OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Woodstock City Council Special Workshop on Die Cast Site Presentations - September 22, 2025

City CouncilMonday, September 22, 2025
BodyWoodstock, Illinois
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, September 22, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:39:14

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

0:02

I'd like to welcome you to this evening's workshop meeting of the Woodstock City Council.

0:08

A few brief announcements before we get started.

0:10

The agenda, which is single topic focus for the most part, will be displayed on the on the uh monitors in the in the room.

0:20

There will be an opportunity for public comment this evening at the start of the meeting.

0:24

Um members of the public may come forward to the podium in the middle of the room if they're willing to do so, state their name and address for purpose of the record, and please feel free to make comments, not on this evening's agenda.

0:33

There will be an opportunity for limited public comment and feedback as well at the end of the uh presentation for the die cast property.

0:42

I want to assure the public that this is the first of many public uh meetings and discussions on the on the topic.

0:50

So there will absolutely be an opportunity at every meeting for the public to provide input and and to weigh in.

0:56

And I encourage the public to do that both within the meeting and certainly outside the meeting to us as representatives uh as well.

1:03

Um couple introductory comments before we get started this evening.

1:09

Um I had the opportunity to vote on the DICAST property about three or four months into my service in 2005, okay, on the Hummel group and this extraordinary development that they wanted to provide.

1:24

Okay.

1:24

Can't remember the total numbers, um, three, four hundred units, something like that, all brick, beautiful.

1:30

Started with these fantastic row houses that in 05 they were selling for, I think five or five fifty, somewhere around there.

1:38

Um, and they built, they built the ones that exist today, and then the entire market got absolutely slammed in 2008.

1:45

Through that process, uh the city, um both every prior council and the prior mayor has been working to um to try to develop this site.

1:56

And because it is an important part of our downtown, it infills and fills out our uh our downtown area.

2:04

It's important to the economics of downtown, it's important to the heartbeat of of the city, in my opinion, because it is uh kind of the anchor project for residential downtown.

2:17

And throughout my time on council and as mayor, it is one of the highest priorities because I know that our businesses need it, our economy needs it, our city needs it, and I think that it it again rounds out and completes kind of what we are in the downtown area.

2:36

Um there have been two primary projects that in that came forward.

2:41

One did not get approved and ever get started uh in 2019, and then the last one was the um CHR project that we went into with a lot of hope and confidence, and their financing model uh fell apart.

2:56

And sometimes when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

2:59

And when that financing went south, we had to go back to the drawing board.

3:02

So to the great credit of this council, the prior council, and also more so to city staff.

3:11

They jumped on top of uh the opportunity and the need to go to market.

3:17

And also to their credit, this is not really didn't occur on this side of the of the bench, uh, except for Roscoe.

3:24

It occurred on that side of the bench, meaning that they took a different approach uh in going to market.

3:30

Um their approach to put it simply in layman's terms, and Jessica explained it to me very very well over the last many uh weeks and months, but especially when we did an update at the end of last week.

3:42

What we wanted to do was to find organizations that were interested in the project, obviously, but it then had track record of being able to deliver and committed, at least on the initial their initial ability to do so, committed to being able to complete a project, and we investigated that that ability to commit, ability to finish.

4:05

Um and at the same time, they had great reputation, great finances, and built good product.

4:12

And um it is my belief that both of the uh groups that we're talking today, actually either of them could probably be a or would be a first choice, well above what we've done previously.

4:26

I view them both as very strong um organizations with um with the ability to serve the city.

4:34

Um our purpose tonight is to listen to their proposals, their ability to present to us, and for us as a council, to ask them questions, okay, and to you know to discuss their vision and their strategy and to hear from them.

4:51

So that out of this meeting, okay, and it will not occur at the very end of this meeting.

5:00

It will allow we will allow each member of council to kind of let this let this settle into their mind as to what their direction is and they'll provide that direction to Roscoe as to who we should enter into negotiations and discussions with.

5:10

And that's not negotiations or discussions on a final product that then suddenly we implement.

5:16

No, that would be then to come back, to come back to come back to council in a formalized kind of pre-development you know, preliminary phase concept that then would involve a great deal of council review, public review, and we would also move to a redevelopment agreement potentially if there's uh if there's that strong enough interest, and if staff feels from their administrative viewpoint that it's worth doing, and if council, in the course of us uh you know, getting feedback from Roscoe and in the course of them coming before us as needed if we assess that as well.

5:52

So we certainly are here to discuss and uh and put forth questions to them, but I also I don't view this as an extensive uh debate and discussion uh post the presentations.

6:06

Um that would be a probably six to eight hour meeting versus the roughly I expect you know two and a half to three hour meeting that will occur today.

6:13

It doesn't mean we're not gonna have those discussions.

6:14

I want to be really clear.

6:16

But I want to follow this process where they get a chance to present.

6:19

Council gets a chance to ask questions, council get a chance gets a chance to have follow-up, and we each individually thoughtfully consider what our what our gut is, what our sense is as to who we want to then enter into more detailed discussions with.

6:32

When I talk about detailed discussions, the the uh within the packet, if you saw it online, and I'm sure tonight as well, they're gonna present some preliminary ideas about the die cast site.

6:44

And that's great.

6:45

But I also want to caution, or not caution, but I want to guide that those are preliminary.

6:50

Um they are not the final product.

6:52

They're not final product on design, height, numbers, scale, uh, materials, which are a big deal.

6:59

That's not that's that's not final by any stretch.

7:02

Um, and we're not going to finalize those tonight.

7:04

But we do want to hear what their thoughts are about about Woodstock, about the opportunity, about who they are, what they build, how they work with uh municipalities and with city governments, and we want to assess their ability if they're the or assess whether they're the right partner for us uh or the best partner, and then um the ability for us to move into more detailed uh discussions with them.

7:28

So Jessica, does that capture and as I said last week?

7:34

This I want you to fill in and guide in the process here.

7:37

So what else would you add to that?

7:40

Uh thank you, Mayor Turner.

7:41

I think that you did uh fantastic job.

7:43

I don't know that there's anything more that I would add at this point in time.

7:46

I appreciate that.

7:47

Okay.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Downtown Planning█████████████████████████████████████████████55%
Affordable Housing████████████████████24%
Public Engagement██████7%
Public Works█████6%
Procedural██3%
Economic Development██3%
Historic Preservation1%
Transportation Safety1%
Summary of Proceedings

Woodstock City Council Special Workshop – Die Cast Site Presentations

On September 22, 2025, the Woodstock City Council held a special workshop meeting focused on presentations from two developer teams vying to redevelop the Die Cast site, a key downtown parcel. Mayor Turner opened by emphasizing the site's importance, recounting prior failed attempts, and explaining the new process—vetting developers for track record and financial strength before design details. The meeting included public comment, two 45-minute developer presentations, and council Q&A.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Floor Discussion (before presentations): No public comments on non-agenda items.
  • During Presentation 1 (Woodstock Redevelopment Associates):
    • John Colville (27 North Street) expressed encouragement about the financial vetting but concern that new construction should blend with existing all-brick row houses to protect property values.
    • Darrell Moore (520 South Jefferson Street) praised the proposal's street lines and walkability but worried about public-to-private transitions, fearing that areas north of Newell Street might feel private and inaccessible.
  • During Presentation 2 (Murphy Real Estate Services):
    • Arlene Lines (Between the Lines Bookstore) reminded that the site lies within the historic district, so materials must pass preservation review. She also suggested developing the other side of the tracks for entertainment and parking.
    • Darrell Moore (returning) reiterated his concern about building variety, hoping the final design would not be repetitive; he noted the central park concept as attractive.

Discussion Items

Overview and Process

Mayor Turner and Economic Development Director Jessica Erickson outlined the selection process: staff began outreach in February 2025, vetted multiple firms, and invited two strong groups to present. The goal is to choose a partner for negotiations—not to approve a final design. Council will provide individual direction to City Manager Roscoe Stelford, then staff will conduct 3–4 months of detailed discussions before returning with a formal redevelopment concept.

Presentation 1: Woodstock Redevelopment Associates (WRA)

Team: Rick Filler (Harlem Irving Companies), Sam Zeller & Jeremy Ormland (Zeller Realty Group), Todd Beringhoff & Tim Bichek (Hamilton Partners), Katie Lambert (OKW Architects).

  • Credentials: Combined 220+ years of experience; track record of rail-oriented multifamily projects in Crystal Lake (Enclave), Mount Prospect, Skokie, and the 58-acre University Village in Chicago.
  • Preliminary Plan: 225 units across four product types: 120-unit slab-on-grade apartment, rear-loaded townhomes, front-loaded townhomes, and walk-up units. Two phases: first includes townhomes and apartment building; walk-ups follow. No retail—feed downtown. 39 Metro parking stalls retained. No parking garage; surface parking only. Estimated benefits: 350–400 new residents, ~$1M annual property tax, $1M retail sales tax, $2M permit fees, $6M infrastructure/remediation investment.
  • Key Q&A:
    • Materials: Not all brick but high-quality fiber cement, hardy board, etc.; open to historic district compatibility.
    • Parking: Surface only (no podium/garage); net parking gain yet to be determined.
    • Bears Stadium impact: Rail proximity an advantage; could increase viability but no change to economics at this stage.
    • Finance: No grants; TIF requested; self-funded equity from partners; performance bonds not typical but open to guarantees.
    • Conversion possibility: Townhomes can be converted to for-sale if market shifts.

Presentation 2: Murphy Real Estate Services (Murphy Development Group)

Team: Dave Ariola, John Murphy (Murphy Development Group), Greg DiRico (White & Company), McShane Construction.

  • Credentials: $500M equity, $1.5B total deals; proven success in challenging projects (Skokie 150-unit multifamily, Winnetka 59-unit, Cook County Hospital redevelopment, Ohio modular single-family). Emphasis on open-book collaboration, flexibility, and execution.
  • Preliminary Plan: 273 units across 13 three-story wood-frame buildings on phased basis. Phase 1 (south side along tracks): 126 units, parking included (tuck-under and surface). Phase 2 (north side, near existing townhomes): adaptable density (e.g., “big house” 12-unit buildings). Phase 3 (south triangle, future Metro parking area) left for future discussion—could include retail, entertainment, or structured parking. Central amenity building with fitness, party room, pool/court. All rental initially; no for-sale planned.
  • Key Q&A:
    • Materials: High-quality without all brick; use of precast, hardy board, modern Tudor style elsewhere; massing and articulation to avoid monolithic look.
    • Parking: Open to structured parking if subsidized; phase 1 uses surface/tuck-under; future phases could include wraps (more expensive).
    • Bears Stadium: Game changer; could support hotel or mixed-use in later phases; would like to engage Metra.
    • Finance: No grants; TIF pay-as-you-go; developer equity from 250+ investors and personal balance sheet; completion guarantees offered; will commission feasibility study to fine-tune unit mix and rents.
    • Phasing risk: Phase 1 de-risks Phase 2; if Phase 2 fails, land can be repurposed.
    • Flexibility: Will involve city in design evolution; open-book cost tracking.

Key Outcomes

  • No vote was taken on developer selection. Council members were asked to individually weigh the proposals and provide their recommendation to City Manager Roscoe Stelford within the following week.
  • Staff (City Manager, Economic Development, Engineering, Planning) will also provide input.
  • If a clear consensus emerges, staff will enter exclusive negotiations with the chosen developer over a 3–4 month period to refine a preliminary development plan, redevelopment agreement framework, and financial terms.
  • The selected developer will then present a formal concept to council in public meetings for further review and potential approval.
  • Council emphasized the need for performance guarantees or “hooks” to ensure project completion, though both developers expressed openness to completion guarantees rather than traditional performance bonds.
  • The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 PM (after the 7:52 PM break and closing remarks).

Meeting Transcript

Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to this evening's workshop meeting of the Woodstock City Council. A few brief announcements before we get started. The agenda, which is single topic focus for the most part, will be displayed on the on the uh monitors in the in the room. There will be an opportunity for public comment this evening at the start of the meeting. Um members of the public may come forward to the podium in the middle of the room if they're willing to do so, state their name and address for purpose of the record, and please feel free to make comments, not on this evening's agenda. There will be an opportunity for limited public comment and feedback as well at the end of the uh presentation for the die cast property. I want to assure the public that this is the first of many public uh meetings and discussions on the on the topic. So there will absolutely be an opportunity at every meeting for the public to provide input and and to weigh in. And I encourage the public to do that both within the meeting and certainly outside the meeting to us as representatives uh as well. Um couple introductory comments before we get started this evening. Um I had the opportunity to vote on the DICAST property about three or four months into my service in 2005, okay, on the Hummel group and this extraordinary development that they wanted to provide. Okay. Can't remember the total numbers, um, three, four hundred units, something like that, all brick, beautiful. Started with these fantastic row houses that in 05 they were selling for, I think five or five fifty, somewhere around there. Um, and they built, they built the ones that exist today, and then the entire market got absolutely slammed in 2008. Through that process, uh the city, um both every prior council and the prior mayor has been working to um to try to develop this site. And because it is an important part of our downtown, it infills and fills out our uh our downtown area. It's important to the economics of downtown, it's important to the heartbeat of of the city, in my opinion, because it is uh kind of the anchor project for residential downtown. And throughout my time on council and as mayor, it is one of the highest priorities because I know that our businesses need it, our economy needs it, our city needs it, and I think that it it again rounds out and completes kind of what we are in the downtown area. Um there have been two primary projects that in that came forward. One did not get approved and ever get started uh in 2019, and then the last one was the um CHR project that we went into with a lot of hope and confidence, and their financing model uh fell apart. And sometimes when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. And when that financing went south, we had to go back to the drawing board. So to the great credit of this council, the prior council, and also more so to city staff. They jumped on top of uh the opportunity and the need to go to market. And also to their credit, this is not really didn't occur on this side of the of the bench, uh, except for Roscoe. It occurred on that side of the bench, meaning that they took a different approach uh in going to market. Um their approach to put it simply in layman's terms, and Jessica explained it to me very very well over the last many uh weeks and months, but especially when we did an update at the end of last week. What we wanted to do was to find organizations that were interested in the project, obviously, but it then had track record of being able to deliver and committed, at least on the initial their initial ability to do so, committed to being able to complete a project, and we investigated that that ability to commit, ability to finish. Um and at the same time, they had great reputation, great finances, and built good product. And um it is my belief that both of the uh groups that we're talking today, actually either of them could probably be a or would be a first choice, well above what we've done previously. I view them both as very strong um organizations with um with the ability to serve the city. Um our purpose tonight is to listen to their proposals, their ability to present to us, and for us as a council, to ask them questions, okay, and to you know to discuss their vision and their strategy and to hear from them. So that out of this meeting, okay, and it will not occur at the very end of this meeting. It will allow we will allow each member of council to kind of let this let this settle into their mind as to what their direction is and they'll provide that direction to Roscoe as to who we should enter into negotiations and discussions with. And that's not negotiations or discussions on a final product that then suddenly we implement. No, that would be then to come back, to come back to come back to council in a formalized kind of pre-development you know, preliminary phase concept that then would involve a great deal of council review, public review, and we would also move to a redevelopment agreement potentially if there's uh if there's that strong enough interest, and if staff feels from their administrative viewpoint that it's worth doing, and if council, in the course of us uh you know, getting feedback from Roscoe and in the course of them coming before us as needed if we assess that as well. So we certainly are here to discuss and uh and put forth questions to them, but I also I don't view this as an extensive uh debate and discussion uh post the presentations. Um that would be a probably six to eight hour meeting versus the roughly I expect you know two and a half to three hour meeting that will occur today. It doesn't mean we're not gonna have those discussions. I want to be really clear. But I want to follow this process where they get a chance to present. Council gets a chance to ask questions, council get a chance gets a chance to have follow-up, and we each individually thoughtfully consider what our what our gut is, what our sense is as to who we want to then enter into more detailed discussions with. When I talk about detailed discussions, the the uh within the packet, if you saw it online, and I'm sure tonight as well, they're gonna present some preliminary ideas about the die cast site. And that's great. But I also want to caution, or not caution, but I want to guide that those are preliminary. Um they are not the final product. They're not final product on design, height, numbers, scale, uh, materials, which are a big deal. That's not that's that's not final by any stretch.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com