Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CITY OF SYRACUSE,
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF
v.
LANCE DENNQ
COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
ss
1.
I was a member of the City of Syracuse Common Council ("Common Council") from
2008 to December 31, 2013. While on the Common Council, I actively participated in
the disposition by the City of Syracuse (the "City") of the 32 acres formerly owned by the
New York State Canal Corporation (the "Property") for the proposed $342 million urban,
mixed-use project in the Inner Harbor on Onondaga Lake in the City of Syracuse (the
My understanding is that COR was determined to be the successful bidder for the
Request for Proposals ("RFP") issued by the City to developers in September 201 1 for
proposals to develop the Project.
3.
Council that COR may seek a PILOT in the future, none of my fellow councilors or
representatives from the Mayor's office objected or otherwise expressed concern.
4.
After this study session, but before the February 6, 2012 Common Council meeting, I met
with Mr. Aiello at his office to discuss the Project. During that meeting, I again raised
whether COR would commit to not seeking a PILOT for the Project. Mr. Aiello's
response was consistent with his statement at the February 1, 2012 study sessionthat
COR was not seeking a PILOT at the time, but COR may need a PILOT for the Project in
the future.
5.
During the February 6, 2012 Common Council meeting, I voted against approval of the
MOU because COR was not prohibited from seeking a PILOT for the Project in the
future.
6.
The Common Council considered the proposed Disposition Agreement between the City
and COR pursuant to which the Property was to be transferred to COR (the "Disposition
Agreement"). Again, I believe that one or more representatives of the City of Syracuse
Mayor's office, including Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Aiello were present at this study session.
During the study session, I again raised the issue of whether COR would commit to not
seeking a PILOT for the Project. Mr. Aiello 's response was consistent with his statement
at the February 1, 2012 study session and my discussion with him after that study session.
Specifically, Mr. Aiello stated to the Common Council that COR may need a PILOT for
the Project in the future. Despite this unequivocal notification, none of my councilors or
representatives from Mayor's office objected or otherwise expressed concern.
7.
On June 18, 2012, the Common Council voted to approve the Disposition Agreement. I
was the only Common Council member who voted against approval of the Disposition
Agreement. I expressly stated during that meeting that one of the reasons I was voting
against the Disposition Agreement was that COR had not made a commitment not to seek
a PILOT for the Project in the future and that the Disposition Agreement did not prevent
COR from seeking a PILOT. I specifically referenced the Destiny situation, which had
involved a PILOT that Destiny had obtained for a mall expansion:
"When we don't
remember the past, we are condemned to repeat it. My concern is that an unknown SIDA
board would put us back where we are today with Destiny." I was referring to the fact
that Destiny had obtained a PILOT and that COR was not bound to refrain from
obtaining a PILOT under the Disposition Agreement. One of the other reasons I voted
against the Disposition Agreement was because the City was not requiring COR to enter
into a community benefits agreement in connection with the Project. I likely would have
voted to approve the Disposition Agreement had it contained a provision limiting COR's
right to seek a PILOT and a provision requiring it to enter into a community benefits
agreement.
8.
In sum, in connection with my review of the MOU and the Disposition Agreement, I
understood that COR was unwilling to agree not seek a PILOT in connection with the
Project. To the extent COR expressed this position repeatedly and consistently at the
Common Council's study sessions and I raised this issue at the June 18, 2012 Common
Council meeting, I am certain that both the Common Council and the Mayor's office
were aware of COR's unwillingness to agree to a provision limiting its right to seek a
PILOT in connection with the Project in the future. When I voted on the MOU and the
Disposition Agreement, I did not rely and, indeed, could not have relied on any
representation by COR that it would not seek a PILOT in connection-wf
the future.
LANCE DENNO
Notary Public
PATRICIA F.RUSSO
Notary Public, State of New Ybrfc
Appointed In Cayuga County
Reg. No. #01 RU5083332
CX-
ie Project in