FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2016 02:54 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68

INDEX NO. 2015EF5077

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

ONONDAGA COUNTY

CITY OF SYRACUSE,

Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF

v.

LANCE DENNQ

COR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC,

COR INNER HARBOR COMPANY, LLC,

Index No.: 2015EF5077

COR SOLAR STREET COMPANY IV, LLC,

COR VAN RENSSELAER STREET COMPANY, LLC

COR WEST KIRKPATRICK STREET COMPANY, LLC

and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
ss

STATE OF NEW YORK

LANCE DENNO, being duly sworn, states that:

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

"Project") by COR Development Company, LLC ("COR").

2.

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.

In 2012, 1 participated in the review and approval of the Memorandum of Understanding

between the City and COR and approved by the City on February 6, 2012. I specifically
recall that the Common Council considered the MOU in a study session on February 1,
2012. I believe that one or more representatives of the City of Syracuse Mayor's office,

including Ben Walsh, Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Business Development,

and Steven Aiello, COR's president, were present at this study session. During this study
session, I asked Mr. Aiello directly whether COR would commit to not seeking a
payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreement ("PILOT") in connection with the Project. Mr. Aiello
stated that, although COR at the time was not seeking a PILOT, COR may need a PILOT
for the Project in the future. Although Mr. Aiello unequivocally notified the Common

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

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this 6th day of January, 2016
A

Notary Public

PATRICIA F.RUSSO
Notary Public, State of New Ybrfc
Appointed In Cayuga County
Reg. No. #01 RU5083332
CX-

My Commission Expires Aug 1 1, ^ "

ie Project in