ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
Subject:
I.
Scaleybark Transit Oriented Development
Action: Review of Crosland, Furman, and Pappas proposals for
Scaleybark. Committee will be requested to recommend a
preferred option or preferred proposal to full City Council for their
May 29th meeting, with movement to Memorandum of
Understanding by June 11th.
II.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is June 6, 2007 at Noon.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter and
James Mitchell
12:00 Noon – 1:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Scaleybark Transit Area Oriented Development PowerPoint
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject: Scaleybark Transit Oriented Development
Chairman John Lassiter: We have one item on the agenda and that is a decision on the
Scaleybark Transit Development Plan. A lot of effort has taken place in the last couple of
weeks trying to work through revisions and updates from the folks who have an interest in
this project.
Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director, used a PowerPoint presentation to give an
overview of the three development teams who are interested in this project: Scaleybark
Partners, Crosland and Boulevard Centro. Mr. Flynn asked Tracy Finch to continue the
presentation and walk through the minor changes made since they sent this information to the
Committee on Friday.
(Tracy Finch, Transit Station Coordinator, continued the presentation with slides on Page 2)
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
Finch:
I need to back up for a second – zero to $3.1 million and the timeline as to how
that would happen. How do we max that out to $3.1 million?
There are four things and I will hit on it more when we get into their proposal. If
they get the New Market Tax Credits, we get money, profits from the land sales
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Finch:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Finch:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Finch:
Carter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
over a certain amount.
But, it is a possible, sorry to zero?
It could be. They would have four possible ways, but it could be zero.
(Continued presentation)
Can you highlight for me the changes in Crosland’s plan since last Monday?
The biggest change is cash. Obviously, they are … to a total of $7.8 million now
in cash for land. Their payment timeline for that has changed a little bit and I’m
not sure if you’ve seen this change, but the 30/60 affordable units may be new as
well to you.
What is the change in cash?
I think were at $6.4 million.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 3 regarding Public
Investment)
That is a change I think since we talked Mr. Lochman, the Scaleybark Partners
public investment request is gone.
What was it before?
We estimated it to be about $500,000. It was basically to have the City put in the
transit oriented development infrastructure around the site by 2008. Our estimate
for that was about a half million dollars.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 3)
Concerning Crosland’s commitment to Open Space, have they identified the spot
where they would invest that $625,000?
Not all of it. The first $185,000 would be spent in the one acre parcel in the front
(like Scaleybark Partners). The remaining would be determined in the site
planning process.
To clarify, Scaleybark Partners has, Crosland has not. You will have that
identified as part of the Master Plan concept process to occur in the summer of
2007.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 3)
Can you explain to me exactly how you got the net present value number?
We looked at when these payments were coming in, when the affordable housing
would come online, and put that to that year and for Scaleybark Partners we said
that was coming online in 2012.
You are time phasing each of these various entities?
We did that particularly, once the cash started coming in at different time period
to sort of bring them back to what it would be today.
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 4)
When you say provide permanent Park and Ride, does that mean here or not?
It is market driven and they have the option to do what they want, either leave it
surface or to build a deck?
And that is true for all?
Scaleybark Partners or Crosland – they both have that option.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Finch:
Carter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Flynn:
Finch:
Dulin:
(Continued presentation on Land Uses – first slide on Page 5)
You said market driven, who decides it is market driven?
What it comes down to, if the land is valuable enough to support construction of
a deck. You are taking up significantly less land with a deck. Values has a
tendency to go a little bit more to support the construction cost of a deck versus
the land value.
Market driven is a financial requirement, not a utilization requirement.
Down under land use, is $500,000 enough to get that job done versus streetscape
on both sides of the project?
The only improvement that would be required is pedestrian scale lighting. On
South Boulevard and on Clanton Road you have to move the sidewalk, install the
trees and put the pedestrian scale lighting in there. I think $500,000 is sufficient
to do all of that on the three sides. The $625,000 for them, that includes the
improvement to the CATS property. The $500,000 is just the two entrances to
the City property and on the back side of the CATS property along DeWitt.
Knowing how much things run in your world, this $500,000 doesn’t seem like
enough to fix it.
It is according to Engineering, they are backing it up.
(Continued presentation with the slide on Page 6)
Are those temporary lot spaces going to be leased for the parking?
Technically, the developer will own the land, but CATS has to have long term
rights (lease) on their spaces.
No.
First come, first served basis?
Yes.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 6)
Has there been any discussion about tying the 17 acres and the 30 acres
development together? Would that be part of an MOU or is it two separate
development tracts?
Two separate development tracts. The only agreement in terms of Crosland that
we would be negotiating with would be the development of the 17 acres that we
own.
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Finch:
Furman:
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 7)
The New Market Tax Credit was tough to get six weeks ago, are they saying they
have got them already or they are going to have to go out in the market and apply
for them?
They will apply for them and they will not know if they got them until they are
actually ready to close on the financing of the retail portion of their project.
If they don’t get them do they have to withdraw?
No, you may not get the $3.1 million.
Does Boulevard Centro have New Market Tax Credit experience?
No, but Bank of America is a partner with them on the overall project.
We will be working with Bank of America on that.
Finch:
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 7)
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Furman:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Finch:
Lochman:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Flynn:
David, as it relates to your site plan, is your open space fundamentally the same
as your proposal several weeks ago?
Yes, there is a site plan.
I remember before you had four open spaces but combined they were under half
an acre.
He originally had two spaces and combined it was a little over half an acre.
What are they combined to be now?
A little over half an acre.
While I’m on it, what about the other two?
The space that Scaleybark Partners had on their sheet is a little less than an acre
on that site plan.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 8)
This is nitpicking, but when we say no public investment, we do have $2 million
in affordable housing in that. I only say that because in the paper tomorrow it
shouldn’t say zero public investment, it should say no public investment other
than the $2 million of affordable housing money.
Mr. Chair, I have some more in tangent questions, is the time right for that?
Staff will make a recommendation as to some included and excluded before our
vote, but I think it is open to any questions we may have.
Why don’t they do that because they may be saying the same things I have in
mind.
Our recommendation would be to eliminate the Boulevard Centro proposal based
upon the fewer affordable housing units. We also lack the funds for the
requested loans. We just don’t have those monies unless you want to go back in
and touch your CIP again. The uncertainty of the payment for the City land. The
contingencies out there are pretty great and given that you have two other very
good proposals before you, which are going to return you that dime. We think
you should concentrate your discussion on the Scaleybark Partners and the
Crosland proposals. We do not have a recommendation between the two. You
have two very good, credible, experienced development teams before you.
Scaleybark Partners on one hand gives you open space and placemaking
beginning in November of 07 and they have a stronger experience with transit
oriented development in the partnership they have with Citiventure. On the other
hand, Crosland does provide ten more affordable housing units that is really a
Council goal. They are committed to getting at least 50 of those regardless of the
low income housing tax credits. Also you get a higher return from the City
investment in real and present value terms. (Mr. Flynn referred to the last slide
on Page 9 to give an evaluation of Scaleybark Partners and Crosland proposals).
One thing we have gone back and forth on among staff , and this is a question for
your consideration. Is it better to have two development teams out there
convening around Scaleybark Partners with Crosland holding substantial
holdings on one side of South Boulevard and Scaleybark Partners on the other so
you have that competition and synergy and development of that, or is it better to
have it all developed by one developing team? Under Crosland development, it
would give you a cohesive development of a total of 50 units You can argue that
on both sides, but I think it is something you might want to consider as you make
your deliberations.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Mauldin:
You hit the same items I had with regards to the housing units. In terms of your
net present value, there is $200,000 to $300,000 difference between the two,
which is relatively incidental for something this size. It occurred to me in the
calculation of that present value, is there any components that you would
consider critical from a timing perspective that would influence this one way or
the other? In other words, he may be going to do this by this date while the other
is doing this by that date. All that of course is woven into the present value
analysis.
I think clearly that the cash is important and when we get that cash, I think we
can really nail down and be able to search. The thing that I think separates the
two in that regard is the affordable housing. Crosland has made a commitment
that even if they don’t get the low income housing tax credits in the round of July
2008, they are still going to go out there and get at least 50 units. Scaleybark
Partners, on the other hand, is saying we are going to apply for them no later than
2010. We have put them in 2010 into the net present value analysis so that is
taken into consideration, but that is the only uncertainty around that.
I think we should follow staff’s lead and recommend either or.
One more observation, I think through the last many weeks, it is clear that your
deliberations have caused a better situation to develop for the City of Charlotte in
terms of two great proposals with lower public investment required and higher
return on the land. As painful as this has been, it has resulted in an outcome that
we have two very good proposals.
I want to go back to the open space. Without current site plans, and we know
what they both looked like before, and I suspect that their new site plans won’t be
too far off from what they had before. How can you give an open space
streetscape check to Scaleybark Partners?
The timing of when they are trying to do it. We saw the value in that because
they were willing to make a more financial commitment up front to those
elements, trying to create a place before they started to develop the site. Whereas
Crosland in doing that they were not investing quite as much up front. At the end
of the day, there may not be that much time between all of that, but we saw more
of an upfront investment from Scaleybark Partners. McCormick & Baron was a
part of the original team.
Their TOD experience has a check obviously. Are the Scaleybark Partners and
the Crosland teams essentially the same?
The Crosland Team has changed. …
Now it is just the Crosland Company?
Their partners are Pappas Properties, GreenHawk Partners, Citiventure, Colonial
Properties and the Housing Partnership.
How are you (Crosland) going to bridge the gap or the loss of TOD experience
by getting rid of the St. Louis crowd with you in house group? Not that you can’t
build a fine project.
Two things, we haven’t gotten rid of them. They led the previous proposal,
which we were a part of that team. We’ve had discussions on them participating
back in this program, but we have not defined our team today. The other piece I
would mention is that our planners through the … Apartments have significant
plans and experience out in New York, so these folks have planned transit all
over the country. We feel strong about out background there. We have not
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Mauldin:
Carter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Garrett:
Lassiter:
Tober:
Lassiter:
Proffit:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Proffit:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Lochman:
Mitchell:
defined that team yet, as well as many of the concepts who were part of our
original team in pursuing this entity.
They are tracking what is going on here?
Absolutely, we would look for opportunity to reconstitute that team and frankly
replace the strengths of the team we have as part of the proposal.
Neither of these two have included the Library, is that correct?
Crosland identifies it in their letter that they are committed to locating the
Library somewhere within their 50 acres.
We had conversations with the Library staff last week and they are still very,
very interested and they want to be involved in this. I would think both proposals
are on equal footing in regards to including a Library.
The intention to apply for the Housing Credits. How possible is that for
Scaleybark Partners? Do you have any sense of availability?
I think Pat Garrett from the Housing Partnership … from the Scaleybark Partners
team is better equipped to answer that than I.
comments were inaudible. ….
Based upon the presentations you’ve heard, do both of these proposals satisfy
your obligation relative to meeting the timetable for opening the station as well
as our responsibilities to …
Yes, they do.
Relative to developing a satisfactory MOU and financing plan, are there any
issues that we should be aware of relative to construction of documents or
clarifying the financial obligations, recognizing … in terms of anything that pops
up that we ought to be thinking about?
I don’t think there is anything that we can’t resolve.
You have the recommendation from staff to exclude the Boulevard Centro
proposal and consider two proposals based upon about $300,000 financial
difference, about 10% difference in affordable housing and some issues relative
to planning experience.
I have another question of Scaleybark Partners, your team is the same one we
saw before?
That is correct.
Thanks to staff because it has been a long rollercoaster ride for them, but they
have put in the effort to make sure that we got something …
Motion made by Mr. Mitchell to eliminate Boulevard Centro and select
Scaleybark Partners for our first true TOD for this project. Ms. Carter seconded
the motion.
I am very pleased with both of these teams, very pleased with the work David has
put into it and I am sorry it has taken us this long to get here Tracy, but I
appreciate your help and leadership through this process.
If possible, I would be interested in understanding the rational for the motion.
There are three things as far as my objective. One the team has already been
intact from day one. More important is the last check at the bottom of the tier is
experience. We are really talking about doing our first TOD project and it is
good to have a team that we know has the TOD experience. Lastly, I think the
Scaleybark Partners can change the open space and the pedscape. I think in
anything to be a catalyst and this is going to be a change agent for that area.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Carter:
Dulin:
Garrett:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
I am struggling here. With Crosland you have the slight better financial deal.
You’ve got ten more affordable housing units and you’ve got the adjacent land. I
don’t have the expertise to understand what is unique about TOD experience.
I agree very much with Mr. Mitchell about his … of Scaleybark Partnership. I
just heard a lecture by ??? that informal development is a new concept coming
and it is following the social structure in the minds of how people develop
property. The value of dissimilar development and when we moved here Foxcroft
was just being built. They were all great big boxes. Dissimilarity was not … I
think we have the ability here to have two major developers across the street
from each other and have significant development on both sides and to have that
artistic differentiation that I think will be important along the corridor so that we
are not driving … . I agree that these are two high quality proposals, but along
the transit corridor, I want the hands on in Charlotte Housing Partnership.
Is there an opportunity for Scaleybark Partners unit count to rise as they get into
their planning. Are they set at 80 on affordable?
Initially that depends on the land and where we put it on the site as well as the
financing. I think we can certainly talk about that, but the team has to work that
out.
I really like the idea of having a group that is already melted together and is still
together. I like the idea that that crowd, after the other one crumbled, they didn’t
separate. I think they kept their head down and continued to work and were ready
to step back in when it rotated back to them after Banc of America couldn’t get
the New Market Tax Credits. I’m going to support Mr. Mitchell’s motion.
This is really a … to Mr. Kimble’s comments that we have three really
outstanding proposals and we are really dealing with an issue of timing. I think
had the Boulevard Centro proposal come to us in this form in the prior generation
discussions, it would have been approved and would have carried forward. But
by the time we got to where we are and our philosophy and staff’s philosophy
shifted to one that was a market driven, no additional public financing in dollars,
and that changed the nature of what was going to be in front of us and whether
we wanted to be more engaged financially or one where we were trying to
control the dynamic, but yet let the market drive the ultimate build out. There are
two terrific proposals and probably as we spend another 10 days we would get a
little more horse race out of it and we continue to see these proposals get a little
bit better just because they are identifying strengths and weaknesses of each
others proposal, trying to incorporate those changes. At the end of the day,
you’ve got to pick one and I have liked from the beginning the sense that the
Scaleybark Proposal will immediately give us a presence on the site. They have
a build out of the park, build out of access and egress that begins at the front end
where it is and as much as you want to drive as much of the value back up as
quickly as you can, the ultimate purpose of this is to generate ridership and then
development that follows that. You need to have a defined place that begins to
identify location and I think that is a very strong component to me. The dollars
are going to wash and in fact where we are, especially with the strengths of either
one of these proposals, that they will build quality developments that at the end
of the day will generate significant tax value both in terms of property and sales
tax revenue that will dramatically change, not only that location, but begin to
create the kind of dynamic that we are looking to have occur all along the South
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 21, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Boulevard Corridor and create a model for what is expected in future
developments that begin to come along the South Corridor Rail Line. It is a
difficult decision, but ultimately you’ve got to make sense of what you think will
create the kind of immediate impact and presence. From my standpoint, I think
that identifies Scaleybark Partners as my preference also.
The VOTE was taken and was recorded as follows:
Mitchell made the motion, Carter seconded and the vote was unanimous
(Dulin,Lochman and Lassiter) to:
Make a recommendation to City Council to eliminate Boulevard Centro and select
Scaleybark Partners (Pappas Properties, Colonial Properties Trust, Housing
Partnership, Citiventure, and Greenhawk Partners) for the transit oriented
development at the Scaleybark Station that includes 80 units of affordable housing;
and, authorize the City Manager to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with
Scaleybark Partners, consistent with the framework outlined below, for City Council
consideration on June 11.
Lassiter:
II.
I want to thank staff for really a lot of work. A lot of us don’t realize how much
has gone through that office over the last 6 months and certainly over the last 60
days. It is an enormous effort and I want to thank Tracy and Tom particularly for
what you all have done trying to construct this in a way that we can understand it,
but constructing it in a way that is understood across the market place. I think it
has been a great learning experience which was not always pleasant, but it has
given us a methodology to go through this and it will help us going forward with
other projects. I thank all of those who showed an interest in this proposal. It
took a lot of work and a lot of investment to get to this point and ultimately we
could not select everyone to be on this project, but we appreciate your interest
and partnership with the City and thank you for what you have done.
Subject:
Next Meeting
The next meeting date is scheduled for June 6, 2007 at Noon in Room 280.
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Monday, May 21, 2007 at Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room CH-14
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
Andy Dulin, Vice Chair
Don Lochman
Nancy Carter
James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble
AGENDA
I.
SCALEYBARK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT – 60 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director
Action: Review of Crosland, Furman, and Pappas proposals for Scaleybark. Committee will be
requested to recommend a preferred option or preferred proposal to full City Council for their
May 29th meeting, with movement to Memorandum of Understanding by June 11th.
II.
NEXT MEETING DATE: June 6, 2007 at Noon, Room 280
Possible Topics: University City Area Plan
ED Grant for IKEA
Bryant Park Plan
TIF Limits
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Tom Flynn
Mindy Levine
Pam Syfert, City Manager
Mac McCarley
Saskia Thompson
Leadership Team
Brenda Freeze
Executive Team
Scaleybark Station Area
Transit Oriented Development
Economic Development & Planning Committee
May 21, 2007
1
Business Works
in Charlotte
Overview
„
Three qualified and capable development teams
„
„
„
„
„
Scaleybark Partners
Crosland
Boulevard Centro
Scaleybark Partners and Crosland require no
public investment and return money to the City
while meeting other public policy goals.
Boulevard Centro provides a parking deck for
CATS, site plan, and TOD certainty, but requires
public investment.
„
Return of cash for City land has contingencies
2
Fre
ela
nd
R
So
uth
De
wit
tS
t.
CATS Park
& Ride
Blv
d.
Property Description
d.
3
City Objectives
Established for Scaleybark TOD by Council
on November 27, 2006
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Mixed-use transit supportive project that contributes
to the redevelopment around the Scaleybark Station
$3M and 315 parking spaces for CATS land
Value for City land equal to $5.4M
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
$3.4M cash
$2M affordable housing
Affordable housing (w/ portions at 60% or below
AMI and 30% or below AMI)
4
Fulfillment of Policy Goals
CATS Temporary Park &
Ride (cost to City)
Sell Land to
Highest Bidder
N/A
Scaleybark
Partners
Crosland
Boulevard
Centro
$0
$0
$250,000
CATS Permanent Park &
Ride (at no cost to City)
NO
YES
YES
Cash for CATS Land
NO
$3.585M
$3.7M
$3M
Cash for City Land
$3.4M min
$3.4M
$4.1M
$0 - $3.1M
Land Payment Timeline
Unknown
$4.265M ‘07
$2.72M ‘08
$3.7M ‘07
$2.7M ‘08
$1.4M ‘10
YES (in deck)
$3M ‘07
$3.1M Unknown
Affordable Housing
(all have 25% at 30% AMI)
NO
80 Units
90 Units
50 Units
Affordable Housing Timeline
Unknown
Apply for
LIHTC by
2010
2010
2010
5
Fulfillment of Policy Goals
Sell Land to
Highest Bidder
Scaleybark
Partners
Crosland
Boulevard
Centro
$0
$0
$3.8M Loan
$1M Grant
Public Investment
(beyond Park & Ride)
NO
Master/Concept Plan
NO
Summer ‘07
Mixture of Uses
NO
YES
Open Space
Unknown
Value Returned to
City/CATS beyond City
Investment
- $6.8M
Net Present Value
Summer ‘07
YES
YES
YES
$625,000 by
Nov. ’07
$185,000 by
Mar. ‘08
$625,000 total
$850,000 by
late ’08
$3.91M or
$8.81M
$4.2M or
$9.13M
$830,000 up to
$3.93M
$2.97M
$3.2M
6
Sell Land to Highest Bidder
CATS builds permanent Park & Ride, and City sells only
its land to highest bidder
ƒ
Land Price
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Parking
ƒ
ƒ
Possibility for no affordable housing
Land Uses
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
$4.1M negative impact to South Corridor Project & requires FTA revisit of budget
ƒ Approximately $1.1M to build Park & Ride
ƒ $3M cash
Affordable Housing
ƒ
ƒ
City recovers at least full value for property ($5.4M minimum)
Mixture of uses may not be achieved
Unknown development timeline
Public Investment
ƒ
Requires no public investment for development of City land
7
Sell Land to Highest Bidder –
Balance Sheet
City Investment
ƒ
Land Purchase
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Property
City Property
$3.8M
$5.4M
Investment
ƒ
ƒ
Permanent Park & Ride (approx.)
South Corridor FTA Agreement
Total City Investment
$1.1M
$3.0M
$13.3M
Value Received
Cash
ƒ
ƒ
City
Park & Ride asset value
Total Value Received by City
$5.4M minimum
$1.1M
$6.5M
8
Scaleybark Partners Proposal
ƒ
Land Price
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Parking
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
80 units of affordable housing (60% & 30% AMI) will apply for LIHTC by 2010
Affordable units concentrated in certain area(s) of site
Land Uses
ƒ
Mixed use development concept to be outlined in the Development
Agreement
ƒ
Developer to build open space and monument signage for $625,000 before 11/1/07
$500,000 worth of streetscape improvements to be made by developer before
12/31/08
ƒ
ƒ
Scaleybark Partners will reimburse CATS up to $500,000 for the temporary Park &
Ride
Developer to provide permanent Park & Ride (at no cost to City) no later than
10/1/12
Affordable Housing
ƒ
ƒ
$3.585M for CATS property by 10/1/07
$3.4 for City property ($680,000 will be paid at closing and $2.72M by 10/1/2008)
Public Investment - $0
9
Scaleybark Partners
November 2007 Concept Plan
10
Scaleybark Partners - Balance Sheet
City Investment
ƒ
Land Purchase
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Property
City Property
$3.8M
$5.4M
Additional Public Investment Requested
ƒ
Temporary Park & Ride
Total City Investment
$0
$9.2M
Value Received from Scaleybark Partners Proposal
ƒ
Cash from Scaleybark Partners
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS
City
Parking (estimated values)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Temporary
Permanent Park & Ride
Land Lease
ƒ
Affordable Housing
ƒ
Streetscape
Open Space
Total Value Received by City
Value – Investment
ƒ
$3.585M
$3.4M
$500,000
$1.1M ($6M w/ Deck)
$1.4M (5 years)
$2.0M (in 80 units)
$500,000
$625,000
$13.11M ($18.01M w/Deck) 11
$3.91M ($8.81M w/ Deck)
ƒ
Land Price
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Crosland Proposal
Purchase CATS property for $3.7M by 12/31/07
Purchase City property upon receiving site plan approval for $2.7M (expected before
9/31/08).
$1.4M to be received in 2010
CATS Parking
ƒ
Crosland will reimburse CATS for $500,000 of the temporary parking lot
Crosland builds permanent Park & Ride within 5 years of closing (surface or deck
dependent on market)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Affordable Housing
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Land Uses
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
90 units of affordable housing (60% & 30% AMI)
Commitment to begin 30-50 units in 2008 regardless of LIHTC
Affordable units concentrated in certain area(s) of site
$185,000 towards new open space by 3/08 with $625,000 total towards
open space in the complete redevelopment
Conceptual master plan within 60 days of MOU
Project developed as part of larger Crosland assemblage
Public Investment - $0
12
Crosland - Balance Sheet
City Investment
ƒ
Land Purchase
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Property
City Property
$3.8M
$5.4M
Additional Public Investment Requested
ƒ
Construction of temporary Park & Ride
Total City Investment
$0
$9.2M
Value Received from Crosland Proposal
ƒ
Cash from Crosland
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Parking (estimated values)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS
City
Temporary Park & Ride
Permanent Park & Ride
Land Lease
Affordable Housing
Open Space
Total Value Received by City
Value – Investment
$3.7M
$4.1M
$500,000
$1.1M ($6M w/ Deck)
$1.4M (5 year)
$2M (in 90 units)
$625,000
$13.43M ($18.33w/Deck)
$4.2M ($9.13M w/ Deck)13
ƒ
Boulevard Centro Proposal
Land Price
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Parking
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
50 affordable units by Banc of America CDC (completed in 2010)
Land Uses
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Developer contributes $250,000 to temporary Park & Ride, CATS must contribute
the remaining portion ($250,000)
Permanent CATS Park & Ride achieved in deck by 3/09
Affordable Housing
ƒ
ƒ
Purchase CATS property for $3M by 12/07 (payment could be extended until
10/08)
Up to $3.1M for City property dependent upon proceeds of land sales (after meeting
financial commitments), sale of for-sale residential above 20% total cost, any New
Market Tax Credits achieved, or Housing Authority vouchers
Detailed site plan that includes 400 rental units, 140 for sale residential, 40,000sf
office, 80,000sf retail, park, and library
Infrastructure improvements would begin in 2008 for entire site
Open space completed in late 2008
Site plan supported by Planning Department
Public Investment - $2.5M
ƒ
ƒ
$1M grant at beginning of mixed income building
$1.5M is cost to City for $3.8M loan (2% 20 year) at beginning of mixed income
building. There is currently no source of funds in the recommended CIP
14
Boulevard Centro Site Plan
15
Boulevard Centro - Balance Sheet
City Investment
ƒ
Land Purchase
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS Property
City Property
Additional Public Investment Requested
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Construction of temporary Park & Ride
Interest carry on $3.8M loan
Grant
$3.8M
$5.4M
$250,000
$1.5M
$1M
Total City Investment
$11.95M
Value Received from Boulevard Centro Proposal
ƒ
Cash from Boulevard Centro
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Parking (estimated values)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CATS
City
Permanent Deck
Contribution to temporary Park & Ride
Land Lease
Affordable Housing
Open Space
Total Value Received by City
Value – Investment
$3M
$0 - $3.1M
$6.4M
$250,000
$280,000 (1year)
$2M (in 50 units)
$850,000
$12.78M - $15.88M
$830,000 to $3.93M
16
Recommendation
ƒ
Eliminate Boulevard Centro based on:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fewer affordable housing units
City lacks source of funds for requested loan
Uncertainty of payment for City land
Select Scaleybark Partners or Crosland to negotiate an
MOU:
ƒ
Scaleybark Partners:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
More open space and placemaking at station by 11/07
Offers diversity in development for the station area
Stronger TOD experience with Citiventure partnership
Crosland:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
10 more affordable housing units
Higher return on City investment
City/CATS land developed as part of 50 acre redevelopment
17
Evaluation
Scaleybark
Partners
Financial Offer
Affordable
Housing Units
Open Space /
Streetscape
Team’s TOD
Experience
Crosland
X
X
X
X
18
Proposed Schedule
ƒ
City Council Recommendation
May 29, 2007
ƒ
Present MOU to Council
June 11, 2007
ƒ
Present Development Agreement to Council
July/August
19