It makes sense that we give this abatement in order to keep the rents and construction costs reasonable. Service asked if cost changes were made would the ERA have to be re- issued. Service said she would like to support the ERA but oppose the EDTA because she believed there should be the affordability component. If the ERA passed and the EDTA failed, then Dan Sherman said the project would not be eligible for abatement, then the Statement of Benefits might be amended to allow for the set aside. David Ferguson, petitioner, said this project, unlike the Allen Building, will follow the Dept of the Interior standards for Historic renovations.
Historic renovation does add cost, period.
He reminded the council that the city zoning code requires commercial on the first floor, housing is not allowed on the first floor. Ferguson talked about the decrease in downtown housing since the 1990 census, the values of having downtown residents, the additional costs involved in trash and recycling programs and all these things cost money. He talked about the below market rates of the current long term leases that are currently in place with the commercial businesses on the first floor and those rates will continue for the life of the lease. He talked about the bare bone amenities in the upper floor rental spaces. Banach asked if the state property tax system were to change would that affect this type of project and Ferguson said it's hard to say what market rate would do, probably be disastrous.