Emails: Ambrose exited Waterside project 2 weeks after city rejected request for more funding

Waterside rendering - 500 px - birds eye view
A birds eye rendering that Ambrose Property Group released when it was planning to redevelop the former GM stamping plant into Waterside.

Ambrose Property Group backed out of its $1.4 billion plan to redevelop the former General Motors stamping plant site just two weeks after the city of Indianapolis rejected a request from the developer for substantial increases to the project’s public subsidy.

The Indianapolis-based firm, which Sept. 27 announced it was withdrawing from the Waterside project to focus on other types of developments, asked the city in mid-August for a more than $10 million increase to its $26.7 million subsidy. But following a series of meetings and email exchanges, city officials flatly rejected the request, calling it “not feasible,” according to records obtained through a public records request.

Ambrose’s request for more money followed its decision to substantially increase the size of Phase I of its project from $92 million to $300 million. Ambrose found that the expanded Phase I would require $75 million in infrastructure work.

“We are at a crossroads, and we need to make some tough decisions” Ambrose founder and CEO Aasif Bade wrote in a Sept. 19 email to city officials. “To cut to the chase, without more material support from the city, this project will not occur.”

The original $26.7 million subsidy was expected to be doled out in three portions. The first—about $8 million—was allocated for the project last year.

In rejecting Ambrose’s proposal, city officials provided three options:

— Maintaining the original project agreement, and moving forward with the $8 million already allocated for the project;

—Ambrose could enter into a “build-operate-transfer” agreement with the city. Ambrose would build public infrastructure, such as roads, and the city would pay annual lease payments to use that infrastructure using up to 80% of Ambrose’s annual property tax payments. In other words, the city would pay Ambrose back 80% of its property tax bill as a lease payment. At the end of the agreement, Ambrose would transfer the infrastructure to the city.

—Using tax-increment-financing bonds to cover infrastructure improvements. Up to 80% of the additional property taxes generated by the development would go toward paying down that debt, with the developer on the hook if tax proceeds fell short.

“In our view, if Ambrose’s investment in Phase I is larger than originally anticipated, pledging 80% of the project-based increment … offers Ambrose flexibility and a project fund sufficient to complete critical portions of the infrastructure needed to enable the Phase I vertical development,” said Scarlett Martin, community and economic development administrator for the city, in a Sept. 12 email.

Ambrose said it couldn’t proceed without the additional funds.

“Beginning in March 2019, Ambrose asked the city for increased financial support that was necessary to realize the full potential of the property under Ambrose’s expanded vision for the site,” Ambrose said in a statement Friday. “After several months of discussion … the city declined to provide it.”

The statement also indicates the city “made it clear that it could not commit to providing the necessary support for even Ambrose’s smaller initial plans for Waterside because the City did not have an identified source for the funds.”

Martin told Ambrose in her email the city only has identified the sources of funding for the first two funding installments, but never said the city did not intend to find a source for the third installment.

“Ambrose made clear to the city in September that it was not going to move forward with the project it was contractually committed to complete unless the city would guarantee it at least another $10 million in taxpayer money,” city spokeswoman Taylor Schaffer said in a statement Friday.

The city has engaged in a public dispute with Ambrose for most of the month, after sending a letter to the firm Oct. 2 indicating it would like to purchase the site and would use eminent domain to do so, if needed.

While Ambrose has said it is open to working out a deal with the city, it also claims the city has no right to claim eminent domain. The developer said the city’s threat has made it “impossible” for the firm to sell the land to another developer to take on the Waterside project. Ambrose has worked with JLL to market the property.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: IBJ is now using a new comment system. Your Disqus account will no longer work on the IBJ site. Instead, you can leave a comment on stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Past comments are not currently showing up on stories, but they will be added in the coming weeks. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

7 thoughts on “Emails: Ambrose exited Waterside project 2 weeks after city rejected request for more funding

  1. The project from the very beginning seemed way to overly ambitious.
    To do what was envisioned, we would need to realize sunbelt growth rates in downtown
    jobs and residents.

  2. ambrose never intended to develop the site. they just wanted to buy it and market it into this desirable site and sell to the highest bidder. amazon putting on the 20 finalist list just made the site that much more valuable and Ambrose is simply trying to cash in but the city is holding Ambrose accountable and see straight through their disingenuous tactics.

    1. The thing that bothers me is the fact that the city wants to bully its way into possession of this property.
      They can control the development with zoning and infrastructure funding etc
      The city should not have this property even if Ambrose agreed to sell it to them .
      If you let cities towns or States take control of highly valuable development ground in this manner it’s going to do nothing but breed corruption.
      This would in no way be a legal taking under eminent domain .
      Ask the N.K. Hurst Co what they think of the cities tactics .