5 FLAWS IN THE NEW REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

2/23/2021 Special City Council Meeting Item 3.01 

 Resolution: “Authorization To Resolve Litigation And Execute Amended And Restated Development Agreement With BTC Mall Associates” (sponsored by Councilors Paul, Paulino, Mason, Shannon and Carpenter). 

Burlington is more than ready to see something happen with the excavated pit in the center of downtown. Concerns are not about the new building designs as these can be addressed during the Development Review Board process.

Concern is that the terms contained in these documents are not in the best interests of the City and will cause the City to repeat its three prior failures. Past City Councils were induced to sign similarly immature and obfuscated development agreements. The predictable bad outcome has been exacerbated by the City's lax TIF accounting procedures . That’s why we have nothing but a pit today.

First reason to vote “No”:

There is no looming deadline in the Chittenden Superior Court case that forces a rushed decision on these documents. City Council must take the necessary time to understand them.

Second reason to vote “No”:

The City must first resolve the problems with the City’s accounting procedures for TIF-funded projects. Ten years of Auditors' warnings about the City's accounting problems asnoted in the annual Management Letters must end.

Third reason to vote “No”:

The history of three prior failed Development Agreements with BTC Mall Associates should have taught us a lesson . The City must take care to avoid following the same pathway to failure

Fourth reason to vote “No”

The disorganized and confusingly identified documents provided to City Council for this consequential decision has resulted in obfuscation of the contract terms being approved.

Fifth reason to vote “No”:

The Litigation Resolution Agreement includes an overly broad Mutual Release of liability for all claims against BTC Mall Associates that might exist under any of the prior failed agreements, and which might be discovered after the new versions of the development documents are approved.

Details as follows...---->

New Development Agreement WARNING!

THE PIT

Council tabled the new development agreement. The trust is just not there. The labor issue has given councilors and residents time to actually read the agreement, including the confidential MOU.

Is the mayor acknowledging that part of the deal is a release of all potential claims "from the beginning of the world" (really, translated from the Latin for us) against Don Sinex and the other BTC/CityPlace parties, related to any other Development Agreements? 

The release would go back as far as 2013 when there was a verbal commitment between the City and Sinex, affirmed by this email. The fix was in, building height and commitment to TIF, and we're supposed to believe the project was what we want? No, it is what we were sold.

The issue of union jobs opened up a can of worms, created time for Councilors and public to read the agreement, and WAKE UP!  Miro is a developer and he is not representing working people, taxpayers, or residents of Burlington well. Only Council is potentially on our side?

This is about trust, and trust is just not here. Remember Pizzagalli Construction (PC)? They have two complaints in arbitration that Sinex sought to subsume in the Mutual Release. (Judge denied it.) PC was a partner in the project until it got trumped. (Ireland, Farrington, Senecal, be wary.) Trust? Note this paid news ad, disguised as a Seven Days article:   https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/new-team-behind-cityplace-burlington-includes-three-vermont-business-owners/Content?oid=31683502

I'm no lawyer, but with two lawyers on Council, I hope at least the Councilor from the NNE will give this new development agreement an honest read.

Deadwood rejects union labor and increased affordable housing in City Palace

 "Every few months a new announcement raises the prospect of progress, and then it sputters out once again." VT Digger 

Update: the story put out by CityPlace about new owners and union financing plus HUD financing was another vision of sugarplums from Sinex, Pomerleau and the incumbent mayor to gloss over the empty Pit before the election. Now the story is unraveling.

The winds have changed... [re the CityPlace agreement between the Mayor and the Developer.]  Labor wants this MOU to be voted down, as it does NOT provide for Union labor on the project.  Nor has Devonwood been willing to sign an agreement with us providing for Union labor on the project.   

 

"This agreement does not provide for union jobs, does not provide for prevailing wage jobs, does not provide for jobs with family sustaining benefits, and does not guarantee apprenticeship opportunities for BIPOC communities, and we therefore need you to VOTE NO on this agreement.  Please vote NO and ask the Mayor to instead negotiate an agreement with Devonwood that guarantees that UNION labor will build CityPlace."

-David Van Deusen, VT AFL-CIO President