Developer, trustees clash over need for outside financial review of Ardmore/Vermont project

Developer representatives for the Ardmore (403 North Ardmore) project told the Village Board they have financing and urged trustees to approve zoning so work can move forward, while staff and legal counsel said the village must decide whether it wants to enter a new redevelopment agreement that could provide TIF reimbursements and should be supported by an independent financial analysis.

Attorney Nick Standiford and developer representatives said the developer has financing in place and that an amendment to the prior redevelopment agreement largely updates dates. The developer noted prior delays and said the project is ready to proceed.

Village legal counsel and staff explained the distinction between approving a PUD (zoning) and entering an RDA. An RDA is a negotiated agreement that can obligate the village to reimburse eligible redevelopment costs under the TIF Act; the previous RDA included reimbursements and a property conveyance and had no stated reimbursement cap. Staff recommended retaining SB Friedman to evaluate the project’s financial viability and to recommend an appropriate RDA cap or terms before the village considers any new RDA.

Trustees asked for documentation of developer financing. Counsel reported the developer provided commitments on paper (including a senior lender commitment and an energy‑infrastructure equity partner), but staff had not independently verified funding and noted that in a prior cycle a lender’s financing did not complete at closing. The developer argued that delaying zoning while SB Friedman prepared a report would hinder underwriting and loan closing. The board did not authorize the SB Friedman contract at the meeting and clarified that the PUD could be considered separately from any RDA vote.

Trustees asked staff to provide missing documentation and to consider whether the village wishes to pursue an RDA; no RDA was adopted at the meeting.