ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Small Business Resource Event
Report on June 2nd Small Business Resource Event.
II.
Subject:
Action:
First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Make a recommendation to City Council on the First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Development Agreement.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Carolina Theatre
Update on Carolina Theatre.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for August 19th.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Council members John Lassiter, Anthony Foxx, Nancy Carter and Patsy Kinsey
James Mitchell
3:30pm – 4:40pm.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
Handout: Survival Tips for Small Businesses, CharlotteObserver.com.
PowerPoint presentation: First Ward Park & Parking.
PowerPoint presentation: Carolina Theatre Update.
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
John Lassiter, Chair:
We have three items on our agenda today. We have a special guest with us today and
I am going to let Angela Grier introduce him to us. This is part of things we have
made happen in the City.
Grier:
Jeremiah Dorest is our Mayor’s Youth Employment Program intern for the summer. He
is a graduate of West Charlotte High School and this fall he will be attending Clemson
University. He will be majoring in international business and finance; we are so happy
to have him with us.
Lassiter:
We are glad to have you and wish you the very best; if there is anything we can do to
help you while you are here, just let us know. We have over 500 kids working this
summer and this shows how well we have taken a program that had 125 kids just two
years ago and we have doubled it and doubled it again. Congratulations staff we
commend you for your work. We have an update on the Small Business Resource
Event with our newest executive Nancy Rosado here to tell us about it.
I. Subject:
Small Business Resource Event
Rosado:
First of all I wanted to thank all the Council Members and staff for your help in putting
the Small Business Resource Event together. I know Council Member Lassiter was
there as well as Council Member Foxx and Council Member Mitchell so we really
appreciated your attendance. The event took place on Tuesday, June 2nd at Friendship
Missionary Baptist Church from 8:00 to 11:30am. We had about 100 people in
attendance and they listened to Economic Overview provided by Mark Vitner who is
the Director and Senior Economist at Wachovia Bank. He provided great speaking
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 2
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
points and really got everyone focused on where we are currently in the economy, not
only nationally, but in the City of Charlotte. He provided great remarks and gave
things a great starting point for the day. The goal of the workshop was to provide
practical tips and advice for all small business owners. We wanted to make sure that
there were technical resources there and financial resources there to answer their
questions and to help them get through these economic times. This came about as a
result of feedback from the community. They felt that this was something that was
necessary and needed. So not only did they get answers for their questions and
information they also were able to network with others that are going through the
similar issues. The feedback and evaluations that we got back from about 100
participants was that this was a very useful event for them. There were three panel
discussions focusing on Sales and Marketing Strategies That Work, How To Streamline
Operations and HR Issues and the last panel discussion was on Funding Strategies and
Remaining Bankable. We had a total of 17 vendors that participated at the workshop,
10 of those were financial assistants, a lot of those were from various banks. There
were three technical assistant vendors and the rest were City representatives as well
as the SBO staff. There was really something there for you to take away. We wanted
to have an event that would be of useful value to small businesses. The cost of the
event was approximately $2,000 dollars so it was a very affordable event. Some of the
results from the event were the outreach visits that happened afterwards to some of
the businesses that were in attendance. The target audience for the event was the
businesses in the corridors as well as the Small Business Enterprise organizations. So
there have been outreach visits that have happened since then. There was someone
there from the City of Asheville who was looking at our SBO Program to model their
program for the City of Asheville. We did a two hour presentation for them and gave
them a tour of the SBO Program. There was one attendee who also became a SBE
and is actually going to facilitate one of our workshops in November; so there were
successful outcomes from the event as well. We again want to thank you for
supporting the event and if any of you who were present have feedback for us, please
let us know, we really want to hear your impressions.
Great work. Are there any questions or comments? I spoke to several of the folks and
think it was well worth it for business folks to connect and for those who want to start
a small business. They had a lot of lenders and others from other organizations that
could help. I would encourage you to capture some of those presentations for an
access point on the website to extend it further. You may want to make that accessible
in library form that facilitates the information. This can develop overtime for a
potential small business resource.
Nancy, I am so sorry that I missed this event. Small business owners that are not
happy with services nearby and frustrations with the bureaucracy involved in their
daily business. I have four citizens who are engaged in small business who might
participate in citizen groups to look at small business and the way that they interact
with small business. Is that a possibility?
What might be good is to have staff give us an inventory of what we are doing at this
stage. We did a number of projects. Let’s look at those and make an analysis. Do we
need to go back in and recreate things we did before? I think there are programs that
we don’t see all the time and programs that we have closed down because they were
not very effective and ideas that we may want to pick back up.
The last time I met with Dr. Sykes was a couple weeks ago and we talked about how
we could grow those partnerships.
If we can get an update and ideas that we can sift through. Thanks again it was a
terrific event. Our next item is an update and hopefully action on the First Ward Park
& Parking Deck. You will recall from our last meeting we had worked through most of
the open issues, but there remained some financial separation between what staff felt
was appropriate and what the developer and his interest is trying to accomplish. We
asked them to take some time and see if they could work through that issue, my
understanding is that we have something to still workout between the County and the
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 3
school system but that is in process. We hope to get this before Council on the 27th to
stay on track with the County’s cycle and our cycle so we know everybody’s time
table.
II. Subject:
First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Flynn:
At the end of this, we will ask the Committee’s recommendation to Council. We would
then be on the next Council meeting for the end of July. I am going to talk you and
give you an outline presentation about the status of the agreement. We are focusing
on what Kevin Masters has talked about with the 8th and Brevard reimbursement and
we have come to an agreement with Levine Properties on that outstanding issue that
we have a recommendation for you on. To go over once again, the Parking Deck and
the North Park Tax Increment Grant, we are slightly different language. We used this
language the last time we were with you, Tax Increment Grant; this came from Marvin
Bethune the County Attorney’s desire. Tax Increment Financing, we are really not
doing any financing.
There is no City or County debt being issued with this
agreement, it really is a grant. So that is why you see different terminology up here it
is a TIG rather than a TIF. It does count against that Tax Increment Cap that you
have there. It’s not a way to get around that, we have just come up with a new
acronym. We are going to talk about that and the key provisions around that, Council
Member Carter asked that we come back and update it. There is also a land transfer to
the County around 9th and Caldwell Streets. This will be on your agenda as well to
make this all work and then your recommendation and schedule.
I will stop
throughout the presentation to make sure that you are getting time to answer your
questions. The status of the agreement the development is finalized, we want to
thank Jeff Brown and his law firm for all the work they have done at no expense to the
City. That expense has been totally born by the Levine Properties, dug in and really
worked and redrafted, so those agreements are in place. We are still finalizing the 8th
and Brevard Reimbursement Agreement, otherwise, we would have those documents
for you today. Our intent is that if you want to see them before Council action on the
27th, we would have those to you, o.k.? Let me refresh your memory, this is the light
rail line up here and the UNC-Charlotte building at the corner of 9th and Brevard which
is now underway, right Dennis?
Right.
Here is the park which we are calling North Park; this is where the underground deck
is underneath North Park. There is a full block park, I am going to talk a couple of
times about east of Brevard these are the two parcels actually two and ½ parcels that
Levine Properties will own at the end of the day that are east of Brevard Street. That
is a future development site included in the total Tax Increment District, but when I
refer to infrastructure improvements on the east side of Brevard Street, these are the
two blocks I am talking about. You will also here me refer to a storm water line, there
is a Storm Water project that enlarges a culvert that runs down 9th Street and comes
to connect to the culvert right here. So that is why you will see storm water
mentioned. You asked us to look at some options last time about how we could solve
the problem that we are having around 8th and Brevard. We looked at the scope and
we could eliminate $200,000 dollars by eliminating the traffic signal, which is a metal
signal mast with arms, at the corner of 9th and Brevard.
This is not in our
recommendation; we have looked at that it would leave you next to a brand new UNCCharlotte building, with a traffic light on wooden poles, with wires across the
intersection. That seems a little counterproductive when we are spending a million
dollars to put lights underground and put pedestrian and nice cobra head metal lights
all up and down there. So that’s why you won’t see that in our recommendations. The
other part was to eliminate pedestrian lights on the east side of Brevard Street, we are
not recommending that either. That would give you a half finished look it’s also
something that is not required under the UMUD regulations for the developer to install,
so you will see that included in our recommendation. We also looked at eliminating the
Dennis Rash:
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 4
Foxx:
Flynn:
Harrington:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
landscaping on the east side of Brevard Street, and you will see that included in our
recommendation. Our reasoning for that are two-fold, the landscaping would be
developer installed per the UMUD requirements. Also anyone that has been around
here for a while to see development sees the trees being cut down or taking
tremendous beating during construction. The EpiCentre is our latest venture in that
and the reason we are not recommending the trees. The planting strip would be there
the pedestrian lights would be there; we are recommending the elimination of trees on
the east side of Brevard.
The question is one that I was asking about, it’ wasn’t a question about just reducing
scope but also are there other places in the Capital Budget where some of these items
could be addressed. I see under option #2 you are saying that there are no other
transportation funds available, but I find it very hard to believe that we don’t have
some capacity to meet that small gap.
We looked at it in terms of other road projects that we have and we couldn’t identify
any savings at this time. Now, Council could always reprioritize them in your next
year’s budget, Randy Harrington is here from Budget, I think I will let him address
that.
Yes, that’s correct. CDOT looked at their existing capital projects. At this time, they
felt that their projects weren’t at stages where they could safely identify project
savings. Council could always reprioritize capital projects as part of its FY2011 budget
process to identify funding, if so desired.
I guess the question that I have then if we do, relatively small amount of money, if we
did want to leave ourselves that option, is there a way to sequence the money to do
that? In other words, if we take option #3 or whatever the recommendation is, could
we preserve our ability to shift to a scope change and draw from another line item
later?
You could draw from another line item, but the scope of work we are asking Levine
Properties to do is going to be set in this document. There will be an attachment that
will include the scope of the work. The reason for this is, once we sign this document
Levine Properties is going to embark with LS3P and Cole Jenest & Stone to do a lot
more design work so that really big documents are prepared. That is a lot of the work
that has to be done right now they have to go from about 11 or 12 pages to about an
80 page document in order to do this. We do have a solution that combines a lot
these things. We also looked at increasing the Reimbursement Agreement and looked
at increasing it by $60,000 dollars. At the end of the day, we still had a $250,000
dollar issue around carry cost that the developer was going to incur in this process.
What we are recommending and what Levine Properties has agreed to is; a
reimbursement of $5,085,000 dollars. The chief provision of that is that the City will
begin making progress payments on a monthly draw beginning January of 2011. In
other words, we are really eliminating a large portion of the interest carry cost that the
Levine Properties would have; they have agreed to this amount. It also does eliminate
the trees that I talked about in terms of scope; eliminate the trees on the east side of
Brevard Street. It does include 15% contingency, it does include the storm water
work that I talked about along 9th and Brevard Streets. It leaves $500,000 dollars for
the City work and that is the pedestrian lights throughout the plaza, the street lights
as well as the mast arms in place. It holds $95,000 dollars in City contingency that
would be held back by the City in case there is additional rock above what is in the
current construction estimate or if bids are favorable enough we can do additional
enhancements to entrances to the park. So that is the sources for the $5.5 million CIP
and $350,000 dollars in our storm water account for the process.
It appears to me that we did not lose any scope of the project and the road will be
built to those specs.
The Urban Street Design Guidelines correct.
We end up with road construction, allows park land to be developed according to the
County’s plans for the program and all that we really lose are some initial plantings
that are likely to be redeveloped when the adjacent parcel are developed by the
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 5
developer.
Right. I would add that the Levine Properties and the County are in negotiation. The
County seems to be open to fit the enhansed 8th Street through the park. That is the
$300,000 dollars that we could not get within our budget and if we can’t get it through
there into the park budget. The County seems to be open to doing that, is that correct
Daniel?
Daniel Levine: Yes.
Flynn:
I think everybody agrees that would be a good thing to have and we are going to try
to get it that way. This is the last piece that was not resolved.
Kinsey:
You said that the County might do the improvements along 8th?
Flynn:
The enhanced improvements.
Kinsey:
O.K.
Flynn:
Which would be the bollards, the pavers all of those things.
Kinsey:
O.K. great, thank you.
Flynn:
You have seen all of the recommendations, there are some minor tweaking to it, but
this is the Parking Deck Tax Increment Grant which has 1,335 public parking spaces.
You see how those spaces would be allocated; there is no change in that. The
dedication of those is for 30 years. The grant payment schedule they , the developer,
would have six years from completion of North Park, that’s the park that sits on the
underground deck, to request the first payment. The payments last for 10 years at a
45% increment. They would get payments of 45%, the model would have the City
paying about $1.4 million dollars per year out of a current City property tax rate of
$3.1 million dollars per year. That is basically $1.4 million would be a grant for the
Levine Properties and the remaining of that $3.1 million would go to the General Fund.
The maximum is $29.7 million dollars last year at this time we were at $26.1 million
dollars and the reasons are up there. The underground deck could be reduced if the
developer finds a lot of excess rock; what that would do is take out about 85 spaces or
one level of deck which would be added above ground. Deck must be started by 2012
if nothing is done by 2012 the agreement terminates. The developer can build the
above ground deck first, but that would not qualify for reimbursement. We set this up
to have the park setting on top and to be paid for with Tax Increments so that has to
proceed first. The model indicates we would have about $700 million dollars of private
sector investment by 2022 which would pay out the maximum grant amount. Are
there any questions about the Parking Deck Tax Increment Grant? I am now going to
talk to you about the North Park that is the part of the park that is north of 8th Street
adjacent to the UNC-Charlotte building, the UNC Plaza and the first mixed use plaza
that the Levine Properties will build. This is another of the issues that we had where
the County could not fund this anymore so we have not developed a City County Tax
Increment Grant for five years to reimburse the developer for the land and the
construction of the park north of 8th Street. Our contribution is capped at $2.3 million
dollars. The payments begin when North Park is completed, once again the 45% of
incremental taxes from private sector development will pay for that. If there is still
additional costs at the end of the five-year period, additional costs that we have not
reimbursed the developer for the City is capped at $2.3 million dollars that goes to the
end of the parking deck tax increment grant. If the City has paid the developer, $2.3
million dollars at that point we are finished paying for the park north of 8th Street.
Other key provisions are around workforce housing, we have worked hard with the
people in our Housing Services Division to focus and provide to the developer the type
of record keeping they would have to do. What we have so far is that 10% or up to a
maximum of 50 units must be rentals for 20 years of those 30% must be two
bedroom. Remember this is a City and County project MWSBE goals apply to the
Parking Deck, the street work and the Park work if the developer builds the park. The
County and the developer are looking at a potentially reimbursement agreement under
which the developer would build the big portion of the park. So if that is the case then
they would apply to that as well.
Carter:
Do you think those percentages need to be realigned in the MWSBE goals?
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 6
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Levine:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Levy:
Flynn:
Levy:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Levy:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
We have spend a lot of time with the developers attorneys around that type of
documentation.
I would like to know where we stand and how the project is position. I know that
there are some diverse architectural firms involved in the UNC-Charlotte portion of the
project. In terms of this project where do we stand relative to those metrics?
Daniel would you like to respond to that?
We are in the design and development process. We are committed to accomplish
these goals throughout this project. We are very comfortable with the process.
I appreciate that, I think this is going to be a great project for the City. I just wanted
you to know that it’s o.k. to exceed the goal.
Council member Carter asked us to come back and talk more about the impact that
this project would have on your 3% Tax Increment Financing Cap. It uses 25% of the
remaining capacity. I would note that the last time that we provided this information
to Council we had a growth assumption of 2% per year. The model that these figures
are derived from has reduced that growth assumption based upon finances to 1.5%.
Before that you have a capacity of 5.1% that changes the assumption to 1.5% left at
the beginning a capacity of $4.6 million dollars per year in capacity. This project
reduces that leaves about 30% of the capacity left for future use and leaves you with
a capacity left of $3.6 million dollars. When I say capacity, what I mean is that is the
project happens as we currently project it to happen that is the point where you have
the most amount of money being paid in any one year; which leaves you with that one
year where you only have $3.6 million dollars of capacity.
Which year is that?
Joel?
I believe it is FY2016.
We do this every year Economic Development, Budget and Finance sit down and look
at each one of those projects. We talk to developers and see where they are
particularly in this economy. I think we provided that to you at your Retreat. We gave
you an update on each one of those projects, then we made adjustments to the model
and this is just a model so there are a lot of variations that can happen as we go
through these years.
If I may, Finance meets with Budget on a regular basis. I would say a quarterly
meeting to define the growth space and where we are. What Tom is referring to is we
all still meet at least once a year with this staff to get some idea of where the
payments are.
So we would use this as an evaluation of Economic Development to take on these
projects?
We could do that every six months. We will provide that information.
When you have projects like Elizabeth and Eastland Mall that are sufficiently behind in
the plan that frees up capacity that otherwise would not be there. They are moving up
in years and we still protect it because some funds have sufficient capital or funds that
are waiting such as the Eastland project. It really creates a lot of taxes by this very
fact that some funds are not being billed out. We still have the flexibility because
those dollars are not being spent and it creates additional capacity.
Just on that note we all want these projects to come in on time. Yes, you have the
capacity being increased because of the project being delayed that could work against
you also in that all these projects could come out at once.
I think quarterly we just want to make sure just where we are.
Yes, and we would want to tell you what our conversations with the developers are in
terms of what projects have moved out.
Yes.
As I mentioned, there is also a City County land transfer of about 10,000 square feet
at the corner 9th and Caldwell. This was acquired originally as part of the project when
we were redoing First Ward and we had the 9th Street median; we were going to
extend it. That project dropped off the CIP due to the cost and other considerations so
this is land that would have an appraised value of about $700,017 dollars. This we
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 7
Lassiter:
Carter:
Hagemann:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
would give to the County in return for credit on our ledger; bringing the land transfer
ledger balance up to about $1.84 million dollars. I want to thank our folks in Real
Estate, CDOT and Engineering for helping on this one. This is the big box of land that
the City has, this area is what we would keep of it and this shaded green is what we
would give to the County. Originally we thought we would be expanding this
intersection and we thought we would need this parcel. CDOT decided no, we are
going back the curve where it is at the existing time and so all this land will be
transferred to the County. The Committee action requested should be requested in
Council action would be to approve the development agreement with the County and
with Levine Properties for the Parking Deck and the Park. Approve a Reimbursement
Agreement as we discussed with Levine Properties for the construction of 8th and
Brevard Streets. Approve the transfer of 10,000 square feet and a credit for the land
transfer and authorize the City Manager to approve any non-material changes to the
documents.
Do we have a motion?
I would like to understand the non-material changes.
This is a complicated document with a lot of documents and as we progress toward
signature we find something that we need to include. Non-material changes are those
items that don’t hinge on policy.
The motion is seconded. Are there any additional questions?
I am going to support this action because I think it’s such a great project for the City.
We had a meeting earlier this week, we both attended it. I do not know how to frame
this question, but with the possibility that we will lose a substantial amount of City
revenue from the business privilege license, I would like to understand how to phase
into all the things we have in mind with the Tax Increment Financing. We are not
losing money, but I just want to get your thoughts on how to analyze that in lieu of a
very fluid situation going on at the State level. This project would happen without the
TIF, do you understand my question?
I think we do have an established but for on this project. But for the City and County
investments this project is not going to happen and you would not realize the $3.1
million dollars in new property taxes that this new project will provide to you as we
build that. I think we have a clear but for then on this project. I think that decision
will not have any impact on your TIF capacity because your TIF capacity is based upon
property tax collection. That way it wouldn’t, but to make up for any State short fall,
we were to increase the property tax rate then to that extent you would probably wind
up paying out the grant quicker than the 10 years. All the calculations that Levine
Properties and the City has analyzed assumes a constant tax rate so those are three
answers to your questions. And fourth these are also payments that probably would
not actually be paid out not until the 5th year in 2012; that would be the first time we
would make a payment on North Park. This is not going to have any impact on your
fiscal year public expenditure stand point on the fiscal year 2011 budget.
I am trying to get the two party response to this deal, for lack of a better phrase. I
think that I understand it we will talk about it some more.
O.K., I will have to get my head around that, the two party response?
I think what we have to understand about this deal is that it is still based upon taxes
then and reimbursement taxes. So until the taxes are paid in on new development no
dollars go out. So we are only spending it as we take revenues and that is a very
different concept than when we say oh we are going to build a road or a fire station. I
think this is the final plan for what we want to happen there.
Sales tax, cost increase.
To the extent that Levine Properties is doing the construction there would be no
reimbursement anywhere. We would be spending about $500,000 dollars.
Any additional questions at this time? A motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor say aye.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 8
Motion:
Approve the Economic Development and Planning Committee’s recommendation to:
1. Approve the Economic Development Grant Agreement with Levine Properties and
Mecklenburg County for:
the construction of above and below ground parking decks totaling 1,335 public
parking spaces for a maximum City/County grant amount of $29.75 million, the
acquisition of land and construction of park space north of Eighth Street, as part of the
First Ward Park project, with a maximum City grant amount of $2.315 million,
2. Approve the Infrastructure Reimbursement Grant with Levine Properties for
$5,085,000 for the reconstruction of Brevard and Eighth Streets in the First Ward Park
project area and the reimbursement of $170,000 in design expenditures for
improvements incurred by Levine Properties,
3. Approve the transfer of approximately 10,200 square feet of land at 9th & Caldwell
Streets (portions of PID 080-063-11 and 080-063-12) to Mecklenburg County and the
addition of $717,094 credit to the City on the City/County Land Transfer ledger and
authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute any and all documents
necessary to facilitate this transaction, and
4. Authorize the City Manager to approve any non-material changes to the documents.
Lassiter:
Vote:
Motion made by Carter and seconded by Kinsey. All in favor say aye. It’s unanimous
Lassiter
Mitchell
Carter:
Foxx:
Kinsey:
Yes
Absent for vote
Yes
Yes
Yes
III. Subject:
Carolina Theatre
Lassiter:
The last item on our agenda is an update on the Carolina Theatre. We heard a little
bit at our last business meeting on Council. Peter is going to give us an update as to
where that process is.
That is exactly what I am here to do. Just to remind everyone what we did at our last
meeting on June 15th. This Committee heard about the proposed extension of the
option on the Carolina Theatre. We had a fairly robust discussion about it and the
Committee recommended an extension to the option that would take it out to
December 1st of 2011. On the very next day, June 16th, staff became aware of the
potential issue around the fire egress easement from the Montaldo’s building on a
temporary easement that goes across the Theatre property. So after we got through
all that the very next day we run into this issue. On June 22nd, Council extended the
option through August 31, 2009 to allow for the resolution of the fire egress issue. I
will give a little of the background of what that easement is and then I will take you
through the specifics of the issue and how it needs to be resolved as well as how this
issue impacts the City-owned property at Carolina Theatre. In 2001 during the
construction of the Hearst Tower and the conversion of the Montaldo’s building to Mint
Museum, there was a temporary easement granted across the Carolina Theatre
property. In 2007, the Encore Project came about and Liquid Design met with the
County and came up with the fire egress easement with the County that would take
folks routed out to the back through the alley between the Carolina Theatre and the
Hearst Tower and then emptied out onto 6th Street. In 2009, back in April/May when
Bank of America began looking at taking title of the Montaldo’s building and then
Zeiler:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 9
Kinsey:
Zeiler:
flipping it to the Foundation for the Carolinas, they began to do some due diligence
around that easement to make sure that they were not in violation of any ordinances,
especially since that easement was temporary. The County then reviewed the on
course plan for fire egress out to the alley way and then to 6th and did a 180 degree
position on that egress. The County found that the egress was no longer a safe and
viable egress after they did some more exploration. That created some issues so I will
go through and show you how that worked out and why it impacts the City’s property
from a future prospective.
Why is it not safe?
I will get to that in just a moment. This is on the graft on the left hand side in blue is
the Carolina property on the right hand side in green is the Montaldo’s building this
space in the middle is actually Carolina Theatre property but is the temporary
easement. Currently what has happened folks exit from the back of the Montaldo’s
building through this fire rated hallway that has been constructed as part of the
easement. You can see that the easement bumps out here and here a little bit further
at easement to allow folks walking through there. The plan for the Carolina Theatre
redevelopment was to allow for people that normally come through here and then to
the alleyway then out to 6th Street. In this alleyway are two large ventilation grates
that serve as air intake and serve as ventilation out for the backup power systems for
the Hearst Tower. When there is a catastrophic event here those vents could become
full of flame so the folks coming out the back here would cross the grate could be
roasted as they were trying to get to 6th Street. Not an acceptable situation. At that
point the Land Use & Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) has said we do not
agree with that exit route. The challenge for coming out this way is that the design
for the Carolina Theatre already had foundations designed and ready to place in this
easement. So part of the challenge here that LUESA has pointed out is that whether it
is the Carolina Theatre project, demolition of the Carolina Theatre or some other
construction, the challenge is that if this remains as the main exit for people in the
back, there is not a way to keep this as a fire rated safe exit for people in the
Montaldo’s building. As to demolishing this building, if you are demolishing the
Carolina Theatre if there is a fire, this alleyway is no longer a secured fire safe exit.
The County would require that the Montaldo’s building would require a temporary
vacation of all the workers and folks in the Montaldo’s building until that demolition is
complete and a new fire safe egress could be established. So whether you are
demolishing, building the Carolina Theatre project or whether you building a different
project, this becomes a very difficult fire safe easement to maintain to keep the
Montaldo’s building safe. In meeting with the County and Bank of America and
meeting with Carolina Theatre, the discussion was the creation of a new fire rated
hallway inside the Montaldo’s building which would take all these folks here and move
them out the Hearst Tower and then to the Hearst Plaza instead of bringing them
through here.
That would eliminate any conflicts around any demolition or
construction that portion of the easement could go away and become part of the
buildable land and part of the project. That small area up here would probably narrow
in scope it would no longer be 12-1/2 by 15 feet wide and you would still be able to
keep people exiting out through a small doorway there. At this point, Bank of America
is working with Lincoln Harris and their other architects to understand how much and
what is needed to create this easement here. LUESA has strongly recommended that
there should be some internal evacuation for the Montaldo’s building so Lincoln Harris
and Bank of America understand what the Foundation for the Carolinas build out is
going to be like, what the costs are and what the impacts are for building that fire
rated corridor, inside the building going out to Hearst Plaza. We are hoping that in the
next week or so we will have an understanding the wide parameters of what that will
cost and what will need to be created. Internally in Montaldo’s there will probably need
to be some sort of new easement that starts down here to continue the evacuation out
here. Keep in mind that this area here is currently vacant and you could build a fire
rated corridor without impacting the evacuation inside the Montaldo’s building as it
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for July 15, 2009
Page 10
Flynn:
Lassiter:
currently sits. So one we have a better understanding of what it takes to build that
corridor inside the Montaldo’s building and what that specific easement near Tryon
Street will be, we will come back to you with more recommendations.
I don’t see how it impacts the project period. The internal hall does not have anything
to do with us? So why is it impacting the Carolina Theatre? The other easement I have
no problem with.
I should say it impacts the timing of how we would create the new easements and the
timing of when we could sign all those easement agreements with Bank of America.
We will need a full understanding of how and when we can go forward with the
Carolina Theatre.
The only easement issue we should have is the one with North Tryon.
Yes, but we don’t know what that size and scope is yet, and we will not know for
another couple of weeks.
So that is really what we are waiting on?
Yes.
O.K.
My understanding the construction at a cost incurred for Bank of America or
somebody?
Yes.
And it’s just a question of appropriate documentation for possible easement
construction that dictates a reconfiguration the current easement that may use
another method. That will require eliminating the current easement and drafting new
ones.
Yes.
We will see this at our next meeting?
Yes, because the Council has to take some action at your meeting on August 24th;
because, the option that you approved at your last meeting runs out on August 31st.
That is perfect because our next meeting is scheduled for August 19th, to be on that
agenda and get to Council for their ultimate approval to extend the option.
Yes.
Any additional questions or comments. Thank you all.
Adjourned:
4:40pm
Kinsey:
Zeiler:
Kinsey:
Zeiler:
Kinsey:
Zeiler:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Zeiler:
Lassiter:
Zeiler:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 3:30pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
James Mitchell, Vice Chair
Nancy Carter
Anthony Foxx
Patsy Kinsey
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
AGENDA
I.
SMALL BUSINESS RESOURCE EVENT – 10 minutes
Staff: Nancy Rosado, Small Business Program Manager
Action: Report on June 2nd Small Business Resource Event.
II.
FIRST WARD PARK & PARKING DECK - 45 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Manager
Action: Make a recommendation to City Council on the First Ward Park & Parking Deck Development
Agreement.
III.
CAROLINA THEATRE – 10 minutes
Staff: Peter Zeiler, Transit Station Area Coordinator
Action: Update on Carolina Theatre. No action requested
IV.
NEXT MEETING: August 19, 2009 at 3:30pm, Room 280
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
Survival tips for small businesses
Speakers stress the importance of sales and marketing strategies as well as social networking. By Adam Bell abell@charlotteobserver.com Posted: Wednesday, Jun. 03, 2009 Chris Robinson has held a business license for nearly a decade. After he got laid off twice in the
past two years, he finally just decided to launch his Charlotte janitorial service, Chris-B-Clean.
“I was afraid to do it before,” Robinson said. “It's difficult (now) with a lot of buildings doing it
in-house. … But it's now or never.”
Robinson was among 100 or so people looking for advice Tuesday at a panel discussion aimed at
helping small businesses survive. It was hosted by the city of Charlotte at Friendship Missionary
Baptist Church.
Doriliz Dejesus runs Jade Electric and HVAC Supply in Charlotte. With business slowly
improving, she said she was interested to learn how to expand.
Panelists Wayne Davis, president of EZ-TIXX ticketing company, and Sherese Duncan, head of
business consultant Effició, stressed the importance of proper sales and marketing strategies.
Focus on whatever marketing can bring in the most cash flow quickly, Duncan said. She said that
to stay in touch with customers, people could try producing a newsletter several times a month
that does not sell anything but provides tips and promotes the business's experience.
Social networking skills also are important. “Just when I got caught up on Facebook, then came
Twitter,” Davis said. “You have to stay connected because your customers will.”
To save money short of layoffs, panelist Kendra Dodd, human resources manager at The
Employers Association, suggested companies consider: starting furloughs around holidays;
cutting overtime costs and merit-pay increases; reducing hours; and dropping 401(k) contribution
matches.
In the midst of such moves, clearly communicating with employees about what is known and
unknown will help morale, she said.
The most overlooked way to streamline operations is cutting back on people without
restructuring the workload, said panelist Mary Bruce, president of Kaleidoscope Business
Options. Because her own business has been a little slow, Bruce said, she loans an administrative
assistant to a colleague who is starting his own business, and he pays part of the assistant's
salary.
Panelist Reggie Godette, a loan officer with First Citizens Bank, reminded the audience that
personal credit is often looked at as an indicator of how people would handle business loans.
To help with funding, George McAllister, regional director for the Small Business and
Technology Development Center, suggested: ask questions of bankers on what it takes to get a
loan; get customers to pay some part of their bills upfront ; ask to extend vendor payment over a
longer period of time; and consider working capital financing to bridge the gap in funds between
the time companies make a sale and when they collect the cost.
For some, however, Tuesday's event came too late.
Jack Schoor with N.Y. Fashion Icon on Wilkinson Boulevard said business has not been going
well, and the Charlotte clothing store is closing in a few weeks. “I just wanted to get some
answers,” he said.
8/11/2009
First Ward Park & Parking Economic Development & Planning Committee
July 15, 2009
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Status of Agreements
8th & Brevard Reimbursement
& Brevard Reimbursement
Parking Deck Tax Increment Grant (TIG)
North Park Tax Increment Grant (TIG)
Other Key Provisions – Workforce Housing
– MWSBE
•
•
•
•
Impact on TIF Cap
Impact
on TIF Cap
Land Transfer to County
Committee Recommendation to Council
Schedule
1
8/11/2009
Status
• Development Agreement
– Finalized
• North Park TIG (Tax Increment Grant) Agreement
– Finalized
• Brevard/8th Street Reimbursement Agreement Street Reimbursement Agreement
– Agreement reached on amount; document being finalized
Conceptual Park and 8th Street Design
2
8/11/2009
8th & Brevard Reimbursement
• Committee asked Staff for Options
• Option I: Reduce Scope – $200,000:
$200,000: Eliminate Traffic Signal w/Mast Arms @ 9
Eliminate Traffic Signal w/Mast Arms @ 9th & Brevard
& Brevard
• Not Recommended: – Wooden poles and wires next to new UNC‐Charlotte
– Spending $1M to put all other wires underground
– $50,000: Eliminate pedestrian lights east side of Brevard
• Not Recommended
– Half‐finished look
– UMUD does not require developer to install
UMUD does not require developer to install
– $50,000: Eliminate landscaping east side of Brevard
• Recommended
– Require developer to install when blocks develop per UMUD requirements
8th & Brevard Reimbursement
• Option II: Funds from other Road Projects
– No
No road projects with identified savings at this time
road projects with identified savings at this time
– Council would have to re‐prioritize road /CIP projects as part of the FY2011 budget process
• Option III: Increase City Reimbursement Amount
– Increase amount by $50,000 and establish
$100,000 additional contingency
– Reimbursement increases from $5M to $5,050,000
– $250,000 cost of carry remains an issue
3
8/11/2009
8th & Brevard Reimbursement
• Recommendation
– Reimbursement: $5,085,000
• City makes monthly progress payments beginning in January 2011
• Eliminate landscaping east side of Brevard ($50,000); developer $
installs per UMUD requirements
• 15% contingency
• Includes Stormwater work
– City Work: $500,000
• Pedestrian and street lights; mast arm traffic light at 9th & Brevard
– City‐held Contingency: $95,000
• For rock excavation above construction estimate
• Project enhancements i.e. improved 8th street through park
– Reimbursement for completed design/engineering: $170,000
• Sources
– $5.5M CIP
– $350,000 Stormwater
Parking Deck TIG
• Public Parking Spaces (1,335 total)
– 25% hourly
– 75% monthly (5:00am to 6:00pm weekday only)
75% monthly (5:00am to 6:00pm weekday only)
– Dedicated for 30 years
• Grant Payment Schedule
– Developer has six years from completion of Park North to request first payment
request first payment
– Stop at grant amount for first deck until second deck built; or, ten annual payments are made; or Maximum Grant amount paid
– 45% of incremental City/County property taxes for 10 years
4
8/11/2009
Parking Deck TIG (cont.)
• Maximum Grant Amount
– $29.7M
– Increase from $26.1M estimate due to:
• Include soft cost of deck construction
• Include more complete design of underground deck
• Deduct for costs associated with office building above deck
– 11% return on equity to developer
• Underground deck could be reduced by up to 85 spaces (one level) if underground deck costs exceed estimate
– 85 spaces added to above ground deck
85 spaces added to above ground deck
• Deck must be started by December 2012
• Developer may build above ground deck first
• Model indicates $700M of investment required by 2022 to pay Maximum Grant Amount
Conceptual Park and 8th Street Design
5
8/11/2009
North Park TIG
• City/County TIG for first five years to reimburse developer for land and construction of park north of 8th Street
–
–
–
–
City contribution capped at $2.3M
Payments begin with completion of North Park
45% of incremental taxes
If needed to pay off North Park costs, sixth year payment occurs at end of Parking Deck TIG Other Key Provisions
• Workforce Housing
– 10% with a maximum of 50 rental units; 20 years; 30% must be two bedroom
• 30% @ 80% of Area Median Income
• 20% @ 100% of Area Median Income
• 50% @ 120% of Area Median Income
– Could be built within one mile radius of project
– Monetary penalties if not built
• MWSBE Goal
MWSBE Goal
– Applies to parking decks, road and park – Goals:
• SBE: 6%
• MBE: 8% (County)
• WBE: 5% (County)
6
8/11/2009
Impact on TIF Cap
• Uses 25% of the remaining capacity
– Growth assumption reduction from 2% to 1.5% reduced capacity from $5 1M to $4 6 M
capacity from $5.1M to $4.6 M
• Approximately 30% of capacity left for future use ($3.6M)
• Addition of North Park TIG did not decrease TIF capacity
City/County Land Transfer
• Approximately 10,000 SqFt at corner of 9th and Caldwell
• Acquired by City for extension of 9
A i d b Cit f
t i
f 9th Street median
St t
di
• Appraised value: $717,094 ($75/SqFt)
• Give to County in return for City credit on Land Transfer Ledger
• If approved, new ledger balance would be $1.84M in City’s favor
7
8/11/2009
Committee Actions Requested A. Approve Development Agreement with County and Levine Properties for Parking Deck and Park
B Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Levine B.
A
R i b
tA
t ith L i
th
Properties for construction of 8 & Brevard Streets
C. Approve transfer of approximately 10,000SqFt to County and addition of $717,094 credit to City on City/County Land Transfer Ledger
D Authorize the City Manager to approve any non‐
D.
A th i th Cit M
t
material changes to the documents
8
8/11/2009
Schedule
• Council Consideration: July 27
• County Commission Consideration: August 4 – County land transfer confirmation: September 2009
• Projected Construction Start: May 2010
9
8/11/2009
Carolina Theatre Update
Carolina Theatre Update
ED & Planning Committee
g
May 13, 2009
ED & Planning Committee
July 15, 2009
Project Status
• ED&P Committee updated June 15, 2009
• ED&P recommended extension of option to ED&P
d d t i
f ti t
December 1, 2011
• June 16, 2009 – Staff became aware of potential issue around fire egress easement from Montaldo’s
Building across Theatre property
• June 22, 2009 –
J
22 2009 Council extended option to August C
il
d d
i
A
31, 2009 to allow for resolution of fire egress easement issue
1
8/11/2009
Fire Egress Easement
• 2001 ‐ Temporary fire egress easement on Theatre property granted to Montaldo’s during Hearst / Mint construction
• 2007 ‐ Encore design kept existing fire egress easement in place with new exits to rear per Land Use & Environmental Services Agency • 2009 ‐ Need to convert temporary easement to permanent to affect transfer of Montaldo’s to F
Foundation for the Carolinas
d ti f th C li
• LUESA reviewed egress easement as part of BofA due diligence to transfer building to FFTC
• LUESA will no longer allow exit to rear
Issue Resolution
2
8/11/2009
Issue Resolution
Action Items
• BofA to return with cost estimates and design for LUESA review – preliminary expected by end of week
• Finalize cost and design parameters
• Create new easement as needed
• Return to ED&P for recommendation for August 24 Council Action 3