the necessary, or only on green street? Only in campustown, or can we expect similar concessions in higher density districts where there are empty parking decks?
It would be silly not to consider this a concession. That said, I have not been able to find a documument the clearly explains the request. If anyone can share that, I'd appreciate it.
"Should the city government use city leverage to see to it that private construction firms can collect their debts easier? Maybe, but it doesn't sound like the city's place."
The city is in the business of picking winners and losers. All I'm asking is that the city stops providing special consideration to irresponsible developers.
"The city is in the business of picking winners and losers." To this statement, I would respectfully disagree. I guess that's the whole point.
The city determines who they are going to give their land to develop, so of course they pick winners and losers. I accept that is the way it is.
They determine who gets special consideration on zoning variances. The city sets guidelines everyone is required to follow and they get to choose who doesn't have to follow them.
They have been completely subjective in selecting devlopers and awarding concessions in the past.
So it is not their place to be subjective when they have been consistently subjective? They have absolutely been in the business of picking winners and losers with Burnham and M2.
Broehren Russo filed a claim of $2,366,466.32 on 10/30/09.
Is the local contractor you mention Blager Concrete who filed a lien of $79,188.97 on 12/19/08 who last delivered concrete to the site on 08/29/08, according the lien document?
It looks like the construction project was +/- $40M not including land or any other costs not paid to the general contractor. It's amazing how much information you can access from the link provided by anonymous poster 05:06pm yesterday.
"The city is in the business of picking winners and losers." To this statement, I would respectfully disagree. I guess that's the whole point.
I also disagree. It seems the city has been in the business of picking losers and losers.
If the city grants a parking concession with the idea that this will reduce the number of cars on campus, they are sadly mistaken. People who rent apartments at the price tag at 309 Green or other high end apartment complexes on campus, want their cars. If they can't rent a space at their apartment building, they will look to rent from other available parking spaces at other complexes, at the University lot at E-14 or they will lease on-street parking from the City of Champaign. Reducing the parking concession will not eliminate the desire for students to bring cars.
Dear B:
Are you referring to the downsizing Roland Realty is seeking for their proposed building at 313 E. Green? More clarity on your part would be greatly appreciated.
I have worked in the past for Roland and have never had a problem getting paid. While I am not pleased to hear about the amount of these liens, I am also questioning if there is some reason these bills have not been paid. Are there disputes between Roland and the contractors regarding the quality of the materials or workmanship done on the 309 Green project?
Please keep in mind what Roland is proposing in this downsizing: 313 tenants will use the parking deck at 309, there will be more bike racks added at 313 (for a total of 400 bike parking spaces, if memory serves correctly), and I also thought there was discussion of Roland adding one or two more ZipCars to these two buildings. No, they will not be building car parking at 313, but I am suspecting that the garage at 309 is underutilized to some degree (perhaps even a significant degree) for them to suggest this. I also think students are bringing cars to campus at a slightly lower rate than they have in the past, for a variety of reasons (some are going green with bikes and buses and ZipCars, others are being told by their parents the family cannot afford a car on campus).
What I also find interesting: Roland has been in business for over 85 years. They built 2 big building in 2007-08 (54 Chalmers and 309 Green). If you drove around campus in late August-early September, you would have found a significant number of signs stating "For Rent NOW" in front of buildings in years past that would have been full. (Don't forget that Barr Realty did a big rent reduction in July on at least 5-10 buildings in an attempt to fill those buildings.) While no one will say it publicly, I think even Campustown is finding that the rental market is WAY overbuilt, that supply exceeds demand by a significant degree, and that the owners of apartment buildings where the rents are $700+ PER BEDROOM will find that families are telling their students to trade down to buildings where rents are in the neighborhood of $400-500 per bedroom over the next 2-5 years. I think Roland is downsizing the proposed building because they doubt that they can rent out the project as originally proposed (20 story tower).
Perhaps Jerry Fuerst could provide us with more insight...
So what does code require for parking at 309? Did they add more parking than what was required by code to accomodate the planned building next door? That would be reasonable if the total amount of spaces for both combined buildings meets code. I doubt that is the case, but I wouldn't think they would need to be coming with a creative solution.
"If you drove around campus in late August-early September, you would have found a significant number of signs stating "For Rent NOW" in front of buildings in years past that would have been full."
So you mean all those developers who have been developing per code are dealing with excess supply, and the city should consider waving parking demands to accomodate additional supply?
"Please keep in mind what Roland is proposing in this downsizing: 313 tenants will use the parking deck at 309, there will be more bike racks added at 313 (for a total of 400 bike parking spaces, if memory serves correctly), and I also thought there was discussion of Roland adding one or two more ZipCars to these two buildings."
Unless they built the parking at 309 to accomodate 313, then it doesn't matter whether they are upsizing or downsizing. Whether they build 5 stories or 50 stories, there are parking requirements that should be enforced consistently.
Bike Racks and zip cars? Will there be moped parking for the creative class as well?
On December 6th, 2009 at 06:52 PM, B is for Business said:
So what does code require for parking at 309? Sorry, don't have an anwer for that question, but I'm sure there is a way to search and find that out, or perhaps you could call the city planning and zoning offices and they could tell you.
Did they add more parking than what was required by code to accomodate the planned building next door? Sorry, I wasn't involved in planning 309 Green, so I don't have an answer for that,either.
That would be reasonable if the total amount of spaces for both combined buildings meets code. And isn't it possible, just possible, that Roland Realty is finding that they have an abundance of parking at 309 Green (for whatever reason or reasons) and that they are trying to cut costs on 313 Green by getting the city to agree to a parking variance? The City could refuse the variance (although you and I both agree that the likelihood of denial is very low).
I doubt that is the case, but I wouldn't think they would need to be coming with a creative solution. Admittedly, neither you nor I have information about city requirements for parking close at hand, and neither of us has statistics regarding the usage of parking at 309 Green vs. number of tenants renting apartments in that building.
So you mean all those developers who have been developing per code are dealing with excess supply, and the city should consider waving parking demands to accomodate additional supply? All developers, whether code-compliant or not, are dealing with an imbalance in the number of units built (very large) vs. number of units demanded by potential tenants (declining demand, especially for higher-priced units). Waiving parking requirements has more to do with city goal of encouraging fewer cars in Campustown. It will have little to no impact on the number of vacant apartments.
Whether they build 5 stories or 50 stories, there are parking requirements that should be enforced consistently. You and I agree on the need for consistency in enforcement. What we disagree on is whether standards written several years ago still apply to a situation (the number of students bringing cars on campus appears to be declining, and the demand for alternate modes of transit appears to be increasing amongst students), or whether these standards should be scrutinized and possibly changed.
Bike Racks and zip cars? Will there be moped parking for the creative class as well? The bike racks and ZipCars were one of the promoted aspects of 309 Green. Will there be moped parking? I'm sure it will be somewhere, as students were using mopeds when I was in college 25 years ago, and they still are. For the creative class? The creative class doesn't live at 4th and Green; they live at 310 Burnham and Downtown, remember?
At this point, I'm going to ask: B, do you work for CPM (Campus Property Management) or another property management firm in Champaign-Urbana? This whole post is starting to smell a little sour-grapey.
Perhaps Jerry Fuerst could provide us with more insight...
I go by Michael, not Jerry. When I tried to get an email address from yahoo a decade or so ago, mfuerst and mjfuerst were already taken, so I tried mjerryfuerst.
I rent alot of one bedrooms in older buildings, usually with wood floors, and closer to the downtowns than campus. The heat, water, gas, garbage pickup and sewer taxes are included, but tenants pay the electricity for their lights and and outlets. Apartments with 450 sqft start at around $535, one with 700 square feet rents for $655, My tenants tends to be grad students or persons of similar age. The apartments come withe stove and refrigerator, but no other "amenities," such as air conditioning (tenants can supply their own window air), microwaves, or on-site exercise or other common rooms. So I probably do not compete with the newer buildings of Roland and Barr
Michael Fuerst
Drawings, paintings and Urbana photos by Michael Fuerst are on display at Springer Center (NW corner of Randolph and Church in Champaign) from Dec 2 to Jan 3
If you contact me, I can give you a personalized tour most afternoons in December.
http://www.ArtComesFuerst.com/ for the flyer announcing the exhibit.
For a further preview, http://www.artcomesfuerst.com/Photos_of_My_Art/index.htm
Sorry, Michael, didn't mean to upset you. What are you hearing regarding vacancy rates, for I am noticing more and more incentives added to campus rentals each year?
Sorry, Michael, didn't mean to upset you. I was not upset.
What are you hearing regarding vacancy rates, for I am noticing more and more incentives added to campus rentals each year?
I have no insight into this. My places are unfurnished, non campus rentals. I had no trouble filling up my places this year. I have owned my places for many years and have most paid off. I manage my own places. I want to be finished with renting come mid August, so I price my places to ensure they fill up. I suspect the larger management companies price their places relatively higher and accept a 5-8% vacancy
Michael Fuerst
I went to the condo auction at 1900 N. Lincoln last summer (am having trouble remembering the name of the complex right now). The auction company doing the auction said the rental rate at that time (roughly July 20th, 2008) was 85%, meaning 15% of the units in that complex were vacant. The auction and management companies were very confident that all apartments in that complex would be filled, but I and all the other folks in the audience were shaking our heads.
This is a newly built complex, with pool, weight room, covered parking (carports, not garages), clubhouse, on-site management, and apartments have lots of amenities, although I don't think they will be looking too good after 20 years of having students living in them.
Have seen several foreclosure notices for condo buyer in that particular complex over the last year. Not surprised, given the inducements given at the condo auction to move units basically cut the price of the units by 40-50% of their original price.
Zoning map shows 309 Green is Central Business: http://www.ci.champaign.il.us/maps/zoningmap/2009-03-zoning-map.pdf.
Municiple Code Section 37-356 (f) and (h) explain parking requiments and Section 37-359.2 require .5 spaces per bedroom in Central Business District.
If there is a statistical imbalance that needs addressed, it should be addressed collectively in zoning, and not on special case by special case basis. "What we disagree on is whether standards written several years ago still apply to a situation (the number of students bringing cars on campus appears to be declining, and the demand for alternate modes of transit appears to be increasing amongst students), or whether these standards should be scrutinized and possibly changed." I'm not worried about impromptu changes to standards. If you're going to be in the business of setting standards, at least enforce them consistently. Any changes should be system wide unless there is OBVIOUS situation that needs to be addressed. Didn't the university just increase the enrollment for next year? Aren't more students staying and getting grad degrees because of the job market? How do you justify that parking demand is decreasing?
"At this point, I'm going to ask: B, do you work for CPM (Campus Property Management) or another property management firm in Champaign-Urbana?" If you have followed this blog, you know I will not comment on a question like this.
Set guidelines and objectively enforce them. Let the market pick winners and losers. Everyone should follow the same rules, including government.
"This whole post is starting to smell a little sour-grapey."
I have been consistently vocal about developers not paying their bills and adversely impacting smaller employers by not paying their bills. I thought I would be getting credit for being consistent, even though I initially thought the problem was limited to Burnham until more information was shared about M2 and now 309. Quite frankly, I never would have thought I'd be posting about M2 and 309 until details emerged after my Burnham post.
I'm hearing rumors that there was a comprehensive Campustown Action Plan that was developed by one of the Mayor's advisory committees. Did that address the statistical concerns or was it leaning towards eliminating parking requirments and making the parking supply/demand problem worse. Did that involve a formula that addressed parking?
What do residents think about adding more dwelling units and providing less proportional parking? Retailers? Other Developers? Are these new standards going to be consistently enforced when they develop other city lots? How will residents, retailers, developers feel about that concept?
If you're going to change the zoning for this building, it should be in line with a comprehensive campus plan. People are going to bring their cars. Providing bike rack space doesn't change that.
Looking that the zoning, residential dwellings are the only uses that require parking spaces. That means if you build offices on the first few floors, you don't need to build parking (if I'm correct). Maybe that should be reviewed. Adding office density without providing parking solution is just silly, if the goal is indeed to reduce the cars on campus.
Did 309 build office space on the first few floors? Are they going to convert those to apartments?
On construction projects of this type it is common practice for between 5% and 10% of all contractor's payments to be held until the project is complete and any issues regarding workmanship etc are resolved. If 309 is in the $40M range the amount of the liens would be approximately 5%. I would guess there are still questions regarding specific items that may not be complete or acceptable. Remember that portions of the exterior fell onto Green Street a few months ago.
It seems obvious that the developer would rather have built the larger project originally contemplated that the downsized one proposed by this new proposal, but they got caught in the econonic downturn that affected much of the country (perhaps you've read about it) and have downsized their plans. Even with a smaller building, they are now having trouble meeting some requirements. Let's all hope that the recent economic troubles caused by banking excesses primarily will not be a recurring event. The public hearing is for interested persons like B and anyone to come forward and speak their piece.
I don't think the City is very fond of what has happened with the shifting economic climate either, from what I hear, but it seems to me that if the amendments proposed are minor maybe it would be OK to treat them differently on this occasion. Maybe not, that's why there are public hearings for this sort of thing.
I would hope that the issue of contractor payments is not taken into consideration by the City Council. Not because they don't deserve to be paid, but because they have another, more proper avenue to ensure payment. And I would expect that Roland Realty, who has been a longstanding local apartment company, will make every effort to do the right thing.
Is there any problem near campus with students parking cars on streets in residential areas in order to avoid long-term parking fees?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Anonymous (not verified) provided personal hope and speculation, but no substance
illinipunditposter
"I would hope that the issue of contractor payments is not taken into consideration by the City Council. Not because they don't deserve to be paid, but because they have another, more proper avenue to ensure payment. And I would expect that Roland Realty, who has been a longstanding local apartment company, will make every effort to do the right thing. "
I would hope that the issue of contractor payment is taken into consideration, but also hope the developer has taken every every effort to do the right thing. A $2M lien is huge no matter what percentage of a project it is. I see nothing wrong with asking about it since the city is being asked to give special treatment.
If this concession is indeed as significant as I'm hearing, and they grant it, they should provide some clear guidance to everyone else what other buildings might be suitable for less parking and why. Why go through the zoning board, taking up time and resources, if you can just provide clear guidelines in advance?
B- Welcome to last year.
http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/archive/dsweb/Get/Document-5699/CB%202008-004.pdf
I don't consider lowering parking requirements to be "significant". The number of spaces required is much higher than in the 1970's when it was too low. But now a number of buildings have unrented spaces both in surface lots and garages. Lots of students do not have cars on campus and being required to construct spaces that sit empty is a waste of space and money.
http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/archive/dsweb/Get/Document-7544/CB%202009-206.pdf
Attached is a link to the current amendment to the development agreement for 309-313 E Green Street. If "B" is so concerned he/she could at least read it to know what they have asked for. It does not appear that it has been voted on by Council.
So they are asking for a variance of 72 spots. At $20,000 per spot, they would be essentially be getting a gift of $1.5M + a reduction in open space requirments.
If they are going to be provide a 25% reduction in parking spaces, then everyone should be afforded this luxory, right? Are there gifts from the city that other developers get when investing millions in Central Business districts who followed all the rules? $1.5M is a lot of money by any standard.
How much does it cost to provide a bicycle spot? : )
What is so special about that property that they should get a 25% reduction in parking requirements? Would everyone pretty much be assured to get the same 25% reduction? What about the other people who paid that 25% premium when they could have just added more bicycle parking?
If they are going to be provide a 25% reduction in parking spaces, then everyone should be afforded this luxory, right? No
Are there gifts from the city that other developers get when investing millions in Central Business districts who followed all the rules? Yes
How much does it cost to provide a bicycle spot? Probably 1/8th to 1/6th of the price of an auto spot
What is so special about that property that they should get a 25% reduction in parking requirements? How badly city administrators and planers want it built
Would everyone pretty much be assured to get the same 25% reduction? No
What about the other people who paid that 25% premium when they could have just added more bicycle parking? For them it is just like buying something the day before it goes on sale.
Michael Fuerst
My drawings, paintings and photos will be displayed (along with those of Alberto Aguilar and Ryan Gray) at Springer Center (NW corner of Randolph and Church in Champaign) from Dec 2 to Jan 3
I'd be happy to give a personally guided tour by appointment on most weekday afternoons or evenings the exhibit is on display.
For exhibit flyer, http://www.ArtComesFuerst.com For additional preview, http://www.artcomesfuerst.com/Photos_of_My_Art/index.htm
Those parking spots rent for $75 to $100 per month. There is no way they are worth $20,000 each!
"Those parking spots rent for $75 to $100 per month. There is no way they are worth $20,000 each!"
If the city builds a $12M parking deck that provides 600 spaces, the cost per space is $20,000 = the same amount referenced in the UofI parking link.
Parking. Greenspace. Setbacks. Floor Area Ratios. Wouldn't all those have a signficant impact on a project's profitability? What makes that property any more special than any other piece of dirt in that district to qualify for a $1.5M gift? Do other properties get those kinds of gifts? Shouldn't the parking guildelines apply consistently no matter the scale of the project? Why shouldn't a small development project a few blocks away not be able to benefit from a 25% reduction in parking?
"B- Welcome to last year."
I never even would have heard about this if it hadn't been for the huge lien filing and getting tipped off because of my coverage. Thank you for posting those links.
There was an article in the News Gazette a few weeks ago about this building and I believe it talked about the concessions they were wanting. Don't know if it was on line or not.
"There was an article in the News Gazette a few weeks ago about this building and I believe it talked about the concessions they were wanting. Don't know if it was on line or not."
Do you recall approximately when the story was published?
On December 7th, 2009 at 04:52 AM, B is for Business said:
Zoning map shows 309 Green is Central Business: http://www.ci.champaign.il.us/maps/zoningmap/2009-03-zoning-map.pdf.
Municiple Code Section 37-356 (f) and (h) explain parking requiments and Section 37-359.2 require .5 spaces per bedroom in Central Business District.
If there is a statistical imbalance that needs addressed, it should be addressed collectively in zoning, and not on special case by special case basis. "What we disagree on is whether standards written several years ago still apply to a situation (the number of students bringing cars on campus appears to be declining, and the demand for alternate modes of transit appears to be increasing amongst students), or whether these standards should be scrutinized and possibly changed." I'm not worried about impromptu changes to standards. If you're going to be in the business of setting standards, at least enforce them consistently. Any changes should be system wide unless there is OBVIOUS situation that needs to be addressed. Didn't the university just increase the enrollment for next year? Aren't more students staying and getting grad degrees because of the job market? How do you justify that parking demand is decreasing? How do I justify that parking demand is decreasing? Well, admittedly, that's hard for me to do, because I don't have access to records showing number of spaces rented from the City of Champaign spaces in Campustown, nor do I have access to parking leases and agreements generated by various landlords. What I can tell you are my personal observations: I am noticing more people at the bus stops. I am noticing more people using bikes and mopeds as transportation. I can drive down streets in Campustown and see that 50% or more of leased City parking spots are vacant. Among my younger friends and co-workers, I notice greater percentage of them using bikes or buses to get around, and fewer have their own cars. I'm even looking at getting a bike to ride around next spring. All this leads me to believe that we are seeing fewer cars on campus, which is a stated goal of city planning department.
Set guidelines and objectively enforce them. Let the market pick winners and losers. Everyone should follow the same rules, including government. You and I are both old enough to know that this often does not happen, for a variety of reasons.
(regarding liens): Quite frankly, I never would have thought I'd be posting about M2 and 309 until details emerged after my Burnham post. Word on this blog for almost a year has been that M2 was in trouble, so why are you so surprised Cody, et al. are not paying their contractors? Yes, we are all surprised this is happening with Roland, but we do not have info as to why the few liens that are now popping up exist. 309 liens are certainly a smaller percentage at this time than M2 liens.
I'm hearing rumors that there was a comprehensive Campustown Action Plan that was developed by one of the Mayor's advisory committees. Did that address the statistical concerns or was it leaning towards eliminating parking requirments and making the parking supply/demand problem worse. Did that involve a formula that addressed parking? The comprehensive Campustown Plan, to the best of my knowledge, has been in existence for 3-5 years. You feel parking supply/demand is imbalanced. Based on my observations, I am inclined to disagree with you. We both know long -term plan for city is to reduce vehicular traffic in Campustown.
What do residents think about adding more dwelling units and providing less proportional parking? Retailers? Other Developers? Are these new standards going to be consistently enforced when they develop other city lots? How will residents, retailers, developers feel about that concept? Actually, I remember an article in the News-Gazette about 4-6 months ago, where a retailer wanted to look at some space on N. Prospect near Target or Meijer and wanted City to bend parking requirements. City was willing to discuss, but project appears to be stalled at this time.
If you're going to change the zoning for this building, it should be in line with a comprehensive campus plan. Roland is requesting to de-densify 311 Green. The City appears willing to go along with it, as the original project probably can't be financed right now. The banks are a mess, remember?
People are going to bring their cars. Providing bike rack space doesn't change that. Ah, but you're forgetting that some evidence indicates that cars may be coming onto campus at a lower rate than in the past, and providing bike racks may well speed that process along. If I know I have a safe place to put my bike, I pay for the bus as part of my student fees, and I have access to a ZipCar when I want to go off campus, I may well choose (or my parents may decide) that I am not bringing a car to campus. The student experience appears to have changed since you were in college. Is that a bad thing? (cars, as we both know, are a hassle in Campustown, and are expensive to operate.)
Did 309 build office space on the first few floors? Yes, on the first floor. Are they going to convert those to apartments? No, not to the best of my knowledge. Majority of office space appears to be occupied--drive by and check it out for yourself.
On December 7th, 2009 at 01:11 PM, B is for Business said:
I would hope that the issue of contractor payment is taken into consideration, but also hope the developer has taken every every effort to do the right thing. A $2M lien is huge no matter what percentage of a project it is. I see nothing wrong with asking about it since the city is being asked to give special treatment. And on a $200 million project, a $2 million lien is one percent of project cost. Another poster presented evidence this amount may well be within typical guidelines for a commercial construction project, so how about taking a deep breath and allowing Roland and Broeren Russo to work this out between themselves? If Roland gets sued over this, you can provide us with the details.
If this concession is indeed as significant as I'm hearing, and they grant it, they should provide some clear guidance to everyone else what other buildings might be suitable for less parking and why. Why go through the zoning board, taking up time and resources, if you can just provide clear guidelines in advance? Life changes, consumer demands change, parking needs change, zoning changes. It is possible this issue may come before plan commission if it occurs again in immediate future.
On December 7th, 2009 at 07:17 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Those parking spots rent for $75 to $100 per month. There is no way they are worth $20,000 each! They are worth what students can be convinced to pay for them. For those folks coming down from Chicago, this is a pretty average price for a guaranteed monthly parking space.
On December 7th, 2009 at 08:18 PM, B is for Business said:
Parking. Greenspace. Setbacks. Floor Area Ratios. Wouldn't all those have a signficant impact on a project's profitability? What makes that property any more special than any other piece of dirt in that district to qualify for a $1.5M gift? As Mr. Fuerst has said, city wants it to be built. Frankly, I prefer the lovely old brick building that currently occupies the site.Do other properties get those kinds of gifts? Yes, and we gripe about it here. Shouldn't the parking guildelines apply consistently no matter the scale of the project? Yes, but we all know that doesn't always happen. Would it make you happier to think about the fees charged by the lawyers who will argue Roland's case to the the city? Why shouldn't a small development project a few blocks away not be able to benefit from a 25% reduction in parking? What small development project are you referring to, and if that developer thinks he can make his case to the city for reduced parking, he should have his lawyers file the paperwork and argue the case. It's the American Way!
"And on a $200 million project, a $2 million lien is one percent of project cost. Another poster presented evidence this amount may well be within typical guidelines for a commercial construction project, so how about taking a deep breath and allowing Roland and Broeren Russo to work this out between themselves? If Roland gets sued over this, you can provide us with the details."
We have local contractors who have been waiting since August 2008 for payment. While there may very well be a very good reason for this, I certainly hope we hear it before we give them a huge concession. Given this information, I'm not conerned about what percentage of the project cost is for the developer. A smaller contractor providing a large project product/services can be a huge percentage of their business in a given year. I'm sure anyone can appreciate this argument.
"All this leads me to believe that we are seeing fewer cars on campus, which is a stated goal of city planning department."
I have seen nothing to suggest your claim. Heck if they want fewer cars, they can just eliminate all parking spaces? Why not? There were definately be fewer cars! Easy to do. You would see more bikes and mopeds. All of their problems solved!
Actually, I bet we invested a lot of money on city planners to think about this. To determine the right amount of parking. To determine forumulas. Etc. Etc. If there is a variable that has changed in that forumula, then why don't reevaluate an entire district? Wouldn't that make more sense? Instead of a subjectve gutshot approach to every project?
Has anyone considered that we're overdeveloped in Champaign. If we're going to cut corners and give huge concessions, there should be a good reason. I happen to notice all the ads for apartments for rent that I didn't see in the past. Why on earth would we want to lower our standards if there is no need to? Is 309 and Burnham fully rented already for next year? I'd like to hear all the stats on parking and rental demand before we start giving such huge gifts.
We are fortunate enough to have city council members in Champaign smart enough to start doing things the right way. Today is good a day as any to start.
When you demolish a building that was perfectly fine for the area, you're going to have the same kind of dirt that you would find throughout the Central Business district. Why should it be more special than any other dirt?
While I'm familiar with the reality of the situation, it doesn't mean it should be that way.
City's response should be: We're not going to consider anything until all liens on your last project are cleared, end of story. A developer who does not meet its obligations to hard-working members of the community should not receive special consideration from that very community.
"City's response should be: We're not going to consider anything until all liens on your last project are cleared, end of story. A developer who does not meet its obligations to hard-working members of the community should not receive special consideration from that very community."
If we're to spend such large amounts of time and energy on planned developments and decide winners and losers subjectively, why not factor in a credit check while we're at it? Are they able to develop what they say? Do they have a history of doing good work? Do they have a history of paying their bills on time? If the city is going to be in the development business (indirectly through this subjective process), they should at least apply the same common sense practices we apply in the private sector. If we're going to invest signficant city time time and resources on something like this, there should be something VERY unique about the project. The economy is not a good enough reason to lower standards.
Why should the city be setting minimum amounts of parking in the first place? Shouldn't we let the market determine parking prices and supply? I can't see how it would be in a developer's interest to include significantly less parking than there is demand for in one of their projects--the lack of parking would become a competitive disadvantage of their property as opposed to others. To the extent that they are required to provide parking in excess of supply/demand equilibrium, they would essentially have to sell their parking below cost to fill it, and subsidize the cost of providing parking by increasing rents on apartments in the building.
Shouldn't we let the market determine parking prices and supply?
No, because the city has an interest in controlling traffic flow and congestion.
illinipunditposter
The City is consistent at being inconsistent.
Quality and consistency go hand in hand.
The one great thing about having a forumula is that you have a forumula. Everyone understands the formula.
If properly designed, you should spend those valuable city resources reevaluating formulas and not projects.
You have good, smart people on the City Council falling deeper and deeper into the crap trap.
Rather than the City of Champaign traveling to research other communities' best practices, they should be coming to visit us. The Council has people capable of providing that leadership. Hopefully, we start moving in that direction, instead of further and further from common sense.
Actually all the funding has been sitting at the title company for some time to close the job out. Doesn't sound like Roland has the problem now does it. The concrete company screw up caused problems from the very beginning which is why that amount of money is held back in a project of this size. Be careful of the mud you sling until you do your homework. Here's a thought - call Roland and ask them instead of conjecture or even Broeren Russo. Roland has been in business for a very long time and has always been reputable. As well as giving back to local community needs the company is involved on a volunteer level which is how I am involved with them. Much of what I have read here is simply wrong. Doesn't take much to find out the CORRECT information.
By the way Roland just manages the property - they are not the owners.
Amy,
What is not accurate? Are you correcting One Who Hopes... who brought up Roland. Otherwise, other than Anon 10:59, they have not been referenced. Everything else I speculated on was confirmed by public documents (a) liens (lien amounts) and (b) city documents (requests for parking concessions).
It is completely reasonable to ask that consideration of 7 figure lien be taken into account before granting a 7 figure concession. It is completely reasonable to question the need, fairness, and possible negative precident of such a large concession.
We have a disturbing trend of developers not honoring their committments by not paying their bills in a timely manner. NOTHING would make me happier than learning that the developer who didn't ask for any special treatment built their building on time and honored their obligations in a professional, timely, and respectful manner...and not screw over local contractors. It is completely reasonable for the city council to ask the questions, considering their involved in so much already. If what you say is accurate, then 1 of 2 of my concerns would be addressed.
There is a recent and ongoing theme on my blog of liens on developments and small businesses getting screwed over in the process. I can assure you this is not going to stop as long as this trend continues.
"The concrete company screw up caused problems from the very beginning which is why that amount of money is held back in a project of this size. Be careful of the mud you sling until you do your homework."
Could you explain the concrete company screw up?
Sorry I didn't cut and paste. The concrete company failed to pay their subs.
I am with you on the small business getting screwed over at times but that is not the case here. I did want to ask because I haven't confirmed this yet but my family are contractors and it's been my understanding per my father that a company only has 2 years during a project to file a lien otherwise they are out of luck if they are patient waiting for payment. My family is not local but are in a small town an hour away. Wondering if that 2 year filing time line is accurate for Illinois. Would explain why liens are filed even if payment is only delayed or in escrow. That way the contractor is protected. Anyone confirm that 2 year limitation?
"The concrete company failed to pay their subs."
What company did not pay their subs? Weren't there several contractors? What was the nature of the screw up? Is there a dispute or did the subs not get paid because the general contractor did not get paid and therefore could not pay their subs who could not therefore pay their subs?
A company has 90 days to file a lien from the last day of work and 2 years to foreclose.
An upstanding company might consider paying off liens where there is not a dispute, if applicable. It would be a shame if subs of subs were waiting on payments when their products and services are not in dispute. There must be logical way for good business people to do right by good business people. Tis the season to do the right thing. : )
An upstanding company might consider paying off liens where there is not a dispute, if applicable.
Not applicable in this case.
Michael Fuerst
"Not applicable in this case."
So you are saying that there is a dispute with all the companies who have liens filed. That may be the situation, but are you sure?
So you are saying that there is a dispute with all the companies who have liens filed.
I am not saying that
Michael Fuerst
So is it safe to assume that companies may have filed liens where there is no dispute that the product or service they provided met expectations? If so there could be disputes with a contractor who are causing their subs not to be paid, even if these subs provided product and services per expectations? If so, then my statement could be applicable, but you claim it is "Not applicable in this case". If so, then a upstanding company might look for ways to do right by the people who did the project right, even if there is a dispute with the General Contractor of another sub.
The general is paid and they in turn pay their subs - so why would the owners pay twice for a service. If the general doesn't pay the subs it's not the owners fault it's the generals fault. If the general (in this case the concrete company) doesn't pay their subs and then in turn files a lien that in this case seems frivolous (which they can do and the owners can't stop them) then the owners are in a catch 22. Call the title company and they can explain it even better. Bottom line is the money has been in the title company for some time to close the job.
"The general is paid and they in turn pay their subs - so why would the owners pay twice for a service. If the general doesn't pay the subs it's not the owners fault it's the generals fault. If the general (in this case the concrete company) doesn't pay their subs and then in turn files a lien that in this case seems frivolous (which they can do and the owners can't stop them) then the owners are in a catch 22. Call the title company and they can explain it even better. Bottom line is the money has been in the title company for some time to close the job."
The liens appear to claim the contractors were not paid by the general contractor, who has a >$2M lien filed against property for payment not received. Review of public documents does not appear to support your claim that the contractor (with liens filed) were paid and they didn't in turn pay their subs. Note, I would never suggest that a developer pay 2x for the same service, but I understand the scenario you are describing.
B is for B pondered: So is it safe to assume that companies may have filed liens where there is no dispute that the product or service they provided met expectations?
No
illinipunditposter
B is for B pondered: So is it safe to assume that companies may have filed liens where there is no dispute that the product or service they provided met expectations?
No
illinipunditposter
Care to make a wager on that? Loser makes a $25 donation to the salvation army? It's a win-win, right?
Care to make a wager on that?
Youar offering to make a wager that something may have happened--rather than something has happened. Seems as nonsensical as the rest of your argument.
Fair enough. Then I'll change the wager to say that there ARE contactors (or a contractor) that have filed a lien where there is no dispute whether or not they provided a product or service as agreed to. Seems logical considering illinipundit poster says that I may not assume the a company may have filed a lien under these cirumstances. Not only is that possible (would have been an easy bet, I'll admit), I'm betting that this is actually the case. C'mon, it's for a good cause. I will not even rub it in when I win. I plomise.
Which anonymous do you hope to bet with ?
Ideally, Illinipunditposter or someone else who posts consistently under a name or moniker.
C'mon folks. What are the odds that I'm right EVEN THOUGH Amy is claiming that subs have been paid and still have liens filed EVEN THOUGH Amy said the owners have paid money into escrow EVEN THOUGH illinipunditposter and others indicate that lienholders are not (or cannot be) waiting for a payment even though is no dispute with their product/service quality. Seriously, I'll give the money to charity if I'm wrong with my assumption that there are contractors out there who did right by the project and are still waiting to be paid. I'm only right 99.25% of the time. Considering what we've read here, there is a good chance this falls into the .75% category, giving all those who make condescending comments about me an early christmas. I'm usually not this generous, but 'tis the season.
C'mon critics, how nice would be to know that B is for Business is making contibution to the salvation in the name of "I was wrong and you were right". This opportunity only comes around once in a long while. I'll admit, it's a huge risk on my part, but I always enjoy an interesting wager.
Seriously, I make it interesting and everyone runs away?
By the way Roland just manages the property - they are not the owners.
But isn't the owner of Roland one of the owners of 309? And a VP at Roland another owner at 309? As well as two others who also invest in other Roland-related projects? Come on, let's not split hairs then, ok? They may very well have a different corporation set up for 309, but these ARE the same people who run Roland and Roland manages the property, too.
Seriously, I make it interesting and everyone runs away?
You perform self-stimulation, then everyone runs away
"You perform self-stimulation, then everyone runs away"
Go ahead and assume I was right. Even when I have some fun, it's always about the issue.
So, B, did you go to the meeting and make any comments regarding the changes at 311? I watched the meeting and don't remember seeing anyone standing up to speak against it...
No public comments speaking against it.
I did appreciate Marci Dodd's questions on open space. I was suprised that Bruce Knight suggested that shared common space could be an appropriate alternative for open space requirements. I agree with the functional argument of the purpose and that shared common space (not in the basement, with windows, etc) could be a better alternative that small a strip of open space on the ground floor.
I did appreciate Karen Foster's suggestion along the lines that everyone should get fair treatment.
I did appreciate Kyle Harrison's suggestion along the lines that everyone should get fair treatment.
I did appreciate Tom Bruno's suggestion along the lines of leveling the playing field.
I noticed that Tom Bruno made it clear that any developer would have his vote if they were asking for less parking. I think this might be a good thing, but it makes the whole process more confusing and more subjective.
I noticed Tom Bruno's suggestion along the lines of artificially tinkering with the market. Interesting.
So going forward, everyone can assume signficant parking waivers and open space waivers if the building provides bike parking...so long as staff likes the idea.
A good development was approved and concerns that I expressed were also expressed by council members. Not all of my concerns were expressed, but I was pleased with the outcome.