The controversial Edgewater proposal took one more gradual step toward approval Monday night by way of the Board of Estimates.
Amendments to a 1965 ordinance regulating the site of the proposed Edgewater redevelopment were approved Monday with no opposition voiced, save one alder.
Though the agenda’s main item regarding Tax Incremental Financing for the redevelopment was referred to a future meeting, those opposed to the project’s progress through the city’s various review bodies once again made their opinions known.
Ledell Zellers, former president and current board member of Capitol Neighborhoods Inc., said the city’s consideration of using $16 million in TIF funds to help in the redevelopment process directly violates objectives set forth in the 1965 ordinance which require that use, construction or maintenance of the property be of no cost to the public.
“The 1965 ordinance requires that the rooftop be available to the public and there be access to the lake without cost to the city,” Zellers said.
TIF funds are essentially a loan from the city to a project developer that is paid off over time through increased property taxes in an established tax incremental district.
The 1965 ordinance’s objectives, among those stated by Zellers, include stipulations that developments situated on the area at the end of Wisconsin Avenue must comply with the yard requirements for properties adjacent to the site, be under the ownership of the single developer and be approved by the city council when conditions are believed to have been met, as stated in the ordinance.
The amendments approved Monday remove the clause requiring construction to be of no cost to the public to allow for TIF usage, give the option for the developer to sell condominiums on the property — dividing the lot’s ownership — and determine the development’s yard requirements by city zoning codes.
The lone dissenting vote in the approval of the amendments came from Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway, District 12, who said the city was again entering into a situation in which promises regarding access and funding would not be kept.
