Marcus Center says city owes $2.7M for shared garage repairs; committee debates funding and RFP process

Kevin Giglinto, president and CEO of the Marcus Performing Arts Center, told the Committee on City Development on Oct. 7 that the Marcus Center and the city have long shared responsibility for capital maintenance of the parking structure adjacent to the Marcus Center campus.

Giglinto and Katie Dillo, the center’s chief financial officer, said the center has been fronting costs that were intended to be treated as a mutual obligation under a 1985 lease amendment; their accounting shows a cumulative city share of $2.7 million due to the Marcus Center’s advancing the city’s presumed portion for past capital improvements.

Giglinto said the center is not seeking a grant; it asked the committee to consider funding near‑term repairs and credited any payment toward the documented outstanding balance. For immediate needs, Marcus Center staff estimated about $189,000 for concrete and structural repairs and roughly $70,000 for elevator maintenance to keep the garage safe and operational over the next 12–15 months. They also warned that prolonged operation without further investment could require recurring annual repairs on the order of $100,000–$200,000.

City staff and legal counsel reviewed the lease language and said the lease requires that parking revenues be split 50–50 between the city and Marcus Center but also allows revenues to be used for operations, maintenance and repairs before any split. The city attorney advised the committee that the 1985 amendment did not create an explicit obligation for the city to contribute cash beyond its share of parking revenues and sign‑off on capital improvements; that created a “gap” between what the Marcus Center has tracked and what the city’s written obligation requires.

Public Works staff noted the lease language is ambiguous: the lessee (Marcus Center) is required to pay operation and maintenance but the capital improvement program itself is to be “mutually funded and agreed upon.” DPW said the structure is city land but privately operated and insured in practice, and Graver (structural) engineering assessments have been used to track needs.

Aldermen raised practical concerns about safety and liability. The city attorney said the city’s property insurance covers the structure’s physical damage but not liability for personal injury; Marcus Center indemnification language exists but the city may still be drawn into litigation because it owns the land. Committee members also discussed whether tax incremental financing (TIF) proceeds or other downtown redevelopment revenues could be used to fund repairs or be tied to any future sale or redevelopment proceeds for the site.

Marcus Center representatives emphasized the center’s economic role — generating about $60 million in annual economic activity and more than $1.3 million in annual sales tax revenue — and urged discussion of short‑term assistance to maintain the facility while redevelopment planning continues. Commissioner Lafayette Crump and other staff said they were open to exploring options but that any city contribution would require council approval and careful review of the lease and financial records.

Committee members moved to hold the communication and the linked RFP/resolution files to the call of the chair for additional documentation; the RFP for redevelopment of the site will be discussed further with the department and potentially revisited depending on the status of a related developer proposal across the street.