Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks city land and streetscape funds for 12‑unit 1st Street project; council offers conditional support
Summary
Local developer Bob Rasmussen asked the council for the conveyance of a small downtown parcel and reimbursement of streetscape costs to build a four‑story, 12‑unit residential building with first‑floor parking; council members raised precedent and financial‑responsibility concerns and asked staff for stricter performance terms and more detailed cost information before committing.
Bob Rasmussen, the local developer behind several recent downtown projects, asked the City of St. Charles council for a ‘head nod’ to proceed with design and further investment on a concept for a four‑story building on Building 8 (Lot 4) at Illinois Street and Route 31. Rasmussen said the project would place parking on the ground floor and 12 apartment units above and estimated construction at roughly $3.2–$3.3 million. He told the council staff had appraised the city‑owned lot at about $340,000 and that the developer was requesting conveyance of the parcel at no cost and reimbursement for streetscape improvements estimated at $75,000–$100,000.
The request prompted detailed questioning from council members about the project’s financials, traffic and parking, and the precedent that might be set by conveying taxpayer‑owned land. Councilmembers pressed whether the city would require performance deadlines and limits on the developer’s ability to sell the property if conveyed at no cost; Derek, the city staff presenter, said any conveyance would be structured with deadlines, default provisions and conditions so the city would retain control if development did not proceed.
Rasmussen emphasized the parcel has sat vacant for several years and framed the request as a way to finish a long‑running 1st Street redevelopment effort: “Our intent tonight is to get a positive rating from the council so that we go ahead and spend the next big chunk of money designing the building,” he said. He also warned that without some incentive the project may not be financially viable at current construction and interest‑rate conditions.
Council responses varied. Some members said the design and potential tax revenue (staff projected roughly $100,000 annually to the 1st Street TIF once taxable) made the concept attractive; others said giving away land and covering streetscape costs would be difficult to justify given tight city budgets and past commitments to staff compensation. Multiple councilmembers asked staff to draft contract language that would require the developer to pay for the property if final construction costs came in under a defined threshold and to set firm development milestones. One alderman suggested a sliding scale in which the developer would pay for land if final costs fell below a stated target.
The item was a discussion‑only presentation; the council did not vote. City staff and Rasmussen agreed to return with additional, more detailed financial information and draft contract terms, and the council asked the developer to provide elevation views or cross‑sections to help neighbors visualize height and massing.
