Chesterfield council approves financing, management deal to buy Main Circle building over resident objections

Chesterfield City Council on second reading authorized financing to acquire the Main Circle (MassMutual) building and separately approved a management and leasing agreement for the property after a 6–2 roll‑call vote on both measures.

The votes came after an extended public‑comment period in which residents offered sharply divided views. Mary Brown, a resident of Chesterfield Lakes Road, said she supported bill 3566 and argued the building would expand parking and give the city space for future growth: “I’m speaking in support of bill 3 5 6 6,” she said. Charlie Foxman, chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Arts Advisory Committee, told the council the property includes “422, I believe, extra additional parking spaces,” and said that acquiring the site would avoid the expense of building a new parking garage.

Opponents urged caution about price, market risk and deferred maintenance. Larry Balsman of Meadowbrook Farms said he opposed the acquisition and warned against giving the council a “blank check,” noting possible costly upgrades to mechanical and HVAC systems. Several speakers pointed to differing appraisals and questioned whether the city might be overpaying.

City Administrator Geisel presented the financing package on behalf of staff and requested second reading of bill 3566, described in the reading as a lease‑purchase transaction “the proceeds of which will be used to pay the costs of acquiring certain real property and the improvements located thereon.” After motions and a second, council members voted on final approval: Council members McGinnis and Tocco voted “No”; the remaining six members voted “Yes.”

Council also approved bill 3567, authorizing the city administrator to execute a management and leasing agreement with Gershman Commercial Real Estate LLC to run day‑to‑day operations and leasing functions for the property. City staff clarified that routine property management would be handled by the contracted agent rather than by city staff.

Supporters who spoke to the council emphasized a mix of near‑term and long‑term benefits: immediate parking relief for the amphitheater and surrounding Central Park, potential space for Parks Department operations and community programming, and projected positive cash flow from existing leases. Rob Rodeman called the plan “a financially sound deal” and said current lease revenues are expected to support maintenance costs.

Opponents and skeptics urged the council to weigh appraisal disparities, the potential for real‑estate market shifts and the cost of bringing older building systems up to current codes. Larry Balsman and others said mechanical and ventilations upgrades could be expensive, especially given changing refrigerant and ventilation standards.

The council did not amend the financing or management motions at final vote. Both bills passed 6–2 on the final roll calls. The record shows the two dissenting votes were by Council member McGinnis and Council member Tocco.

Council members and staff said the purchase would be paid in part from funds earmarked by the TIF for nearby redevelopment and that insurance and replacement‑cost estimates had been presented during prior briefings. The council directed staff to proceed under the approved documents; no separate motion to delay or to seek additional appraisals was taken during the final votes.

The council’s decisions are procedural: second‑reading approvals and authorizations to execute the identified documents. Implementation steps, property management timetables and any required tenant‑ or lease‑specific actions will be handled under the management agreement and as staff brings follow‑up items to council.