The meeting of the neuroshow uh IDA is now called to order.

Uh can staff kindly please call the role.

Good evening, yes.

Balash Andran here.

Ocean Loyer.

Greenberg.

Here.

The landers out, Ayala.

Here.

Ianuzzi.

Here.

Singletary.

Here.

We're also joined by Adam Salgado, the Commissioner of Development, and the Executive Director of the IDA, Katrina Shivers, the IDA manager, Roshim Pankshe, the IDA consultant, and Adriana Barnello from Trans our Transaction Council from Harris Beach.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any announcements for us?

No.

No.

I have one that I would say, and this is a little uh off pieced, but uh Miguel, my colleagues here, uh daughter graduated from uh the school today, so I want to say congratulations to you, give you a round of applause in her year or so high school.

So going to uh the same school my son's going to Syracuse, so uh you know, keeping in New York State, but congratulations.

I know that's not supposed to be part of the IDA agenda, but I think family and life is more important in some of the stuff protocol.

Uh thank you for that.

Uh everyone else, so now we're gonna move forward with the rest of the meeting.

Um first on the agenda is the approval of the May 27th, 2026 minutes.

Is there a motion to approve said minutes?

So move.

Second.

Miguel and then uh Shane.

Uh thank you.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any negative uh abstentions?

So it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh the next item that we have uh gathered here this evening is for the BRP 466 Main Street LLC public hearing and authorization.

Uh Adam, if you could give a few background descriptions about what's going on this evening, and I'd appreciate it.

Sure.

Thank you, Rob.

The IDA received an application from BRP 466 Main Street LLC.

The application proposes the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 489 residential units, including 49 affordable units for households earning up to 70 percent of the area median income.

The project also includes approximately 6,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and a 448 space parking garage.

On May 27, 2026, the IDA adopted a preliminary inducement resolution and authorized a public hearing for this project.

The public hearing is being held this evening, after which the board may consider authorizing a future straight lease transaction.

The resolution before the board would authorize the project and the related financial assistance package, including a sales tax and mortgage recording tax exemption and a 25-year pilot that deviates from the UTEP, which has been deemed necessary in order to advance the project without providing undue enrichment to the developer.

The IDA's financial consultant Grow America, Kevin Grems, uh is here this evening and um and the IDA finance subcommittee have reviewed the proposed financial assistance package and support the request.

The project is expected to create approximately 575 construction jobs, generate approximately 31.4 million dollars in pilot revenue over the 25-year term, and provide an estimated net benefit, uh net public benefit rather of approximately 4.6 million dollars.

Kevin Grimms from Grow America will now present the details of the project and the proposed financial assistance project before we hold the public hearing.

Thanks, Adam.

Kev?

Good evening.

Hey, Chair, members of the members of the board.

Kevin Grimms, um managing director for Grow America.

Uh Core America is a uh national not-for-profit uh financial advisory uh company for on behalf of municipalities.

I'm here to uh present our findings of the development that Mr.

Salgado just described in in in uh thorough detail.

So this is mixed income, mixed use, transit oriented development.

And uh an important part of this is that there's uh 10 percent of the units.

Um 49 that will be affordable to households earning less than 70 percent of area median income.

Um the uh the unit mix, there are 489 units.

Uh the unit mix is uh predominantly uh studios, one bedrooms, and twos.

80 percent of the units are uh I'm sorry, uh 80 percent of the units are studios and one bedrooms.

So you have a smaller um smaller um product in terms of that uh the the the uh the the units eighty percent of studios and ones and twos, and then there's um ninety-six two bedrooms and two uh three bedroom units.

Um the uh we we looked at the proposed uh uh uh market rate rents um and and that that's very consistent with the marketplace.

Um anywhere from 2500 uh for a studio up to uh 5500 for a three bedroom on a per square foot basis, they're pretty consistent with the market and if if anything a little bit higher than uh that than what has been placed into service into in in New Rochelle.

Um and and um and the um the um the affordable units range from uh 1900 to 2700 for studios to uh three bedroom units.

Uh a few years ago uh the uh we the 10 percent set aside went from 80 percent area median income to 70 percent um uh of area median income too to reduce those affordable units a bit from what they were a few uh from a few years ago.

Um the reason that this this development uh is uh as Mr.

Salgado mentioned is a slight deviation to the uh uniform tax exemption policy.

Uh this development, like just about every any other development in Westchester, and for that matter the country has really uh absorbed very high cost increases.

Uh the development company has been looking at this for uh several years, and um considerable cost uh uh uh increases from when they were looking at it.

So uh they've been working on their numbers, they presented their numbers to us.

It's an overall development budget of 286 million dollars.

It's equivalent to 585,000 per unit.

It's very difficult to make things work five uh with a development cost of 585,000.

But as evidenced with what they placed into service last year, uh the leaf down the block at 500 uh at 500 Main Street.

This is a first rate uh class A uh building with uh with luxury finishes.

So they really place into place a uh quality product into service.

Um the financial structure is there's there's no public dollars in terms of the capital mix, 65 percent uh debt, uh uh 35 percent equity, which is typical for these types of developments.

So um what I'm sorry, I hadn't been advancing these, so I'm just going through my um so um yeah, it's 286 million dollars equivalent to 585,000.

A few years ago when they placed into service 500 uh 500 main, this is about somewhere between 15 and 20 percent higher in terms of a per unit cost.

And we've seen that all over in terms of developer costs increasing uh mostly based upon uh the the cost of materials.

Um the the um schedule for under the uniform tax exemption policy is is 20 years.

In this case, the the ask complete tax came in at almost uh a little bit more than 7,000 per unit.

And that's only the IDA taxes, not the the non-IDA taxes.

So um instead of a uh so that's it's a it's a big uh number to to phase into.

So we looked and there was a request from the developer to go from 20 to 25 years.

Um we um we went along with the uh proposing a 25-year schedule, but with the the schedule and the phase-in schedule is a little bit different.

So we uh the schedule that we're proposing here is about $3.3 million dollars than what the developer uh proposed in its application.

So the um the development starts with a 90 percent abatement in the first uh two years, and then 80 percent abatement through uh through the tenth year, and then a phase in to full taxes by the 25th year.

The savings are actually a little bit more than the pilot payment uh during the term.

Um but the one thing I do want to point out is uh it's still a very considerable increment.

Right now the the um the property is um uh pays about 168 uh thousand dollars.

The average tax that would be paid during the 25-year period is uh more than eight eight hundred thousand dollars.

So it's about a seven and a half uh time multiplier of existing taxes.

So while there are considerable savings, it's still a very considerable increment for the taxes coming in uh to the city.

And again, the uh there are very considerable amount of non-IDA taxes that will be paid for uh uh some of the taxes that are not subject to IDA exemption.

Um the heart of our analysis is determining what would work financially.

Uh we're looking to provide a uh tax incentive package that creates financial feasibility without providing more than what's necessary.

And even with the savings through the pilot, the sales tax exemption, the mortgage recording tax exemption, uh the returns are still quite uh quite marginal in terms of what the lenders are looking for and in terms of what investors are looking for.

So we look at things like debt coverage ratio, all the all the um the developer returns, and it's actually a little bit less than what the market is seeking in a development like this.

But this developer is a BRP company, it's there uh they have invested in in in NeuroShell before, and even though the the numbers are a little marginal, they're looking at the long-term growth and and strength of of the market pay uh place with what has gone on uh in downtown Neura Shelf.

Um from uh school perspective, uh as you know, we always look to see that the uh that the uh proposed uh pilot by the third year is sufficient enough to absorb uh to cover the additional uh uh costs related to the Board of Education.

Because the unit mix, mostly 80 percent of the units are studios and ones.

Uh if we apply the multiplier to that unit mix based upon the study that was done a while ago by ZYX, it's the uh we're estimating uh 18 additional students.

Uh and by the third year, by the third year, the pilot uh would be 400 and uh $538,000.

So $51,000 more than the estimated uh additional cost on the student.

So it passes the revenue neutrality test.

In terms of um overall public benefit, there's uh $31 million of pilot that will be paid over that 25-year period.

There are uh $12 million plus in other uh uh tax payments, the bid uh uh fire inspection and sewer fees, and some of the the county fees that will be paid over.

So um in addition to what will be paid in taxes, there are $11 million of various fees that will be paid to the city uh or the CDA um or the the uh um uh or the IDA uh at closing.

So eleven million dollars of one-time payments, and then we also factor in the benefit of the affordable housing, which is estimated at about $11.5 million.

So it's about $65 million total in terms of those fees, the benefit of affordable housing plus what will be paid in taxes compared to the uh the the um $62 million of savings from the uh from those um mortgage recording tax, sales tax exemption, and and real estate taxes.

So there's a net public benefit of five million dollars.

In addition to that, um there will be considerable uh construction jobs estimated at 575 construction jobs during the two to it's probably a 30 to 36 month construction period, uh eight full-time equivalent jobs once the properties placed into production based upon that retail, the ground floor retail.

Um overall, this is a very significant investment in downtown uh near shell, 286 million dollars in private investment, uh and uh not only the need for um uh more rent uh uh market rate housing, but the um the the uh the the 49 units that will be affordable to those that qualify.

Um and with that I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thanks, Kevin.

Um I think again with the board will have an opportunity to discuss and go over this uh after, but I would like to preserve as much time as possible for the public to be able to speak.

So uh if there's any questions, if I can ask or for uh my colleagues just to table that until we get through the end of the uh public hearing.

Thanks, Kevin, appreciate it.

Uh Katrina, based on that, if you could open the public hearing.

Yes, of course.

This public hearing is being held with respect to the BRP 466 Main Street LLC project located at 466 Main Street, Section 1, Block 215, lot 32, Neurishau, New York, in accordance with New York General Municipal Law, Section 859-A, subsection two.

Notifications for this hearing appeared in the journal news on June 14th, 2026.

Thank you.

Um with that being said, the uh the meeting is now uh started.

Um on this 24th day of June 2026, this public hearing concerning the BRP 466 Main Street LLC project located at 466 Main Street, NeuroShow, New York is now open to members of the public who wish to comment or speak in favor or opposition to the project.

Uh the people who registered to speak will be called by name.

I have everything's here.

Uh any new people come in, just please fill this out.

And we'll be given three minutes to make their comments, which will be timed.

So forgive me here if I uh have our first speaker come up if I make any mistakes.

Uh forgive me.

Uh looks like Sean uh Wywatski.

Yes.

Got one.

Good evening, Sean.

Yeah, just uh if you could just for the record, just state your name and just speak in the mic.

Thanks.

Good evening, IDA members.

My name is Sean Waywatsky.

I live at 25 LaRoy Place.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the IDA processes.

I don't know how you evaluate the pilots and what threshold you're targeting to determine if you'll approve or deny a proposed pilot.

That is published somewhere.

I I couldn't find it.

I also know the pilots are not business cases or investments per se, but viewing them as such was the best way I could wrap my head around evaluating them.

So bear with me on that.

So looking at the pilot benefits being proposed through that investment lens, what you have before you is essentially a $51.5 million investment over 25 years that gives the city a profit, aka the Grow America calculated net public benefit of $4.7 million.

That's a 0.66% annual rate of return.

If this was an investment, you'd run far, far away from something like that.

But I thought maybe that's normal for these pilots.

So I pulled a few others and ran the same analysis.

Looking back to 500 main, which is BRP's other property in the DOZ, you see that pilot yielded a 3.5% annual rate of return, which is over 5x this proposal.

But okay, maybe someone could argue that that was approved several years ago, as the gentleman just mentioned, and the environment has changed.

So I look for something more recent.

277 North was the last approved pilot, and it was approved just three months ago.

That has a 4.3% annual rate of rate of return, so over 6x what you have before you.

Clearly, both of these were much more lucrative investments.

Something is off.

The tax relief is way too extensive for the public benefit being received.

I realize that as noted in the agenda packet, this project as currently spec'd would not be financially feasible without the proposed pilot rates and a variance from the standard pilot length.

But that should not be your concern.

They need to do better.

So what you really have before you is a proposal with an abysmal writ rate of return, the bare minimum of affordable housing required by the code, and based on what we've seen in the ancient audit, jobs that will not go to New Rochelle residents.

This seems like an easy one to me, IDA members.

Do it's right, vote no on this.

Thank you, Sean.

Appreciate it.

Comments.

Next we have I feel like I'm missing one number one here, but I'll yeah, I'll just go in order here that we have here.

Uh Paul Martin.

Good evening.

Good evening, Paul Martin, 55 Decatur Road.

Uh, this is my first time speaking at at a uh IDA meeting.

Um I'm here to raise two main concerns about the pilot application for 40 uh 466 main.

First is the potential fragility of the net public benefits, and second is around the precedent this sets.

The proposed 25-year uh pilot by Grow America extends the schedule five years and ramps down to 70 percent through year 15 and 50 percent through year 21.

That's not a slight deviation, that's a pretty significant deviation from the standard 20 year schedule.

If you applied the standard 20-year schedule to this project, it would allow about 25 million in tax abatements.

Whereas this revised schedule doubles that to 51 million.

That's over a 25 million dollar delta.

Given the significant delta, I would have anticipated a substantial set of benefits.

When reviewing the application, it largely seems to be the standard 10% affordable housing and a series of required fees, hence the less robust 4.6 million net benefit.

When you dig into some of the purported benefits, uh included our typical project fees that I'm not sure I've ever seen included in other pilot processes, such as the 870K in water connection planning board approval and site approval fees.

I don't think the agency should be accepting those as public benefit, and it I don't think it has in the past.

At the last meeting, the applicant alluded to a willingness to provide tenant improvements, work with local labor, and other benefits.

If that's true, then those benefits should be stipulated and enumerated.

Additionally, this agency should also be considering the cost of negative externalities with the project, construction disruption, traffic, the impact on parking balances, and the disruption to current commercial tenants.

Commissioner Salgado mentioned at least 260K and tenant improvement alone required to relocate tenants from the current property.

So there are clear costs outside what Grow America has shown.

And whereas other projects like 277 North or 500 Maine or 10 Commerce would still likely easily class the net uh clear the net benefits uh threshold with other externalities costed in.

I'm not so sure with this development.

And so that goes back to my concern about setting a precedent.

If you vote for this as it stands, you're showing a willingness to revise and extend the pilot to achieve a minimally viable net benefit.

I understand that the cost of construction has increased, interest rates are higher, and the developer has delivered before.

But the purpose of the ADA, as I understand, is to maximize public benefit and not to accept a deal that just clears the threshold.

So I hope you all engage re-engage with the developer to enumerate more benefits, revise the schedule to a more acceptable level, and get a better deal for New Rochelle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

Okay, the uh next uh person uh from the public, uh Jackie Mills.

Good evening.

Jackie Mr.

Good evening.

I'm Jackie Mills from Tulemkey Place, resident of New Rochelle for the last 37 years.

I am here to object to the abatement for 66.

The reason being is your last a couple of meetings ago, we gave an abatement to Bob Young because he came with hat in hand and requested that his properties weren't doing so well and he needed an abatement.

Just happened to find out that he just bought another property here in New Rochelle in the historic district for 521,000.

Make it make sense.

You cannot come and get an abatement and still have this cash flow coming in.

I don't get an abatement on my property.

I'm a small fry.

I get to pay my taxes, I get to continue to fight my way through.

It's really unfair to the small homeowners and taxpayers what you guys are doing.

Make it make sense.

My colleagues, Sean and Paul just gave a very in-depth evaluation of this pilot.

I don't have that knowledge and I don't understand it, so I'm coming basic, really basic.

Make it make sense.

We cannot continue to give away our city.

17 kids in a in a new apartment building?

That's poppycock.

That's never gonna happen.

We all know that that's a chat GPT wish list, and it's gonna be more than that.

The the increment of services that the city is gonna have to provide is going to be enormous.

For $4 million, I am not a mathematician, I'm not a real estate person, but I'm just coming to you as a just a basic homeowner that this is really not good mathematical sense.

And maybe you should rethink and take a look at what Paul and Sean suggested, evaluate it again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jackie.

Uh Michael Yellen.

Good evening, Mike.

Good evening, Michael Yellen.

I'm going to read the same testimony I gave to the IDA on September 21st, 2016 for the 22 Burling 3830 381 383 Huguenot and RXR's 587 Main Street hearings.

This is what I said 10 years ago.

And I quote, I'm a member of the organization New Rochelle Against Racism, New Roar.

Our goal is to strengthen our city by working toward racial equity.

We are engaged in the downtown redevelopment process because we believe this offers an opportunity to address historic inequity within our city.

We believe that to undo race prejudice and build equitable power relations in our city, the following components need to be part of the city policy as it relates to the redevelopment.

Local hire with a career path, increased affordable housing, protections from displacement, living wage union jobs, a youth-oriented community center, and green space.

We believe these things are necessary to ensure the benefits of the redevelopment are shared equitably.

And we want the IDA to adopt these policies.

Job quality is one important area yet to be adequately addressed.

This is going back ten years.

None of you were on the board at the time.

We urge you to adopt policies to address job standards before awarding public assistance to the company that is the subject of this hearing.

The IDAs for many other nearby municipalities and counties have done so already.

This is ten years ago, including the town of Hempstead, Rockland County, Nassau County, and Suffolk County.

Here are a couple of suggestions to help achieve your stated mission to promote economic vitality and prosperity.

Strengthen the apprenticeship language in the UTEP to mandate that all contractors participate in federal or state-approved apprenticeship programs with a record of successful member, a successful number of actual graduates over five-year period for all construction trades in which they employ workers.

These policies would go a long way toward ensuring a career path for our youth.

Workers are paid a family supporting wage, and that will strengthen our community.

Work sites are safe, and construction is of the highest quality.

Construction jobs are vital to the overall employment opportunities in Neurochell, and job standards should not be sacrificed when awarding public subsidies.

Moreover, it's important that these standards create pathways to construction careers for local residents, not just temporary opportunities on single development projects.

I am almost done.

Go ahead, and you finish.

Thank you.

By adopting such policies, you can ensure the public gets a fair return on its investments through IDA subsidies.

We look forward to working with you to make sure the benefits of the redevelopment are shared equitably in our Queen City of the Sound.

That is what I read ten years ago.

So let me end with what Fannie Lou Hamer said on December 20th, 1964.

She said, and I quote, and you can always hear this long sob story.

You know it takes time.

I have been tired so long, now I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael.

And we want to change.

Sorry, I didn't finish that.

That's fine.

Your entitled.

That's it's fine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next uh person, uh Gina Curry.

Good evening, Jenna Curry, 24 The Boulevard.

Good evening.

Um, unlike Sean and some others, I am familiar with the New York State Real Property Tax Law, Section 412A dealing with uh the IDA.

Okay.

And my question, though, is why does New Rochelle seem to accept just about every developer's project when they want to break ground?

Um I don't know if you are aware, but our neighboring towns and neighbors' cities, they don't do that.

I'll give you an example, the City of Rye.

They were able to attract the New York City Blood Center, they have an FBI office there, they have great schools, there is free parking in front of shopkeepers' stores, but yet we can't do that in New Rochelle.

So please think it over and tell me why can't New Rochelle be like the other towns in Westchester.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gina.

Uh that's all I have scheduled now.

Is there did I miss anyone who filled out a card?

If not, we can't see go on once now.

That's a no then.

Um that that was the last one.

So with that being said, I guess we will uh close the public hearing then.

So uh the public hearing now is closed.

Thank you for everyone for coming and and speaking and and sharing with uh myself and the and the members of the committee uh your perspectives and views um which which we do appreciate hearing uh and listening to.

And it is our responsibility, notwithstanding to do that.

Um with that being said, I'd like to now open up the discussion to the to my fellow members in the board if anyone has any comments or questions either for Kevin or for staff or anything before we uh determine and discuss the uh or vote on the uh the amendment resolution.

Okay.

Well uh my comments would be uh since you are going above the normal uh pilot and you're going to the 25, you paid into the social equity fee, you know, and um so there's a requirement for that for 15 percent of your hours, your cost to be towards uh local hire union labor or minority woman-owned businesses, and uh and that's a 15 percent requirement on that.

And looking at your numbers for Mansion for 10 commerce, in 2020 you had zero percent of low uh local hire.

2021, 6.3 percent.

Uh 2022, 2.7, and zero apprentices on these projects and in your project on 500 main, 2021 again, 0% local.

2022, 4.9 percent.

Uh there were no numbers for 2023, which I find very weird.

I don't know why there's no numbers for that year.

Uh but for 2024, you have 7.8.

And uh for 2025, you went up to 10.4.

So I'm just curious how you are gonna fulfill your 15 percent requirement where none of these numbers have been anywhere near for your past history, and me truthfully, I don't think you're gonna fulfill those numbers, especially with your estimated 575 construction jobs, and so that's about 86 employees, and your numbers have been nowhere near that.

So uh that's one of my issues with this project, especially since you jumped up to a 25-year pilot as opposed to the 20.

I don't really see a big benefit for the community here.

All I see in this uh project was all the benefits for the developer, but I don't really see the community get any anything else in return.

And uh also with what people have spoken to I'm looking at this 17 kids coming out of this building.

I think we have to look at that formula again.

That formula is I mean, I don't know if we'll hear from the I speak to that so in 2015 we did a student generation study with uh WXY.

Um we have uh we are currently in terms of school age children that are generated by all the developments in the downtown.

We are uh we are not near, we are about 30 percent below the number that we projected in the 2015 uh student generation study, and that's total school age children.

That's not necessarily the represent represented in the enrollment in the new Rochelle school system.

So that number is even less.

We know from talking to the school district, and we are in the process right now currently of meeting we've we've met with the uh superintendent of the school district.

We are engaged with a with that team that did the original 2015 analysis.

We are in the process right now of recalculating uh based on actuals this student generation number and um and evaluating the the the formula that we've been using.

So I I I I can tell you that the seven the the the student generation, the expected students that will be uh created by this building are based on a formula that is from 2015, but that formula has has been accurate.

It's been actually over-projecting the number of students than are then are actually being produced.

So um while I agree we need to tweak it, um I that number is is is showing based on actuals to be uh still holding up.

So you know there is there are some issues with the formula and we're looking at them.

You know, I know that the cost of educating on a per student basis is higher today than it was in 2015, and the school district has asked us to take a look at that number, but in terms of the number of students that are being generated, it's lower than we originally projected.

So we need to look at whether the amount of money that we are uh actually generating for them is is is covering the cost of fewer students, although at a higher rate per student.

So th the school district's impression is that we're still whole.

They have at any moment through this 10-year process the ability to ask us to look back.

And we've had several touch points with them, several presentations to the school board directly on the status of the development and what it's contributing to the schools in terms of students.

And uh there has not been a request to look back until now, and we're actively engaged in that.

So just want you to know that staff is you know working, we're very closely with the school district to ensure that the development is contributing its fair share.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks, Miguel.

Um other comments, questions?

Yeah, I have one.

Hey, Keith.

I'm sorry, I'm the newbie, but I have a question for Kevin.

Um as you came up for the abatement, um, the 25 years, I'm curious to know, or maybe Adam, you can comment also.

Are there other examples of 25 abatements in New Rochelle?

And what was how did you come up with 25 versus another number?

There has been uh previous uh there have been a few affordable housing developments that have had 30-year schedules to be coterminous with the uh with the rental restrictions imposed by the um uh section 42 of the IRS code that uh governs the uh housing tax credit law.

So, yes, there have been a few at 30 years, and I believe there's um for 500 main, that was also a 25-year schedule, uh, but that had a higher percentage of affordability at 20 percent of the units um um at below 60 percent of it.

So it was it was a slightly different program, but that also had a 25-year schedule.

I would like to add a little bit to this conversation just because um we understand that there's an increased cost of execution on these deals given the interest rates, basically the adverse financial conditions, the interest rates, the um the you know inflation, just basically the cost of of construction is higher today.

We had a conversation um with the financial consultant about whether a 20-year uh abatement or 25-year abatement.

Um, and what we determined, I think collectively and then discussed with the finance subcommittee was this concept of revenue neutrality, right?

So if we were to keep it within the 20-year to give the amount of subsidy that would achieve feasibility for this project to continue, um you know, the there would be a delayed uh revenue neutrality.

So we we thought that paying more taxes sooner in the project deal and uh what was was more important to achieving the the outcomes that we're we're uh we're trying to achieve.

So it was it was really a question of whether uh a shorter, deeper pilot or a longer, more gradual pilot.

Uh we we checked more of the kind of um outcomes that we are are seeking by choosing this 25-year format.

So that's why we did it.

So we wanted to make sure that they were still achieving the cost of educating the students by year three, and that was driving the decision ultimately.

Um I'd like to address Ms.

Curry's comment about the uh two two items in Rye.

Uh I am not sure, but I do not believe that the federal government pays uh property taxes.

Uh number one, number two, the uh blood center is a totally different scenario.

Blood center is a not-for-profit organization.

They do not own that property, they lease it from a developer.

But the No, they I know that for a fact.

Okay.

Excuse me.

I work in the assessor's office of the City of Rye.

Okay.

Right.

They are taxes paid there.

Okay.

And the New York City Blood Center, there's originally an eight-line building.

Yeah.

And they asked for a pilot and they said no.

The city council said no, you cannot have it.

That's how I know.

No, but the point I'm trying to make is that the blood center is a tenant that does not own the property.

The developer owns the property.

So it's a very different tax situation than it is here when someone is taking uh a plot of land and turning it into a large development and is asking for a pilot.

It's just it's two different ways of uh uh assessing those taxes.

One, I'm deputy assessor for the city of Rye.

Two, I'm an appraiser.

I've worked throughout the city of New York and other places such as NASA County, who unfortunately when NASA County Town Timps that somebody mentioned, when they had a pilot, you know what ended up happening?

Pilot expired, but unfortunately they never took back up the tax rolls, so it stayed on the section eight tax roles for about three years, and then they had to cloor it back.

I'm very familiar with how pilots were.

I don't I don't know how to address that particular situation.

Thank you.

Thanks, Howard.

Any uh other questions on the board.

So you know, first off, thank you for everyone here, and and um it's important, and this is part of the peer review that we're going through and listening um both for this project and for others, uh, understanding about what's the value proposition to really everyone, both the developer and and to the city.

And I always say to people, you know, the developers have a choice, right?

This is this is their money and their guarantees, their families that they're signing on the line that things don't happen.

And we forget that sometimes uh until we have to sign on our own stuff for our our own families and understand what that means.

Um it's a choice to be here, and we've been very fortunate by the people that were before us making hard choices and decisions uh from the government side to be as welcoming to development and developers as possible with the proviso of trying to make sure that we didn't lose out in things.

Now, uh, you know, my colleague Miguel has brought up a couple of things that, and again, it's not this developer.

In fact, this developer has been as good of a business partner as you you really could could ask for uh several times um and will step up to the plate as much as they can.

We do need to do better, and and we know that um holistically, 30,000 feet looking down, not myopically today.

And we are looking at that, and we'll be going through the process, and we've talked about that of training and and kind of looking at our UTEP and our policies today and how they were before, but you know, today is different than it's going to be for tomorrow.

Everything's more expensive.

I don't think uh our you know, our uh, you know, working taxes never go down, they always go up, right?

So we can kinda that's kind of one of those things like in life, uh paying taxes, death and so forth, but they don't really go down.

Things are more expensive.

Um it's more difficult to make things pencil, and we see that.

Uh I would comment about some of our other neighboring cities who have been looking over the wall, uh, the successes that we've been having here and have been kind of copying but also optimizing and changing things to the point now where some of our communities that we're competing with uh developers are migrating there because they've been able to kind of optimize in some of the things that we're doing here.

So things take time.

We're gonna be looking at that you know holistically for all the different things and ways that we can do things better.

So where we are today.

Today we are living with our construct that we have with our UTEP.

Uh we're making a deviation for that UTEP for a number of reasons.

And it's also hard.

You know, we we have the the value of the dollars and cents that Kevin went through, and those are some of the metrics that we've been used and been asked to use to value our decisions.

But there's also the intangibles and the other things that you can't really put into writing and and necessarily quantify uh because it's very subjective.

Uh this is an important corner uh of our city, right?

We know the the other things that are going on there.

And there's the old line, I had a friend that had a bar, and the bar was the line was a crowd brings a crowd.

So the more people that come and see and and what's happening, the more interest and development that we have, and and the more desirable the location is.

Yes, there may be some, I forgot who mentioned some of the things the uh uh maybe it was Paul.

Uh you mentioned a few comments about uh, you know, the valuations, and yeah, I could maybe argue with you and agree with you with some of those, but I think the bigger picture, and if you look at kind of what we're trying to do, it it fits into the puzzle, and it's an important piece.

And they have been here for a while working and trying to twist and poke and change it.

Believe me, developers come to us all the time and asking for the world.

That's their job, right?

You know, if they can get it.

Um, but it's the ones it's it's a marathon, not a sprint.

And the ones that are able to stay there to the very end to be able to pare with us when we come back to them saying, No, we're not just gonna give you this.

It doesn't work.

What's in it for us?

How does this work?

Um that the staff goes through.

Um I have to give these this developer credit, they ran through the gauntlet, and it's been a gauntlet that we put through them.

Um the the finishing wax or what you've heard from the public this evening, but uh uh I feel very comfortable with respect to this project and and the diligence that's gone into it, and I do think that it makes sense for us, notwithstanding all the good comments that were risen uh raised by my board members here tonight and even the members of the public about ways that we can do things better.

And I do think that it makes sense for us, notwithstanding all the good comments that were risen raised by my board members here tonight and even the members of the public about ways that we can do things better.

But for this evening, um I feel that uh this is a uh is a good project and uh definitely deserves our our support.

So with I could just one when I did bring up those numbers since the developer is here and how you were talking about you know we need to do better.

I was wondering if they could comment on how they're gonna do better with their construction numbers and get those numbers up to where it's more of a respectable, you know, the number that they have to fulfill.

I like to hear what they have to say.

I mean, I have no problem with that.

Counsel, if you want to speak on behalf, or if if if uh just a generic question about trying to uh make sure you could help or aspire to hit the numbers and the bogeys that we've set free.

Well, you know, I just want to say while they figure out what they're gonna say.

I just want to talk about the um uh the policy backdrop, right?

Like since the two projects were approved, um, you know, we have made some significant advances.

Originally, the only requirement was coming, or it wasn't even a requirement, it was the best efforts from the economic opportunity non-discrimination policy that was adopted by the city.

In 2021, the IDA realizing that they were not sufficient teeth and we weren't seeing the outcomes that we wanted to see in terms of workforce participation, we adopted the social equity program, which is a upfront cost, $2 per net square foot, but then also a commitment to, as you mentioned, 15 percent of the total value of the job would be to either local hires or minority and women-owned business or unions.

Um we've had one project approved under that that that UTEP, and as you saw, I think it was uh last meeting, uh they achieved 23 percent, right?

Um and the majority too, minority women owned business, which we understand uh you know is not exactly ideal for what we'd all like to see more local participation.

And so that prompted me, you asked us to sort of put together a potential policy revision, a revised UTEP, right, to support the outcomes that we're trying to engender.

Um and we're very diligently working on that exercise.

We're trying to get the date set to have the conversation and the training on the current UTEP so we can have the open conversations about what the new the future of the policy looks like.

So that being said, you know, I I I I just I think it's important to sort of on some level take some responsibility, right, for for for the regulatory re environment that was in place at the time when New Rochelle was really desperate to see investment.

That was something that I think we we we didn't do it intentionally, but it was it was the outcomes were were not optimal, right?

We know we didn't hit the numbers that we were hoping, and so that's why prompted the IDA to take that action.

Um and we are gonna continue to refine that because we are taking it among upon ourselves to ensure that these investments in these developments are gonna produce the opportunities for all the new Rochellians that we want to see.

So I I I just want to f frame that in you know, not as they did something wrong, but that they were dealing with um, you know, they were working within the the rules that we created.

And so we're we're evolving those rules now.

Correct.

And importantly that they will continue and will work within the construct that we have today, not aspirational for tomorrow, but thank you.

Couldn't see you there.

So to uh address the question about the uh the social equity program, um, as you know, it's a requirement 15 percent, and if you don't meet the requirement, then there's sort of a penalty or a fee that you you pay.

So what what the developer will endeavor to do, my client is to obviously meet the 15 percent because we think that that's more valuable.

If we can't meet that, then of course, then we will pay the penalty.

Now, in terms of meeting that 15 percent, it's a combination of MWBEs, local as well as union hires.

And I think the respectfully, I think the the numbers that were quoted um from several years prior, those were different numbers.

There weren't a combination of those three um uh uh groups, if you will, together.

So, in a sense, uh I would argue and say, based on that that it's now a grouping of three rather than one, it's probably a little bit easier to meet.

And of course, um at this juncture, the developer believes that they could probably do that um and meet that, and we'll work uh to meet that uh and and you know that program.

And again, if they don't per the the IDA's policy, then they will pay the appropriate fee to the IDA in the city.

Great.

Hi, Jeff Lornoy, I'm co-founder and managing partner of BRP companies.

Good evening.

I just want to add to that.

Um the UTEP target is 15% combination, as we have already heard for local union and MWPE.

Our prior two projects that we did here in NeuroShell, one is at 10Con, the other 500 main, as it relates to that UTEP target, we achieved on average over the period of the construct of the construction project, 28 percent on 10COM and 25 percent on 500 main.

So we far exceeded the 15 percent UTEP.

There are some areas that we can improve.

We're not perfect.

We are an MWBE firm, so maintaining local hires and residents is in the fabric of what we do.

Um we always seek to do that and to do our best.

Some of the things that we are going to do moving forward to do better at meeting some of those targets are hiring outside consultants, one of which um we've already engaged called hire tough leaf, and they do exactly that in identifying firms that fit the criteria that's uh part of the project.

So that's what we hope to do.

Appreciate that.

And uh again, it's partnership, right?

And you you you guys have always in the past projects been partners.

Um and it is important celebrating the fact that you are like you said, an MBE developer.

So the proof of concept is that you know you're there and that you're you're living the everyday uh, you know, kind of some of the desires, and also admit we can always do better as we raise our hands on our side and say that we need to do better and we can.

So um thank you for coming up and you know expressing that.

And uh, you know, I personally wish you guys nothing but success because uh you succeeding means we succeed collectively.

So thank you for coming up.

So with that, um I'd like sorry, Mr.

Div Director.

Um there's a component of this that's been uh yes, sir.

There's been a component of this pulling from our neuroshell forward program as well, correct?

Correct.

The the new Rochelle Forward program is the uh workforce training, vocational training program that is funded through the social equity program.

Um yes, there will be uh direct there'll be a lot of coordination with this particular project, and the graduates from there will make sure that we've had those conversations that uh and created those lines of communication to ensure that uh all of the graduates are uh you know introduced to BRP and their construction team, and um we're gonna do our best to sort of make sure that we have more local representation in in the uh in the in the construction of this project.

That's that's excellent to hear.

And some some component of that leads to uh uh lends to the more more recent numbers that they have regarding local hire, correct?

Like they've used the program before.

Yes.

Yes, there's been some.

I I don't know exactly, I don't have the numbers here how many of the new Rochelle Forward graduates uh were actually placed on their jobs.

If I if I may, I I I can email you that offline.

That'd be good to find out.

Uh incremental change is hard, but I you know we're not seeing the 15% mark hit in local hire particularly, but I'm seeing an incline.

I mean, I'm going off of the numbers that you provided, Miguel.

Um I'm seeing an incline over that time, and it feels like the the Neuroshell Forward Program is helping with that, which means that some of the efforts that we're making to fund it, you know, the the UTEP, the the social equity fee, that's it's a cycle, it's cyclical.

This is this is a compilation of efforts.

So that's the only thing that I wanted to really pull out of, you know, what exactly are we doing for the community?

Because we're talking about a minority-owned developer finally coming into NeuroShell uh for their second project, I believe.

Second, third project, love it.

Um, who is utilizing the Neuroshell Forward program that is contracted out to a Neuroshell resident slash you know uh minority business owner as well, but I think a part of their team are lifelong Neuroshelians.

So like it's cyclical.

There they're always trade-offs.

It's difficult to find everything that you want in a deal.

We're also making amendments to our UTEP to be more beneficial.

I know Katrina and Rasheen, you guys are working very hard on that, so I'm we're excited for it.

Um just grateful to say that, you know.

Again, there's so many, there's so much we need to work on, but we we don't want to imagine that we haven't made any progress at all at the same time.

Um so I'm excited for this.

Thank you, Sheikh.

He's a good partner, right?

He's he he usually sweeps up after me when I make uh forget some things.

Thank you Sheikh he's a good partner right he's he he usually sweeps up after me when I make uh forget some things so thank you as always with that being said I'd now uh like to ask for a motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the project the related transaction documents and the requested financial assistance package including the sales tax exemption uh the mortgage recording tax exemption and uh pilot agreement I'll make a motion thank you howard is there a second second thank you Shane um uh all in favor say aye aye all opposed opposed okay so one opposed and then uh are there any abstentions so with that the motion passes thank you um congratulations to our developers on moving forward is there any uh other business to discuss this evening uh just to you know we we talked about it a little bit earlier in the conversation but we are planning to schedule the uh UTEP the board training for on the UTEP um and we are working to potentially do it on july 29th uh which is the day of the next scheduled IDA meeting so I'd like to maybe after the meeting we can just confirm folks availability um we'd like to get that on the books ASAP no this is great um again as part of that process um about you know not wanting to wait any longer and stuff but uh it's important that we do this uh in a thoughtful collective way uh to continue moving forward because the whole plan is to try to have everyone win and you know uh the win loss column has been still our favor we're still we're still positive way over 500 but uh I I think we could we can do better so that training is going to be uh a jump off point for us to really start to look at that of a question is that training going to include some of the funds that we've been able to create out of um the UTEP and other uh IDA uh programs that have fed into other community uh I'm just thinking about the different things that we're doing such as like our retail tenant improvement that we put 2.25 million towards I'm thinking about the NERSL forward program I like you know just getting a uniform well retail tenant improvement was the city funded initiative it was funded through developer fees the community benefit bonus fund which is sort of uh you know uh uh related but uh not funded through this uh board's authority it would be the new reshelf forward is it would be good to ask that out because when we talk about net benefit that doesn't mean that there's not more benefits of the program and that there aren't more city fees that are generated that we do dedicate to building up other aspects of Neuroshaw we will give a robust presentation on uh we were actually talking about also training on the economic opportunity non-discrimination policy which I think a lot of what you're talking about uh is coming from as well as you know we can give an overview of the development benefits or the development um you know the the benefits and fees that were collected on all the development so you could see the city's side as well I think that's a fair addition we can add that in yeah I'm yeah and I'm sorry there's one more aspect and then what one more thing would be just to understand for the developments that we do have where exactly they are in their calendar um to to full include yep that's there thank you thank you um so the next meeting for the IDA is scheduled for July 29th uh 2026 at 7 30 p.m with that I'd like to ask for a motion to adjourn this evening's meeting so move second second all in favor aye any opposed unanimous well thank you everyone for coming