St. Charles Shocker: Council OKs Lexington Club

A deeply divided St. Charles City Council on Monday night reversed course on the Lexington Club development, pushing through five ordinances that clear the path for the developer to proceed on a project that has proven contentious both for its scope and for its reliance on tax-increment financing.

Aldermen voted 5-5 on each of a series of motions, with Mayor Donald DeWitte casting the tie-breaking vote on each. As mayor, DeWitte seldom votes on issues — typically, the mayor and chairmen presiding over City Council committee meetings vote only to break a tie.

DeWitte said after the meeting his record on the Lexington Club project is well-established and that his vote should not have surprised anyone.

Those voting in favor of the five measures were 1st Ward Alderman Jon Monken, 2nd Ward Aldermen Clifford Carrignan and Rita Anne Payleitner, 4th Ward Alderman James E. Martin and 5th Ward Alderman Ed Bessner.

The council’s divided vote reflects not only how contentious the Lexington Club proposal has been, but reaction to it also indicated that the already politically charged issue will continue to be a factor in the 2013 Consolidated Election on April 9.

Monday night’s meeting was packed to a nearly standing-room-only crowd, but not all were there for the Lexington Club votes — a sizable contingent represented the Tri-City Chargers, whose team of 9- and 10-year-olds from St. Charles, Batavia and Geneva on Dec. 7 . The City Council passed a resolution honoring the team for its accomplishment.

But the City Council Chambers still were crowded when the team left and aldermen began taking action on the Lexington Club ordinances.

The City Council on Dec. 10 voted 7-2 to reject the TIF for the Lexington Club project, with several members expressing dissatisfaction with a repackaging of the project to provide it with additional TIF funding, considered a linchpin to financing the project, whose cost is estimated between $40 million and $45 million.

Revisions to the Lexington proposal had increased the developer’s request for TIF funding reimbursements from $5.25 million for demolition, environmental remediation and site grading to $6.29 million — a level which aldermen rejected in December.

But in Monday, the developer returned with a revision knocking the TIF reimbursement request to $5.6 million.

The council approved three measures — one creating the Lexington Club TIF district, a second approving a TIF redevelopment plan for the site, and a third approving the TIF funding agreement with the reduced reimbursement proposed by the developer.

The City Council then formalized its May 2012 Planning and Development Committee vote by approving two ordinances related to the adoption of the planned-unit development and development agreement for the project, clearing the last hurdles for Lexington Club.

Twofold Opposition

Opposition to the project has fallen primarily on two fronts — one related to the TIF element, the second related to the land-use plan for the project.

Some residents had opposed the use of a TIF to support the project, fearing that despite St. Charles officials’ assurances to the contrary, that the city could end up shouldering an additional debt, as occurred with the 1st Street Project. City officials, however, have said that the TIF monies generated by the Lexington Club development cannot be reimbursed until after the work is done and the property has begun generating additional property tax revenue, ensuring the development would not saddle the city with additional debt.

Later in the evening, aldermen advanced a proposal to issued $27 million in general obligation bonds to refinance the debt on that project. The bond issue cannot proceed without formal City Council, which could come before the end of the month.

Perhaps the greater area of criticism of the Lexington Club development has come from those living in the area who had opposed the number of new homes planned at the site — about 100 two-story townhomes, as well as 27 single-family detached homes. Neighbors complained the number of homes was too high and should be scaled back or have other uses considered for the site.