Public/private downtown Albany development plan discussions to continue

ALBANY — Several Albany city commissioners expressed enthusiastic support for the Project Artesia downtown development plan presented by the multifaceted Albany Development Partners group at Tuesday’s commission meeting.

“The devil,” as Ward V Albany City Commissioner Bob Langstaff pointed out Tuesday evening, will be in the details.

“Frankly, I expected I would be the most skeptical person among this board,” Langstaff said after listening to a presentation by Brandon Riddick-Seals and Rufus Montgomery, who served as spokesmen for the group that includes 10 companies that have been involved in management projects that exceed $212 billion. “And, trust me, I have done a lot of research on your companies. But I have to say I am impressed.

“I’m so impressed, I feel comfortable in saying let’s move forward.”

Representatives of the 10 entities that make up Albany Development Partners — Chasm Architecture, Stantec civil engineering and landscape design, Engie P3 finance and energy efficiency services, PlanLED lighting design and engineering, Field Equity real estate development, ConorAquisitions hotel development, Project Cost Solutions engineering and program management, SL King planning and engineering, Alston & Bird legal team, RS Development Group — have already spent around $200,000 of their own money researching the feasibility of a development project in Albany.

Their 90-day discovery led to a master plan that would include redevelopment of the Albany Civic Center into a 180-bed hotel, conference and entertainment center, and retail development of downtown Albany and the Flint Riverfront.

“I’m really excited about the possibilities of this partnership,” Mayor Dorothy Hubbard said. “I know there are all kinds of meetings just in the education arena that are out there that we could host, but Albany just doesn’t have anywhere to bring them.

“What we’ve been presented is a public/private partnership if I’ve ever seen one.”

The plan Riddick-Seals and Montgomery outlined is relatively simple, one that literally “lights the way” to development. Utilizing some $2.5 million in annual savings the group said it estimates the city is losing on its properties through utilities inefficiencies, Albany Development Partners would invest that money and, incrementally, start the development of the city’s downtown.

“No additional tax dollars would be required for investment,” Riddick-Seals said. “The primary investment capital would be provided by Engie and PlanLED. Through this capital, through the money generated from utilities savings and through private investment, our master plan would take shape. Then, there would be revenue generators, like the 180-bed hotel that our research says would absolutely work here.

“We’d take that pool of $2.5 million in savings — money that the city is paying now for inefficiencies — and over the course of 10 years, though investment, hopefully turn it into $50 million. With $280 million in private dollars, you’ll see this master plan come to life. We’re not going to try and drop all of this on you at one time. We’ll do it in phases, walk into this with the city hand-in-hand.”

In addition to turning the Civic Center into a mixed-use complex for entertainment, conferences and retail, the Albany Development Partners’ plan also calls for food and beverage establishments in the downtown district, other retail outlets — particularly along the riverfront — and development of a sports complex that would include baseball, softball and multi-use fields.

Ward I Commissioner Jon Howard, the longest-serving member of the board, said no dramatic change takes place without taking a gamble.

“Maybe this is a gamble, but sometimes you have to take a gamble to bring about change,” Howard said. “This is only in the incubation stage right now, and maybe facing this is a mixed blessing for us. But I am voting in favor of moving forward with this discussion.”

Ward II’s Bobby Coleman offered the only feedback that questioned the development plan.

“Counting the presentation you did before and this meeting, I’ve now had about an hour to learn what the plan is about,” Coleman said. “That is not enough time. I’m not opposed to what you want to do, but I just don’t know enough about it to determine whether we should even continue the discussion.”

Told by Montgomery that the development group was not asking for anything other than approval to continue the discussion that could eventually lead to a memorandum of understanding, Coleman said, “I don’t know enough about what you’re planning to even determine if I want to continue this discussion. We owe it to the taxpayers to have this information, and none of my colleagues even knows what they’re being asked to consider tonight.”

Ward III’s B.J. Fletcher countered Coleman’s argument.

“With all respect, I find it appalling that you would make a statement like that on my behalf,” Fletcher said. “This position is not about the hour or two of meetings we have each month, it’s about doing your homework, and I’ve done mine.

“This group has put up their own money to look into our community, and they’ve put together a plan that deserves our attention. I, for one, want this conversation to continue. They’re not asking us to put up any money or to agree to anything other than to continue this conversation. I’m definitely in favor of that.”

Hubbard eventually had to gavel down the two board members as their argument escalated.

Ward VI’s Tommie Postell said a level of trust had to be reached for the project to move out of the planning stage.

“When you initiate a project like this, one that will bring significant change to a community, there has to be a level of trust among all involved,” Postell said. “Let’s not tear this down before they’ve even gotten into the superstructure of what they’re trying to achieve.”

The board voted 6-0-1 to continue discussions with the group partners. Coleman abstained.