THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR Common Council Chronicle-Examiner. October 4, 2006, UPDATED 2:20 P.M. E.D.T. with Financials: The Pinnacle, the Ginsburg Development Corporation 28-story luxury condominium housing, received a mixed blessing from the Council which voted to “refer out” a Pinnacle request for extension of time before The Pinnacle has to post a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security,  until April 2007. 

 

Councilperson Rita Malmud questioned Corporation Counsel Edward Dunphy closely on the council’s ability to enforce the “linkage” of the Pinnacle to the 221 Main Ritz-Carlton opening. Malmud has  realized that in view of The Pinnacle difficulty in getting financing together it will affect The Pinnacle ability to build the 52-unit affordable housing at 260 Main Street by fall 2007, when the Ritz-Carlton is scheduled to be occupied and require a Certificate of Occupancy.

Mr. Dunphy noted that the likelihood of the Pinnacle affordable housing being built by “late 2007” the time when 221 Main Street is targeted for completion and a certificate of occupancy, is unlikely. Ms. Malmud asked what would happen if The Pinnacle failed to cobble together its financing by next April (the deadline of the proposed six month extension). Dunphy said the responsibility for the Cappelli portion of the affordable units would revert back to Mr. Cappelli. Where Mr. Cappelli would build that housing was not conjectured by Mr. Dunphy.  Malmud said she would hope that Mr. Cappelli would commence immediately building his affordable housing share (24 units) immediately if The Pinnacle were to default, saying she would do everything in her power to withhold the certificate of occupancy from Mr. Cappelli until his “share” of the affordable housing was built.

 

Mr. Dunphy, in conciliatory tones, when Malmud asked about what recourse the council had to enforce the affordable housing Mr. Cappelli owes, be built, said the council recourse was that they could without certificates of occupancy from the second tower (now rising above ground level), as a means of enforcing the affordable housing piece.

 

The  Pinnacle is supposed to supply a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security on October 7. The council would need to extend the agreement shortly to avoid the responsibility for the affordables reverting back to Mr. Cappelli.

 

$16.3 Million and rising.

Cost per unit: $313,461

 

Documents supplied with the Common Council agenda place the cost of the 52 units of affordable housing to be $16.3 Million (with construction listed as being $12 Million of that total, and the balance in fees). The $16.3 price tag now with $20 Million in funding sources, shows that the cost to build each of the 52 units is $313,461 — comparable to the cost of building Louis Cappelli luxury apartments and condos.

 

 The Pinnacle reports as supplying $6,377,704 of its own equity, and is attempting to lineup financing from Restore New York Initiative ($1 Million) by December 31; HHAP Grant of $1.4 Million by December 31; $364,000 from Federal Home Loan Bank by January 2007, and $2 Million from Westchester County New Home Lands Acquisition fund by November 30, 2006. The documents state this sum of $4.7 Million in grants would be on top of Pinnacle’s $6.4 Million of equity. A White Plains Urban Renewal Agency “bond issue” of $8-9 Million is expected to finance the rest of the project.  (The White Plains URA is only listed in the documents as supplying $4M in funds through bonds, but has authority to offer $8-9 Million). Low Income Tax Credit Equity is also sought and would contribute $6.3 to the project.

 

 The Pinnacle Affordable Housing By the Numbers. Photos by WPCNR News

 

 

“This extension is necessary to afford our client time to secure various governmental grants, which are necessary to the financial viability for constructing the fifty-two (52) units,” the letter requesting the extension said.

 

Demolition on The Pinnacle project was supposed to have begun in September, but it did not. The letter states,

 

“Accordingly, during the additional time needed to obtain commitments from these governmental funding sources, Pinnacle-Westchester LLC will review its design for this building. It has completed one-hundred percent Design Development Drawings upon which its construction estimates have been based. However, further engineering is needed so that alternative structural systems or other modifications mayf be implemented to achieve cost savings.”

 

Following is the fund sources and tax credit calculation and “use of funds” supplied as requested by Councilman Benjamin Boykin:

 

 

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. October 3, 2006: In a very rare occurence tonight, the Common Council took an item up for discussion on the consent agenda.

 It was in the matter of the last-Thursday-evening-submitted Memorandum of Understanding on subdivision of New York Presbyterian Hospital property, the council was being asked to approve that the city may acquire a 5.5 acre park from the Hospital in exchange for subdividing a  60-acre adjacent parcel for 125 homes (down 6 units from as first reported based on last week’s MOU information).

The Council soundly bounced the Memorandum  back to the Mayor as being too vague, laying the city open to unknown expenses. This, after they had no particularly objections to the concept in the work session. However, five of the six councilpersons found plenty to disagree with in the fine print. Glen Hockley was the only individual in support of the proposal, however, he did vote in favor of tabling the matter.

The rejection of the MOU (as it is anacronymically referred) in its present form was spearheaded by the instant research of Councilman Dennis Power, which he apparently conducted since last Thursday evening when he received the MOU. Power read a listing of careful technical questions he raised over 40 minutes of sustained questioning of the Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel about the Memorandum of Understanding over fees due in the subdividing process, and the question of what would the hospital do the the rest of its land. (Habel said the hospital would follow its Master Plan, but knew of no indications of any hospital projects for “the rest of the property”.) Habel insisted the MOA was simply to acquire parkland for the city and nothing else. Mayor Delfino assured the television audience that the hospital has “no plan” to execute a subdivision “at the present time.”

Councilpersons Thomas Roach (complaining about the vagueness of what happens if the hospital walks away from the deal and whether the proton accelerator project still remains alive in that event), Rita Malmud (Council authority to approve the budget)  and Benjamin Boykin  (demanding a specific budget analysis before approval), and Councilman Arnold Bernstein (preferring to see a larger park parcel) all agreeing tabled the Memorandum until the Regular Common Council meeting of November 6, 2006. Prior to that the council is to meet to discuss rewording of the MOU with the Corporation Counsel, and the Planning Commissioner.

The document, Edward Dunphy, the Corporation Counsel, said appeared to be headed for substantial revision. Councilpersons statements were greeted with applause from the handful of citizens who were invited to speak about the Memorandum of Understanding even though it was a consent agenda item and was not in a public hearing mode.

Six citizens spoke, denouncing the MOU. Harriet Baker described it as “an insult.” Lynn Huber, Treasurer  of Concerned Citizens for Open Space ridiculed the statements that the 5.5 acres would be preserved in perpetuity, noting that the 60 acres if turned into 131 homes would  “be destroyed in perpetuity.” Dan Seidel castigated the Memorandum of Understanding on grounds that the city should not be doing it, when there was so much else to do. Marc Pollitzer expressed budget concerns, said the School District Capital Project Committee should have been informed of this city intention to subdivide on the basis of any subdivision impact on school district enrollment.