Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presses Dayton for up to $5.2 million in public assistance; council asks for more analysis
Summary
Developer of the proposed Parkway neighborhood briefed Dayton City Council on a multi‑phase project and requested a package of public finance assistance (fee forgiveness/land write-down of up to $2.7M and a proposed $2.5M city financing option). Council praised the project but said the late submission and scale of subsidy require detailed Ehlers analysis and a January work session.
A developer seeking to build a multi‑phase, high-density residential project on the south side of I‑94 told Dayton City Council on Dec. 10 he needs city participation in public infrastructure to unlock the development.
Zach (staff) summarized the city's public-finance request packet: the city was being asked to forgive up to $2,700,000 in city fees (including a proposed land write‑down) for phases 1 and 2 and to consider an additional $2,500,000 in city financing (presented as a bond or alternatives such as a city loan or a special assessment). Staff said the total request was a combination of waived fees, land valuation adjustments and proposed debt support intended to cover the roadway and traffic signal costs that would service the development.
Developer Michael Elsifon (speaker 10) said the project would eventually exceed 600 units and that phase 1 would include about 180 units; he told council lenders expected a development agreement to be in place for a Jan. 8 land closing. Elsifon emphasized the public nature of the road and signal work and framed the request as public infrastructure that would generate property-tax revenue over time. He said third‑party appraisals supported the purchase price for the land and presented a developer pro forma that, he said, showed a high private-to-public leverage ratio.
Municipal advisor Jason Arzvaldo of Ehlers (speaker 18) told council staff had flagged several concerns: the land value was above prior assessments and the city's earlier analysis stopped short of a full multi‑phase feasibility study. Council members repeatedly asked for a line-by-line spreadsheet showing how fees, land write‑downs and bonding scenarios affect city cash flow and levy impacts. Multiple council members said they had received key financial details only the morning of the meeting and described the request as late in the process.
Council members praised the project quality but voiced strong reservations about the $2.5M city investment option. Several members said they could see agreeing to fee waivers or a land write‑down tied strictly to city property or direct public improvements (for example, the road alignment on city-owned land), but were reluctant to act as an investor in a private development beyond the city's direct interest. One council member called the full $2.5M ask ‘‘investor-like’’ and said the city should not become an equity investor absent comprehensive modeling.
The council did not take a vote on the request and directed staff and Ehlers to prepare detailed scenarios for a January work session. Developer Elsifon agreed to provide his spreadsheets and pro formas and said he would continue to cooperate; he also said he preferred not to have the project killed by a hasty decision.
Key quote from the developer: "I'm not asking for TIF. I'm asking for public infrastructure to allow this development to move forward," Michael Elsifon said. He added the project would generate ongoing tax revenues that, in his view, would exceed the city's initial outlay over time.
Next steps: Staff will produce a packet with Ehlers scenarios, bonding repayment illustrations and the developer's sources-and-uses spreadsheets before a planned Jan. 14 work session so council can evaluate the alternatives without an emergency timetable.
