In a move that further erodes any possible benefits of the 708 Church proposal, the developer has submitted a request for a 5-year deadline to apply for building permits for the project. The request also asks for a 30 month time-frame for completing the project from the time the building permits are secured. If approved, this gives the developer until December 31, 2013 to apply for building permits and under the best circumstances until June 30, 2016 to complete construction.

Under the Planned Development ordinance (6-11-1-0 of the City Code) a Planned Development must apply for permits within one year of approval and complete construction within two years. By asking for an extension to 5 years for permit acquisition and 7-1/2 years until building completion, the City will receive little, if any, of the highly touted TIF benefit.

The Evanston Coalition for Responsible Development would urge rejection of the request from the development team, and urge taxpayers to protest this very costly expense to the taxpayers of Evanston. We would raise the following issues.

• The immediate granting of a 5-year extension to obtain necessary building permits will virtually guarantee that currently vacant storefronts and office space will go unfilled for 7-1/2 years. This will result in a loss of potential property and sales-tax revenue at the time when Evanston needs it the most. It is ludicrous to expect potential renters of the existing space to sign a lease knowing that they will be forced to move in the next 5 years.
• The development team has proposed an additional $20 million in TIF funds because of their project. They are basing this on a projected $4 million per year of a fully occupied building. Because the TIF expires at the end of 2018, this $20 million has now decreased in value to $6 million or less. The developers have not shown the loss in TIF funds for the existing properties as they sit vacant.
• By granting an extension in the ordinance, the current City Council would be guaranteeing a loss of tax revenue to the City while making the next Council unable to evaluate a request for extension at the current 2-year interval currently approved projects are subject to.

We feel that the inclusion of a 5 year (7-1/2 total) extension in the ordinance will remove any hint of benefits this project may have afforded.

Additionally, we want to underscore the fact that the contribution to Fountain Square by the developer will NOT be given to the City until AFTER the building is built and an occupancy permit is granted. We wonder what a million dollars will be worth in 2016 (or later). Will any Fountain Square improvements by delayed until the project is complete?

The same goes for the mandated contribution to affordable housing. NONE of this money will be given to the City until 2016 or later.

Does this still sound like a good deal for the City? Or, is this a project that only benefits a single property owner and development team?