IBJNews

Council committee to consider North of South bonds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A City-County Council committee is set to vote Tuesday to allow the city to issue $98 million in bonds to finance its portion of the $155 million North of South mixed-use project in downtown Indianapolis.

The Economic Development Committee will consider the proposal at 5:30 p.m. in Room 260 of the City-County Building.

Locally based Buckingham Cos. is leading the development, set to be built on 14 acres of land owned by Eli Lilly and Co.—now home to a parking lot north of South Street between Delaware Street and Virginia Avenue.

The city is offering to provide an $86 million loan and build $9 million in infrastructure to get the project off the ground. Plans call for a boutique hotel, retail space, a YMCA and 320 upscale apartments.

The price tag includes a $7 million contribution from Buckingham, a $6 million grant from the Indiana Economic Development Corp., the $29 million in land Lilly is donating, and $18 million for the YMCA branch.

Instead of $86 million, however, the city actually will borrow $98 million to pay for administrative costs related to the bond sale and for interest payments while the project is under construction.

City officials say the additional $12 million adds flexibility to the bond issue because it’s often impossible to know how the bond markets will perform between the time of filing and issuing of debt. They also say bond issues involve “soft costs,” such as interest.

Following the committee’s vote, the proposal to issue the bonds will go before the City-County Council for consideration.

When the city officially unveiled the project in late September, Buckingham expected to begin construction by the end of the year and be finished within two years.

But developers have encountered resistance from a handful of business owners near the location of the project.

Members of the Metropolitan Development Commission voted unanimously in December to rezone the 14 acres of land to accommodate the project.

But the longtime area businesses, led by fabric wholesaler Mayer Paetz Inc. at 321 S. Alabama St., wants a commitment from developers that the project won’t disturb right-of-way and on-street parking configurations.

Those issues were to be addressed Jan. 13 by the city’s Regional Center Hearing Examiner. Because the site is within the Regional Center overlay district, its design needs to comply with Regional Center Urban Design guidelines.

A regional center meeting to consider the site plans has been rescheduled until Feb. 10, after the remonstrating businesses were granted their one automatic continuance in the city’s process to approve the project.

“One of the things we haven’t had the opportunity to do yet is to sit down and see if all the issues have been addressed, and appropriately so,” said Larry Whitham, an attorney for Mayer Paetz. “Hopefully we’ll all agree that the new plans will satisfy the concerns that we have raised.”
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT