Lockport — The Lockport City Council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday was once again dedicated largely to discussion of the future of the Lockport Square development.

The development property, located at I-355 and 159th Street, has been under consideration in various forms since 2007, originally intended as a large commercial shopping center featuring stores like Target and Home Depot and more recently including options for a movie theater and car dealership.

While the Bettenhausen car dealership is set to open later this year, Marcus Theaters backed out after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current proposal for the property is a mixed-use development with some additional, smaller commercial property and a second hotel being added to the site as well as a residential development of townhomes and apartment buildings.

Creating a residential neighborhood on the property would require the City Council to change the zoning of the parcel, a measure which has proven controversial, despite the board giving unanimous approval to the developer, Jancko Group, to explore the option several years ago.

After discussion of the subject grew heated at the Jan. 3 meeting, the issue was tabled until Jan. 17 with the council members resolving to do more research and gather public feedback on the issue.

With an additional two weeks to consider the matter behind them, the board was still split, though the conversation remained much less contentious, with Mayor Steven Streit beginning the discussion with an apology to Jancko Group representative Jim Purinton.

“I’d like to start by apologizing to you, Jim,” Streit said. “I acted unprofessionally with how I spoke to you. I would hope you don’t hold it against the board or the city, that was on me, and I’m sorry.”

While the conversation covered many of the same points from the previous meeting about the pros and cons of the development, the crux of the issue repeatedly came down to community demand and what sort of tax base the city hopes to create with the development.

Purinton and several aldermen, including Joanne Bartelsen who works in real estate, pointed out that there is a demand for apartments among young people and seniors and for affordable housing options in Lockport that would have appeal in the current market.

Sales tax vs. property tax

As originally envisioned, Lockport Square would have been a large source of sales tax revenue with a smaller boost in property taxes from the businesses. However, that vision is unlikely to ever come to fruition, prompting the council to debate if the city should forgo the potential for a big sales tax source in exchange for bringing in housing to expand its property tax base.

Aldermen Darren Deskin, Patrick MacDonald, and JR Gillogly argued that it was better to capitalize on the property by allowing the residential development to go forward, and that the property taxes would benefit the city, as well as the local schools and park district.

“Sales tax does not help the schools,” McDonald argued. “The high school is asking residents for a referendum. They need millions of dollars to refurbish that school, and more residents defers the tax roll and spreads it out, lowering the tax burden.”

Lockport Township High School has placed a $85 million building bond proposal on the March 19 primary ballot that would be used to cover the costs of renovations and repairs to Lockport Central campus.

“This has been going on for years,” Gillogly said. “That’s why we all agreed to look at residential options. I’ve been for this because I haven’t seen anything happening there with commercial development. They put in exactly what we asked for and I like the layout.”

Streit argued that by committing to the residential plan, the city is forever giving up the potential for the property to be used for its original commercial designation and the potential sales tax revenue, which would go exclusively to the city.

“I don’t doubt the residential buildings would fill up, but I have some doubts about the commercial that’s planned here filling up,” Streit said. “Just because we can do this, doesn’t mean we should. Why would we get rid of our last viable commercial lot? I don’t feel like this is a unique development at all. It’s just a subdivision behind some commercial lots and I think the hotel is in a terrible spot. Assembling all this property was nearly impossible, so I think it’s special and I don’t think we should throw in the towel on it. Things could change, but once this happens it’s gone forever.”

McDonald responded, “It’s always something else, something else. When do you stop saying it’s something else and move forward with something which can actually generate revenue.”

According to information presented by Director of Community and Economic Development Lance Thies, the proposed development would bring in an annual estimated total of $1,353,788 in property taxes, $145,687 of which would go directly to the city.

“It’s not just about money,” Streit said. “It’s about services people want. All these people can move in and still complain that there’s not places to shop or get something to eat.”

“People want the money to afford to go get a hamburger though,” McDonald said. “Personal finances are going to be a priority, and this is a way to give them some tax relief.”

Aldermen Jonathan Pugh and Pat Sheehan both suggested that it would be better to wait and see how the market plays out a little longer before rushing to approve the plan, while Bartelsen admitted she was uncertain after the extended debate.

“I thought I knew how I felt on this, but now I’m totally confused,” she said. “A lot of questions have come up and I don’t know what to do at this point.”

Eventually, the council agreed to let the measure go to a vote at the Feb. 7 City Council meeting, at which there will be a final discussion about the plan