ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Business District Organization Program
Receive information on changes to the Business District Organization Program
and make a recommendation to City Council if ready.
II.
Subject:
Action:
First Ward Development Agreement
Update Committee on Development Agreement for First Ward project.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Carolina Theatre
Review request by Camden Property Management to remove precondition for
financing in order to close on property by July 30, 2009.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for June 17th.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Council members John Lassiter, Anthony Foxx, James Mitchell and Patsy Kinsey
Nancy Carter
3:30 – 4:30pm.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
PowerPoint presentation: Business District Organization Program Proposed Changes
PowerPoint presentation: First Ward Park & Parking Update
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject:
Business District Organization Program
John Lassiter, Chair:
We have three items on our agenda today. The first is a discussion of the proposed
changes to the Business District Organization Program and John and Tom will walk us
through those changes.
Short:
The last time we came before this Committee with the original proposed changes;
there were some questions that you added. We are going to address those questions
today, but before we do that, I think we should go over a recap of what we were
talking about at the last meeting. The current program, the 1:1 match, we were going
to match that at an annual $10,000 dollars. This is to be used for operational
expenses. The board must be composed of 75% business and the group must be a
501(c)(3) or (c)(6). The changes that we are proposing are a 2:1 match with a cap of
$30,000 dollars annually instead of $10,000 dollars annually. The expanded uses
would include promotion, marketing and special events. We have also reduced the
amount of business participation on the board to 50% business. Groups with a
pending 501(c)(3) or (c)(6) status would be eligible.
Foxx:
Let me go back to the board being 50% business. Are we talking about business
organizations that are in a corridor?
Short:
That’s correct.
Foxx:
I guess that my concern about being 50% business as opposed to being 100%
business is that the neighborhood associations are so strong that they have tendency
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 2
Short:
Mumford:
Kinsey:
Short:
Foxx:
Short:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
to dictate the business agenda. What is the rational of reducing that to 50% percent
rather than 100% percent business on the board?
Initially we had that set at 75% percent business and we were challenged with how to
incorporate the adjacent neighborhoods that line these business corridors, how do we
align them with the business community, so that they are working together to address
issues as a whole? We have some success with Freedom Drive and North End Partners
where they hold predominately business focused meetings, but do have representation
from the neighborhood so that can let people know what is going on, but it is purely to
compliment the business agenda.
The source of the question was; what about neighborhoods sometimes they feel left
out? So that is why the language reads “can be” there is not a requirement but it can
be. It could be 100% percent in a corridor, but this would give you something of an
acknowledgement of the neighborhood.
The match 2:1 is that the business community in the City?
The City is 2.
In the aspect of the groups pending applications, can you give me some idea of what
kind of controls we have to insure that we’re not going to have that abused? I know
what the purpose of that is and I agree with it but it opens the door to more
organizations to get some help. How are we going to manage that?
The way that we track that is in the documentation of their filing and all their effort to
attain their status is to make sure that we are copied on that; so that we know that
they have filed and it is being processed. Sometimes that is a very lengthy process
and that’s why we did not want to hold people up that are trying to get started. They
would still be waiting for certification and we felt that if we had approved
documentation that they were following through with the status and we would require
them to have that to us within a year of the approval letter.
We don’t give out the money in advance; they don’t apply for a grant and immediately
get $30,000 dollars. As they spend money and provide us with receipts and we check
that off against their work plan and we know that the work has been accomplished.
This is what we had agreed to do in the beginning of the year so it’s not as if the
money goes out the door and it’s sort of sitting in their account waiting to be spent.
Can you give me an example of where we wished we had this example and we didn’t?
Previously, we were trying to be constrained in how we would work with businesses,
so we weren’t trying to make it really easy to achieve. We know there are a number
of groups out there now that are not fully organized, like around Plaza/Central out in
east Charlotte and historic North Davidson. So that if we want to get going with some
of them we are going to have to be able work with them as they develop. I can’t give
you an example of someone that would have applied; I just know that if we want to be
able to move out more quickly with people, we need to have some flexibility about the
status. This would be helpful in getting them help more quickly.
I guess what my intent was you get someone that doesn’t have good intentions that
throws up a 501 (C)(3) application and applies for the match and doesn’t give good
receipts and then we start reading about it in the newspaper. I believe one of the
things to think about is are there some ways in which we can provide some help with
the application process or some way we can figure out between legitimate and
situations that raise red flags? Because I agree with the purpose of having it open, I
just want to make sure we are not creating a problem for ourselves.
They would still have to have the board and still have their regular meetings, so it’s
not going to be a person coming up and saying I have this great idea give me money.
Before you go away from that, I want to make sure that this 75/50 makes sense. If I
read this proposed program, I could have a board made up of 100% percent
neighborhood.
The language says if I had 100% percent in neighborhood
representatives that I could qualify?
We will have to correct that.
It should say, the board must be at least 50%.
Right, at least 50% percent, that’s correct.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 3
Short:
Mitchell:
Warshauer:
Mitchell:
Warshauer:
Mitchell:
Warshauer:
Mitchell:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Short:
The previous questions were; how is this grant funded and what is the available
balance in that account? How many groups are projected to participate in the
program? How will City staff assist these groups in the early stages of formation? The
funding source is DARF, Development and Revitalization Fund, along with Security,
Façade, Brownfield and Business Equity Loans. It is currently funded at $400,000
dollars annually, but that amount is rarely used in its entirety. You can see on the
chart that year by year what the remaining balance is each year, from that initial
$400,000 dollars. So over time we have accrued enough funds in there that we can
use to assist our business district through the Business District Organization.
Tom, you helped me on the Sunset business issue with security, is what we did similar
to that $91,000 dollars? Were those funds Security funds?
Yes.
Those were Security funds? Was there a criteria that prevented each business owner
from getting their own gate? They had to do it collectively, can you explain that?
We have a maximum for a shopping center; you may apply either individually or as a
shopping center. If you have fifteen businesses each of them could not apply as an
individual in that shopping center on this program. So for a shopping center, we have
a maximum of $9,000 dollars for certain square footage centers and $12,000 dollars
for larger shopping centers. Depending on how large the shopping center is, we have a
maximum that they would reach for grants. What we have done where we had
multiple very small tenants for the smaller shopping center, we looked at the whole
group of shopping center owners to structure how they would apply and utilize the
funds at the shopping center.
So if they were a neighborhood business association those same guidelines would
apply?
A neighborhood association applying for a Security Grant?
When I was on the committee, I had a lot of break-ins for businesses. Tom came out
there and we gave away individual gates, the gates were $4,500 dollars for each one.
It has worked there have been no break-ins, but we have an issue with the policy that
was made. We had to be very creative to get a grant for each one of those business
owners. I am trying to see with this policy, if they are with a neighborhood
association, would that give them more ability to apply for a Security Grant?
The shopping center owner or the property owner apply for the Security Grant, we do
not have the business association applying for the grant. This would provide more
money for businesses to be able apply for projects that would include security.
The meeting attendees were asking about signage that is in disrepair, and signs that
needed to be cleaned up so that they looked more presentable in the neighborhood.
Do any of these categories allow money to be used for signage?
The Facade Grant allows for signage on buildings, but the signage has to be
grandfathered signage. So we won’t pay to change out a new sign that is not
grandfathered. But if the signs have been grandfathered then we would pay to
remove the grandfather condition and put in a sign that meets the current ordinance.
In the new program one of the things we are interested in for commercial districts is
promotions, graphics and signs. So if they were to get together to do some sort of
banner program or signage for the business district then that would be eligible under
this Business District Organization Program. Not for individual store, but for a business
district.
As I heard the issue, there are number of signs that are primarily monument signs
that are in various stages of needing repairs or cleaning and a small shopping center.
How would that apply in those two different cases?
With the shopping center that would be an individually owned sign; so that would be
eligible for the Façade Grant. So if the owner would be willing to remove the
grandfathered sign, we would be able to help pay for a new signage that would meet
our ordinance in lieu of the existing grandfathered condition.
Thanks.
The two groups that we have in the program are North End Partners and the Freedom
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 4
Foxx:
Short:
Drive Development Association. Areas that we have identified that have potential
business groups or have groups that are starting to form are the NoDa area; they
already have a strong neighborhood presence.
Central Avenue/Eastland area,
Wilkinson and West Boulevards have both started talking about re-energizing previous
business groups and the Beatties Ford area. The City’s role in the early stages of
formation will be to provide a start-up kit to help with the initial phases of creating a
business association. That start-up kit would include things like sample agendas,
membership flyer examples and how to elect a board among other things in a how to
kind of guide. The City of Jacksonville has a very similar one for their neighborhood
organizations that I have taken a look at, borrowed some ideas from that and
restructured it for us to use. We could also help structure meetings and provide
examples of successful formats by taking them out to Freedom Drive meetings and let
them see how it is being run. We could assist in helping them find meeting locations
and provide a list of businesses in the respective areas.
That was what I was referring to, I should have read ahead to see that you all had
already thought of that. This is really good because it gets into some of the soft skills
that we need to be putting out into the community and helping to get things started.
The City is currently providing services; City staff attends monthly meeting with
current business groups and we are on the agenda to provide monthly updates on
relevant City activities for that area. The Corridor Liaisons act as points of contact, me
and Jennifer Duru, depending on which business corridor we are talking about. We are
the point of contact for general problem solving for the organizations as well as the
individual business. We can expand that role as the parameters of the grant use
expand. Our staff will explore and further educate ourselves in the areas of special
event management, community nonprofits, festivals and potential business partners in
the corridors themselves. Learn the parameters and guidelines for holiday lighting
which will involve public relations opportunities. More knowledge about web based
marketing and how we can incorporate these activities with the youth and job
connections. In summary, the grant will change from a 1:1 match to a 2:1 match with
a maximum award amount of $30,000 dollars instead of $10,000 dollars. For example,
if business group X raised $10,000 dollars in 2007, the City contribution would be
$10,000 dollars making a total budget of $20,000 dollars. For example in 2009, if the
group raised $11,000 dollars and the City would again match with $10,000 dollars.
Our hope is that they can raise a few more thousand dollars on their end and go from
$11,000 dollars to $15,000 dollars then the City match in 2010 would be $30,000
dollars making a total budget of $45,000 dollars. This is more than double what they
had and will allow them better opportunities for marketing and special events. The
board requirement is to be 50% percent business instead of 75% percent business
and the grant funds can be utilized for special events and promotional activities as we
have already talked about. From there, we are looking for you to consider our
Business District Organization Program Grant and make a recommendation for
approval to the City Council.
VOTE:
Motion: Recommend to Council to consider staff proposal for Business District
Organization Program Grant.
Lassiter:
A motion has been made by Foxx and seconded by Mitchell. All in favor say aye, it’s
unanimous.
Lassiter:
Yes
Mitchell:
Yes
Carter:
Absent for vote
Foxx:
Yes
Kinsey:
Yes
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 5
II Subject:
First Ward Development Agreement
Lassiter:
The second item on our agenda is an update on the First Ward Development
Agreement. I want to welcome Bobbie Shields to our meeting.
Thank you, Committee Members we are here today to do a couple of things. We want
to update you in preparation for our coming back to you in June with a full
Development Agreement. I want to refresh your memory on the framework that the
Council and the County Commission have approved and we want to talk to you about
where we are on the negotiations around the parking decks at 8th Street and Brevard.
There will be a couple of other issues and we will outline for you a schedule for moving
forward. Just to remind you again of where we are in terms of the project, this is the
conceptual plan of what has been put together. The 8th Street bisects the park.
Just so you know that no one cares about this but Council Member Kinsey; it’s in her
district.
O.K. Now that I know that the power has shifted, I did not know that. 8th Street
bisects the park to the right of 8th Street is the UNC Charlotte building which just had
the ground breaking last month. Brevard Street is shown along the bottom of this
drawing. I am going to reference the below ground deck as well as the above ground
deck. The below ground deck will be to the right of 8th Street where those trees are
between 8th Street and UNC. The above ground deck that I referenced can be either
on that block that is off to the bottom left of the screen or the one that is more in the
middle. Those are the two locations of the potential above ground deck. So the
framework that was approved in the summer of this past year is for a ten year City
County Tax Increment Financing Grant of up to 45% percent of the tax increment. At
that point, we estimated the maximum public sector investment; this all goes to fill
the gap for the two parking decks, of about $26.1 million dollars. That was our
estimated gap and I will share with you later how we have honed in on that number.
The developer assumes all cost for overruns on the capital construction on the parking
deck and assumes all cost and risk with operating the deck and all revenues from the
operation of the parking deck. That is a very broad outline. In addition to that, the
City would also contribute additional monies for the raising of 8th and Brevard Streets.
The County would build the park that is the broad outline of the framework. On the
parking decks, there are a total of 1335 public parking spaces in the two decks above
ground and below ground. We have come down with them on 25% percent of those
public spaces would be hourly spaces, that you could use anytime of the day or week.
75% percent of those spaces during the week day would be dedicated to workforce
parking. People could come in and rent those spaces on a monthly basis, it serves the
workforce that is already up there. Saturdays, Sundays and week nights those spaces
would be available for hourly public parking, the dedication of that would last for thirty
years. So even though we are only putting money in for ten years, the dedication
would last for thirty years.
What about UNC Charlotte parking?
That is above and beyond this. The UNC Charlotte parking is above and beyond this
and that totally dedicated, UNC Charlotte totally controls those 135 spaces, and they
would need them on weekends. The grant payments are scheduled to start within four
years of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first parking deck, whether that is the
below ground or above ground parking deck. In other words, the developer has four
years to tell the City and the County to write me the first check. They stop once the
cost of the first deck is paid for or after ten annual payments have been made or the
maximum amount of the grant is paid. So remember we are in this for ten years and
so if only one deck gets built in that ten year period, we are not paying the maximum
grant amount. We are only paying the maximum grant amount for that one deck. If
they start the second deck in 2015, that doesn’t start a whole new ten years, our
payments stops after ten years from the first payment. That is the way this deal is
structured. The maximum grant amount, we have had Carl Walker Parking doing an
analysis, Peter Zeiler on our staff has been working very closely with them and they
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kinsey:
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 6
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
have come back to us and confirmed the underground parking deck amount cost of
about $16.1 million dollars. There are some costs that are in negotiation with the
developer now. The park deck consultant has said that may be associated more with
the office building that is going to sit on top of that than with the parking deck itself.
So we are in negotiation with the developer, is that number really $16 million dollars
for the parking deck or is there some number less than that that we should be
participating in? The maximum grant amount is also calculated in to return 11%
percent to the developer on equity and that gives us a range after factoring all that in
of $25.8 and $28.3 million dollars maximum grant amount. Any questions about the
maximum grant amount? The developer also came to us and said we know that there
is a lot of rock underneath downtown Charlotte, and we can confirm that. Our own
Engineering department will confirm that. We wanted to have the option that if we
got down there and ran into lots and lots of rock of not building the last level of the
underground parking deck, that next clause says that they can reduce the
underground parking deck by 85 spaces if costs exceed their estimates. However,
they would have to build those into the above ground deck. The deck must be started
by December 2011 and their intent is to build the below ground deck first. But if
market conditions or financing doesn’t allow that, they wanted to be sure that they
had the option to build the above ground deck first. 8th and Brevard Streets, this is a
reimbursement agreement, this is separate from the Tax Increment, this money that
has been set aside for the Reimbursement Agreement. Very similar to the
Reimbursement Agreement for Crescent on IKEA Boulevard. The developer builds the
road to our set of specifications. Our current range of estimates for that road are $4.5
to $5 million dollars. That includes about $150,000 dollars worth of storm water work
on 9th Street that Storm Water was planning to do anyway. We would get that money
back out of Storm Water. We also have as part of this work, the developer has had
Cole Jenest and Stone doing a lot of work in terms of engineering pulling these
numbers together. The developer has asked to be reimbursed for those fees within
thirty days of signing of the agreement right now those costs are estimated to be
within $150,000 to $170,000 dollars. Those would also come out of that number. The
scope of work has not changed. 8th Street is a street that would be built to Urban
Street Design Guidelines with large wide sidewalks, planting strips, trees, no special
treatment however. We were not able to put pavers on the street and keep within
that budget. Pedestrian lighting all around 8th and Brevard Streets as well as replacing
water, sewer and storm water around there. This also included putting all of the above
ground utility wires underground. The source of funds in the Manager’s recommended
CIP is for $5.5 million dollars some of that $5.5 million dollars would also be spent by
the City for mast arm type traffic signals The payment would be no earlier than July
2011, the first reimbursement payment, the only reimbursement payment would be a
lump sum payment. We talked to you about the workforce housing component of this.
We have focused it on rental, it would last for about twenty years. We are focusing on
80% to 120% percent of area median income. The developer also said, what if I can’t
get all of it here, can I build some of it within a one mile radius? That one mile radius
is basically the Center City which accomplishes our same policy goals of having that
downtown workforce rental housing. We are still negotiating the number of units and
the penalties for failure to meet those units or if they become non-affordable.
One point, we have had some issues on how that is interpreted. There is no public
dollars being used to write down the cost of those units, correct?
That is correct.
I want to make sure the record reflects that.
Correct.
This is a voluntary contract consideration provided by the developer?
Correct.
And this has nothing to do with the parking facility construction?
Correct.
I want to make sure it’s in the record.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 7
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Shields:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
In terms of the MWSBE goal remember this is a City/County project, and therefore the
County has the Minority and Women Business Enterprise and the City has Small
Business Enterprise so it would apply to the road, the parking deck and the park
because there is a possibility that the developer will build the park for the County and
be reimbursed, just like they are building 8th and Brevard for us. So if that is the case
the MWSBE requirement will apply to the park construction as well and you can see
the goals up there on the chart. I just wanted to remind you that MBE and the WBE
are the County goals. I also want to bring up one point on another issue if you will
back up to the picture. The County did a budgetary concern that you are well aware
of, Bobbie Shields is considering options about whether or not to participate in that
park that is north of 8th Street. The park is about one acre between UNC and 8th
Street. This is from a budgetary prospective and it is a budgetary concern. So that is
something that their Economic Department Committee talked about yesterday and I
just wanted to make you aware of that as they go through that there may be
implications for the cost of the underground parking deck and other implications in the
project and we will be bringing those back to you. The schedule is to bring forward a
Council presentation at your Workshop on June 1st with a final to come back to this
Committee on June 10th and then have full Council consideration of the Development
Agreement with the recommendation from this Committee on June 22nd. The County
Commission will be lining up to make a similar consideration on July 7th with a
projected construction start date for the road and the parking deck in January in 2010.
You mentioned this meeting with the County Commission and our development
committee, what was the general discussion?
I was not there, I would ask Bobbie to speak to that.
Let me start it like this. Yesterday, the House passed House Bill 924 which if passed
by the Senate and ratified will give Mecklenburg County a number of options for
building and paying for the First Ward Park. We are exploring those options now; one
of them as Tom said would be not to participate in the part of the park north of 8th
Street. The response from the Commissioners was that they wanted to see the
County’s cost associated with participating with the park north of 8th Street. I do want
to briefly explain what Tom mentioned that the County doesn’t have any money to
spend, and I appreciate that Tom. What it means is that we are indeed trying to
manage the debt that we have for Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools and the other debt
that we have we are trying to manage that. We do not expect to be able to issue any
additional debt in the near future. What House Bill 924 and the legislation will do if it’s
passed, is give us an option for the developer to build any portion of the park. We are
at a crossroad and those are our options, Mecklenburg County Economic Development
Committee is looking at the options and we will be reporting back to them on the
options.
I just want to throw my two cents in, I appreciate the point Bobbie and we all are
stretched out financially I know that you are, you have a big big number that you are
dealing with this year. That part north of 8th Street I think is a vital connection to the
University. I would hope that our staff working with the County developer is trying to
figure out how to make that happen. I would really urge everyone to get back
together and figure out what we can do there.
I guess I am to that point where I am not sure how much any of that is in the City’s
plan. We want to participate and we want to facilitate that discussion; however, it
plays out but the nature of our engagement is relatively limited to infrastructure
improvements and parking deck construction and not park land. We do not have a
significant vested interest in how the park land is halting the program or how much of
that land is ultimately available for use. We have already made a significant
concession on the north side of 8th Street because it is traditional park property. The
south side has a little different flavor than the ultimate use on the north side, just
because it is going to be more often attached to the developed portions of the
property. Because of the way it’s built on top of sublevel parking, it doesn’t have the
flexibility that you have on the north side. I am not sure what means.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 8
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
I think we are all in this as collaboration and we bring various pieces to this
collaboration, the City’s piece that we are bringing to this collaboration is the raising of
the roads and pedestrian infrastructure around that. We have to collaborate on how
that is set with the developers piece, UNCC piece, but you have given us a pretty clear
outline of what is our piece of it.
I know very well where the City has defined it’s position in all of this but we are talking
about this and moving it forward, that side of 8th Street was part of the park. I think I
am saying something a little different. As our staff is talking about this, we are trying
to build this vision the way that we are all seeing right now. If that means looking at
things differently than we have been looking at them, I at least want to entertain that.
I am not saying do it or don’t do it, I don’t even know what the options are. What I am
saying is I hope that we are looking ultimately at how we are going to build that vision
right there.
This is a late breaking development we have a meeting scheduled for Friday, which I
think will be the part with the County and the developer to talk about this.
Even though this is going to operate a little bit out of our cycle if there are issues that
present themselves, we need to collectively communicate with our counterparts with
the County particularly with those who are on that Economic Development Committee.
It would be good to have that as early in the process as we can so that we can talk
effectively about how we are trying to make things work and not waiting for a meeting
to take formal action. I think we are at the scheduling portion of this presentation; we
have a bit of an abbreviated schedule because of budget planning. Budget Committee
has put their meetings on top of ours, I am not sure what that means. It does mean
that we would ordinarily be meeting on some of those dates that have disappeared
because of budget meetings, straw votes, public meetings and the like. I want to hear
from staff on the scheduling, does this mean that we need to take action on this today
or at our next meeting?
Next meeting.
O.k. The next meeting is scheduled for?
June 17th and we are suggesting June 10th because of the Chamber Inter-City visit on
the 17th.
June 3rd is off because of straw votes, currently.
What we may want to do just so that we get a little flexibility during the first two
weeks of June. We may want to have our meeting on the 10th it may be that we try to
move it back if we can if everything is ready to go. Maybe we should just have a
meeting simply for this purpose which we might be able to do, so as you come to
Friday, let’s see where we are. If we need to reset this, I just made schedules to go to
my Raleigh office on June 10th, but I can move them but I am working real hard to do
both things. Let’s just leave it that way and leave the date of the 17th on the
calendar, my sense is that it is better sooner than later if everything is ready to go.
III Subject:
Carolina Theatre
Lassiter:
The last thing on our agenda is a discussion on the Carolina Theatre and update on
that process.
This is just a verbal update and it will be pretty quick. You saw the Manager’s
reference that we had gotten a request from the developer, CMP Carolina Theatre.
They have requested to close on the property and remove the condition of securing
funding before they close. We have had some discussions with them about the
implications of that. We are talking with them about a couple of different ways that
we might look at doing that and some of the problems with that. Alternately
considering to just extend their option period for another two or three years. Their
issue is that they are not going to put together the financing on the project, given
current market conditions. They have put a lot of money into the project they have
gone through first round of building permits. They have run a lot of the traps on this
particular building, particularity with Bank of America. There happens to be a
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2009
Page 9
Lassiter:
transformer that sits within this building that serves the Bank of America’s power that
sits adjacent to it. It has an easement, fire escape easements, from the now Mint
Museum of Design. So it’s not a very clean parcel, they have run a lot of the traps.
Staff felt that it would be a good thing to entertain and look at and see if we could
accommodate that request. The other option is that their option period runs out on
July 17th and the other option for Council to choose would be to say that you have
made a good run at in trying to save the Theatre and now we are going to put this out
for a parcel upset bid and we don’t care if the Theatre gets saved or not. What we are
going to be doing is exploring all of that and bring it back to the Committee with some
of the pros and cons on each one.
Just to give you just a little bit of individual read on where folks are on this project.
We have had this project hanging around us for at least for three years.
It’s getting excruciating to keep getting these over and over again we should have
reached a point by now to accomplish this goal of preserving the Theatre. Reviewing
these options gives me time to give you my answer on this I don’t have a problem
with that. I will look forward to your coming back with pros and cons.
I had a brief conversation with Jim Donnelly about two weeks ago and he raised the
concern to me that if they continue to exercise options that they are beginning to burn
into their ability to make the deal work. Their preference was to get possession of the
property and work the financing out directly; they still have clear intent on completing
the project as designed. I am of the opinion having gone through a couple of
iterations of this that this is the last chance to make this thing work. No one else is
going to stay in it long enough to do it and it does simply become an asset for
someone that ultimately builds on. My sense is the freer we can let it close on the
conditions we set, they can do it anyway that they want to do it when they want to do
it, gets it off of our plate. That also keeps us from being a backup as a participant in
the process going forward knowing that it still has responsibilities to carry out.
We talked about that as a staff and we know some of the feeling that we have heard
from Council Members in the past, but there are some hybrid sale legislation hurdles
and obstacles that have to be dealt with. They are not being reconciled or rectified
very easily. We know that seems to be the response we get from Council Members
but we have to be very careful to work through that. We need to get some more
information on the stumbling blocks to get the entire picture.
O.K. We are currently set for a meeting for the 17th at 3:30pm.
Just remember that interferes with the Chamber Inter-City visit you don’t want to
change that right now.
We are set for June 10th with it with some idea that we could potentially move that to
a more current date, but let’s just get to this issue if it is ready to go.
As well as the Carolina Theatre issue. Whatever you do you are going to have to take
some action on the Carolina Theatre on June 20th. That’s your last meeting in June
because their option runs out in the middle of July. So we will be back with you on
that at that time.
Thank you all, we are adjourned.
Adjourned:
4:30pm.
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, May 13, 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:
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
BUSINESS DISTRICT ORGANIZATION PROGRAM – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Revitalization Manager & John Short, Business Corridor Liaison
Action: Receive information on changes to the Business District Organization Program and make a
recommendation to City Council if ready. Attachment
II.
FIRST WARD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Manager
Action: Update Committee on Development Agreement for First Ward project.
(Presentation will be sent to the Committee on Monday, May 11th)
III.
CAROLINA THEATRE – 15 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Manager & Peter Zeiler, Transit Station Area Coordinator
Action: Review request by Camden Property Management to remove precondition for financing in
order to close on property by July 30, 2009.
IV.
SCHEDULE ADDITIONAL MEETING for June 10, 2009
Topics: Arts & Science Council Endowment Campaign
Carolina Theatre
First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
5/28/2009
Business District Organization Program
Proposed Changes
Economic Development & Planning Committee
May 13, 2009
Recap of Current vs. Proposed
Current Program
Proposed Program
• 1:1 match – cap
p at
$10,000 annually
• Used for operational
expenses
• Board must be 75%
business
• Group must be a 501
(c)(3) or (c)(6)
• 2:1 match – cap
p at
$30,000 annually
• Expanded uses including promotion,
marketing and special
events
• Board can be 50%
business
• Groups with pending
(c)(3) or (c)(6) status
eligible
1
5/28/2009
Previous Questions
• How is this grant funded and what is the
available balance in that account?
• How many groups are projected to participate in
this program?
• How will City staff assist these groups in the early
stages of formation?
Funding Source
• BDOP is funded through the Development and
Revitalization Fund (DARF) along with Security, Façade,
Brownfield and Business Equity Loans
• Currently funded at $400k annually, but that amount is
rarely used in its entirety
2005
2006
2007
2008
Security
$16,850
$24,962
$2,500
$91,097
Facade
$28,628
$185,850
$36,549
$116,120
Brownfield
N/A
$10,939
$9,957
$19,060
BDOP
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$17,500
Total
$60,478
$236,751
$64,006
$243,777
Balance
$339,522 $163,249 $335,994 $156,223
2
5/28/2009
Prospective Groups
• By increasing the maximum award amount and
expanding the eligible uses, we hope to see more
b i
business
organizations
i
i
fform.
• Existing Organizations
– NorthEnd Partners
– Freedom Drive Development Association (FDDA)
• Areas
A
with
ith potential
t ti l business
b i
groups
–
–
–
–
NoDa
Central Avenue /Eastland area
Wilkinson & West Boulevard
Beatties Ford
The City’s Role
• City staff will be active with newly-forming
business groups by:
– Providing a start-up kit to help with the initial phases of
creating a business association (sample agendas,
membership flyer examples, how to elect a board, etc.)
– Helping structure meetings and providing examples of
successful formats
– Assisting with finding meeting locations
– Providing a list of businesses in the respective areas
3
5/28/2009
Current Services
• City staff attends monthly meetings with current
business groups and provides updates on
relevant City activities for that area
• Corridor Liaisons act as points of contact and
general problem solvers for the organizations as
well as the individual businesses
Expanded City Role
• As parameters of grant-use expand, staff will
explore:
– Special event management
– Community non profits, festivals, and businesses for
partners
– Holiday lighting
– Public relations opportunities
– Web based marketing
– Youth and job connections
4
5/28/2009
Summary
• Grant will change from a 1:1 match to a 2:1 match with a
maximum award amount of $30,000 instead of $10,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
Funds raised by
business group
$10,000 $8,000
$11,000 $15,000
City
contribution
$10,000 $8,000
$10,000 $30,000
Total budget
$20,000 $16,000 $21,000 $45,000
• Board will only be required to be 50% business instead of
75%
• Grant funds can be utilized for promotional activities,
marketing, branding and special events
Committee Action
• Consider staff proposal for BDOP Grant and
make a recommendation to City Council
5
5/28/2009
First Ward Park & Parking Update
Economic Development & Planning Committee
May 13, 2009
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Review Framework
Parking Decks
8th & Brevard
Other Issues
Schedule
1
5/28/2009
Conceptual Park and 8th Street Design
Framework
• 10 year grant of 45% of property tax increment t
to support parking
t
ki
• Maximum Public Sector Investment:
– Estimated a $26.1M plus appraised land value difference
• Developer
Developer assumes all parking deck cost assumes all parking deck cost
overrun and operating risk/losses
2
5/28/2009
Parking Decks
• Public Parking Spaces (1335 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
– Payments to developer start within 4 years of Certificate of Occupancy on first deck
Occupancy on first deck
– Stop at cost of first deck until second deck built; or, 10 annual payments are made; or Maximum Grant amount paid
Parking Decks
• Maximum Grant Amount
– Estimated at $26.1M in Council approved Framework
– Independent analysis indicates range: $25.8M to $28.3M
• Cost of underground deck
– $16.1M (some costs may be caused by office building….staff and consultant and developer discussing)
– 11% return on equity to developer
• Underground deck could be reduced by up to 85 spaces if underground deck costs exceed estimate
– 85 public spaces added to above ground deck
• Deck must be started by December 2011
• Developer may build above ground deck first
3
5/28/2009
8th & Brevard
• Developer/City Reimbursement Agreement
–
–
–
–
Reimbursement amount and scope still under negotiation
Range of: $4.5M to $5M
Includes $150 000 from Stormwater (9th Street)
Includes $150,000 from Stormwater (9
Engineering & design fees paid by developer to date would be paid within 30 days of Council approval (estimated at $150,000 to $170,000)
• Scope of Work
– 8th Street through park conforms to Urban Street Design Guidelines
– Sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, pedestrian lighting on 8th and Brevard
– Replaces all water, sewer and stormwater (Stormwater contribution covers 9th
Street, stormwater improvement already planned)
– Underground overhead utilities throughout
U d
d
h d tiliti th
h t
• Source of Funds
– Manager’s recommended CIP includes $5.5M
– Includes cost of City installing traffic signals
– Payment due no earlier than July 2011
Other Issues
• Workforce Housing
– Rental; 20 years; 80 to 120% Area Median Income
– Could be built within 1 mile radius of project
Could be built within 1 mile radius of project
– Number of units and penalties still being negotiated
• MWSBE Goal
– Applies to road, parking decks and park
– Goals:
• SBE: 6%
SBE: 6%
• MBE: 8% (County)
• WBE: 5% (County)
4
5/28/2009
Schedule
•
•
•
•
•
Council Presentation: June 1
ED&P Consideration: June 10
Council Consideration: June 22
County Commission: July 7
Projected Construction Start: January 2010
5