2011-560 is definately not the bill to be attaching any amendments to.
For readers who don't really understand the bill... here it is in a nutshell:
John Delaney wanted to use the land for a large riverfront urban park as part of the Better Jacksonville Plan. Several concessions were made to the plan in order to get the legislation to pass, which did not include Delaney's plan to roll this potential park into the sweeping(and brilliant) land trust deals of BJP.
The property was originally going to be used for cold storage wharehousing until the property's owners were convinced by the mayor to become real estate developers.
TriLegacy originally had the property until Landmar steps in. Landmar and JEDC agree to a development deal for the property. The city raises bonds to pay for the redevelopment deal, and by doing so... Landmar receives a mortgage by the city, that is secured by the 40 acre parcel.
As part of this redevelopment deal, Landmar is to spend about 35million on public infrastcture to the site(among things that include a Riverwalk extension, a public pier, sewage lines, drainage, environmental remediation of the land, etc) and pay against the debt the city holds(bonds) based on a formula that would subtract out property tax revenue gained by the city.
Landmar spends about 19 million (mainly the bulkhead work you see today, which is at the very least will make a Riverwalk extension more cost-effective) and pays the city about 13 million against the bond debt.
The company has trouble serving debt obligations, so the city modifies the mortgage.
The company goes bankrupt.
The city agrees to a deed in lieu(remember the city holds a mortgage on the property)... which is a vehicle to take back the property without going through foreclosure proceedings(which are both expensive and lengthy, so this saved the city money). At the time of the deed in lieu the property was appraised at 20mm.
At this point Landmar owes the city somewhere around 57million. Now as part of a bankruptcy, parties file unsecured debt claims. In this case, the company offers a claim of $893k against the amount it owes the city. There was initially(in 2009 I believe) a date set for 2012 to dispute this claim in bankruptcy court. Before that 2012 hearing, there would be an enormous amount of discovery that would take place.
This process would again be expensive and cumbersome for the city. So, they work out a settlement for an unsecured claim of 23mm. Landmar actually owes the city around 37million(57 million of actual debt minus the value of the land).
The value of the land will drive this unsecured debt claim... which is what this entire legislation(2011-560) is about. This is what Councilman Crescimbeni is asking about. The land value should be around 20mm and the value the assesor is saying the city should accept is 23mm.
Nowhere in this bill is the city spending or gaining any money... its simply a claim against monies already spent. The city may or may not ever get any of that claim once the bankruptcy proceedings are over. Meanwhile the city still owes debt tied to this transaction(the bonds).
I think there needs to be an agreement that would make the promised public pier and the bulkhead area which the Riverwalk extension would be built on a seperate parcel from this 40 acre site, therefore ensuring public access to the pier in the future. There is nothing stopping a developer buying this property from the city and never allow public use to these two crucial assets(the pier and a potential Riverwalk extension).
The only hope we have now is for this to happen in the future, and public discussion and a plan needs to be put in place for this property. One great idea would be to follow the lead of the Columbus Commons
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-aug-what-to-do-with-the-shipyards.
This would allow the city to shape what type of private development they would like to see occur once the market rebounds. The city has tried twice now to stick their own vision on this property. Why not give it a mechanism that works this time(aka the Colombus Commons model)? By doing so, the Riverwalk could connect to Metro Park and the Bay Street Pier Park can be a centerpiece activity to activate public use of the river.... while private development occurs on the remaining 36 acres of the property.
In the meantime, the city has done site clearing work to prepare the property for parking during football season, planted trees on the property to hide Berkman II and have repaired the sidewalk along Bay Street.
