City tables hotel agreement

May 26, 2023

The proposed site for a hotel development at the City of Plattsburgh’s Harborside near the City Marina. Councilors are still working on finalizing an agreement for a private hotel developer to build on the site.

PLATTSBURGH — The City of Plattsburgh Common Council agreed to table a resolution Thursday that, if approved, would have moved forward a development agreement with GP Manager PLF, LLC to potentially develop a hotel at the city’s harborside.

Several councilors had expressed that more information was needed before approving the agreement and allowing the Saranac Lake-based developer to begin any type of work on the parcel, which is located next to the Plattsburgh City Marina off of Dock Street.

Specifically, Councilor Elizabeth Gibbs (D-Ward 3) requested access to previous engineers reports, as well as information about the soil samples from the property when it was first being primed for hotel development by Monahan Development Corp. of Syracuse more than 15 years ago.

“That engineering report stated how much weight the ground could bear, in order to guide the (hotel) development of how tall, how large, how much,” Gibbs said.

“I feel that council really should have that information before we make any kind of vote on this so that we know what the soil samples say, what the engineering report says and what the findings were.”

INFORMATION

While Monahan’s hotel never came to fruition and left a “parking lot to nowhere” in its wake — which is where much of the council’s hesitation about the current project stems from — Gibbs said the information gathered from that process was “incredibly important” to have before they “put ink” to anything.

“Does your office have that documentation?” Gibbs then asked Community Development Director Matt Miller.

“Not that I’ve ever seen, no,” he said.

Though Miller noted that upon approval of the development agreement, the developer would have several months to conduct their own analysis on the property, including “all of the necessary soil samples, geotechnical borings, evaluation of prior site history.”

“To determine what can be built, where it can be built, if any adjustments need to be made to design in order to accommodate the physical conditions down there,” Miller continued.

“(But) that is all of the developer’s sole expense, not the city’s.”

Gibbs said she understood all of that, but from the municipal perspective, she still believes the council needs that information to move forward.

Mayor Chris Rosenquest wanted more clarification on the relevance of that information.

“Just to be clear, what would be the purpose of the council having information on past studies?” he asked Gibbs.

“How does that pertain to this development agreement that Matt just outlined, (which) would require the developer themselves to pay for that level of analysis at that property?”

Gibbs pointed out that the purchase price of the agreement is estimated at $1.2 million, which, referencing the development agreement, could end up being less, she said.

“Am I understanding this correctly, that if the developer has to take remediation (of the property), we will basically reimburse up to $300,000?” she asked.

“So basically it comes off of the sale price. Am I understanding that language?”

Miller confirmed that possibility.

“The mechanism is that the full amount of the sale price upon closing is deposited in escrow with the city,” he said.

“Upon completion of the excavation activities, the subterranean excavations for foundations, whatever else is approved to be built, if there is potential contaminated material found — which is not part of any official record in the city, in the past history of the site — then those additional remediation costs would be deducted from the purchase price prior to its final remittance to the city after those excavation activities.”

‘FULL UNDERSTANDING’

Gibbs said that is part of why they need a “full understanding” of that property before they sell it off.

“We’re saying we’re going to sell the property for $1.2 million, but we might likely encounter other costs that take away from the cost,” she continued.

“...What was different about the Monahan development is we didn’t sell the property; We leased the property. It was a 99-year lease that was going to bring in $18 million in revenues to the city and that’s a key difference here.”

Councilor Jeff Moore (D-Ward 6) shared that he was not in support of the project moving forward at all.

“I think this project is totally a waste of time. We’ve been down this road before … There hasn’t been a viable hotel downtown in 50 years and even 50 years ago, they were not doing well,” he said.

“There’s really no reason for anybody to want to stay in Downtown Plattsburgh and it’s not downtown. It’s even in a worse location … in all my years, I have never stayed, I’ve been all over the country, I’ve never stayed in a hotel next to a wastewater plant. I just cannot believe that this is going to work out. I mean, I think we’re all just spinning our wheels and wasting our time. We should be trying to get some housing in the city, which we really need. Not wasting our time with commercial hotels.”

While Councilor Caitlin Bopp (D-Ward 5) did not agree with Moore’s perspective on the hotel, she supported Gibbs’ proposal for more information.

“I don’t think we should go in and end up with surprises,” she said.

“So I think we should make an effort to have that information available, and at this point, my suggestion would be to withdraw this item for tonight.”

IMPACT

The mayor asked Miller what would happen if the agreement was withdrawn or postponed and if there was any opportunity to find that information, provide it to council and continue the process.

“A search for the information might dig it up, but we’ve done a pretty exhaustive search of the … records at this point of the site history. So we may not find the records that are being referred to here,” Miller said.

“The effect that that would have on the developer? I can’t say. They’ve waited three years to get to this point and to have the development agreement be discussed and then have what is largely a redundant search for records, considering the terms of the development agreement, I don’t know how that would impact their attitude.”

Bopp then disagreed that the search for records was “redundant.”

“It’s not really redundant … if we stand to lose money on this deal, because of that information not being available. So I think it’s relevant,” she said, before motioning to table the resolution.

Miller then walked out of the meeting before it officially adjourned.

It’s unclear yet if the development agreement will again be on the council’s agenda for their Aug. 17 meeting.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: CarlySNewton

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular videos.

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.