Harbor Corp. agrees to single LOI process and extends developer closing by 60 days

Harbor Corp. directors voted to extend the closing date for a proposed waterfront development by 60 days and to pursue a single, combined letter of intent (LOI) covering two vacant parcels adjacent to the 33 Building.

The action came after a long discussion about grant funding, site work and utilities for the new-build site and the separate 33 Building. Board members and staff agreed to circulate redlined LOI drafts to the developer and the board—s counsel, and to continue negotiating easement language that will allow the developer to offer new infrastructure for future dedication to the city.

Board members said the extra time is necessary to align the city—s easement and planning steps with the developer—s financing and grant efforts. The extension postpones the automatic May 1 settlement date in the purchase and sale agreement; the board approved a 60-day extension (moving the outside closing date into July) to allow common council action on the easement materials and the start of the street-dedication process.

Directors and staff also agreed to consolidate two LOIs that a developer submitted for the two vacant parcels next to the 33 Building into one LOI with two closings or phases. Board counsel and the developer were asked to exchange redlined drafts so the board and the mayor can review them before the next meeting.

Staff and the developer discussed grant sources and what work grant proceeds may support. The board was told that one identified grant — described in meeting discussion as a DASNY (or DASD in some remarks) reimbursement grant of about $1,500,000 — has been scoped to ground improvement at the new-build pad and utility extensions to that pad, not to renovation work on the 33 Building. Participants said that scope could be adjusted if cost estimates change, but as described at the meeting DASNY funds would pay for site preparation and utilities for the new-build pad only; funds for the 33 Building remain separate and contingent on additional state flood-resiliency funding or other grants.

Engineers and the developer described structural and site constraints that informed their recommendations. The team said the new building would need piled foundations (about 284 piles of roughly 55–65 feet each) and a pile cap; estimates presented in the meeting put piling and related pile-cap costs in the roughly $420,000–$480,000 range for the new-build footprint. Meeting remarks noted that interior gutting and selective demolition of the 33 Building is an alternative approach the developer is studying; demolition and hazardous-material remediation estimates discussed ranged from tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on scope.

On utilities, staff reported that conduits for water and electrical service had been installed during earlier infrastructure work and that the conduits are intended to allow future service connections when building uses are defined. The water lateral to the 33 Building is not connected because the water authority will not allow a lateral installation without a defined use; participants said conduits sized for future lines are already in place. Gas has not been extended to the 33 Building; meeting remarks said a new gas run would be considered during later utility design, and grant funds may be sought to pay for that extension.

Easement and dedication steps were a central operational issue. The board reviewed a draft easement agreement that would (a) reserve trail and basin-access easements for the city and (b) require the developer to offer new roads and related infrastructure for dedication to the city after construction to city standards. Legal staff and city planning staff emphasized that the city cannot contractually commit the common council to accept a dedication in advance; the negotiated language aims to trigger the public process (planning board review, a public hearing and a council determination) without conditioning the sale solely on final city acceptance of the completed road.

After discussing the drafting details and calendar, the Harbor Corp. board moved and approved a 60-day extension of the settlement date to allow the council and planning process to proceed in parallel with continued contract drafting and grant/financing work. The motion was moved by Jack, seconded by Phil, and the board recorded the vote as in favor (ayes) on the record.

Board members directed staff to circulate the redlined LOIs and the buyer-prepared amendment language to the full board and to the mayor—s office; staff was asked to work with the developer—s attorneys and city counsel to refine the amendment so it conditions closing on the appropriate administrative approvals rather than on physical completion of all infrastructure.

The board also noted related housekeeping votes during the meeting (procedural approvals to post documents to the state site and a routine motion to adjourn) but the principal substantive outcome was the LOI consolidation and the approved 60-day closing extension.

Looking ahead, staff said the city will present the easement agreement and a public-hearing resolution to common council so that the council can start the street-dedication process. Planning-board timing was discussed as a parallel track; staff suggested the earliest practical public hearing could be scheduled with published notice in early April so planning and council review can proceed while the parties finalize LOI and closing language.