ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject: Business Investment Grant Program Revisions
Action: Review proposed revisions and make a recommendation to City
Council.
II.
Update on Bryant Park
Action: Receive an update on Bryant Park Report
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter.
Councilmember James Mitchell
12:00 Noon - 1:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
Power Point Presentation: Charlotte Business Investment Program
Update on Development in Bryant Park
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Subject:
Business Investment Grant Program Revisions
Brad Richardson, Business Advocacy Manager, used a PowerPoint to give background
information on the Business Investment Grant Program.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lochman:
Why were the grants rescinded?
Richardson:
Two of them, Woonsocket and Morrison Management, expressed interest and
were approved, but the projects never happened. They never redeveloped the old
Woonsocket Mill.
Lochman:
You have no idea how painful it is for me to hear Woonsocket, which I argued
against.
Richardson:
The third one, General Dynamics, began land in the community, invested, built
and they never met their $24 million capital investment. They fell short of that
so we consider that inactive.
Richardson:
Lochman:
Richardson:
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 2)
That is not a problem to require jobs and retain jobs.
In theory, we are keeping jobs through this Program in the community.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Richardson:
Dulin:
Richardson:
Dulin:
Richardson:
Richardson:
Dulin:
Richardson:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
Richardson:
Lochman:
Richardson:
Carter:
Richardson:
You would have to, we are not giving grants on the basis of no … amount of
jobs.
Except in one instance and we will address that in just a second. You are right.
We have to retain existing workforce and add to that to be eligible for the
Program.
When you say community – you mean Charlotte, inside the City limits?
Retain the jobs in Mecklenburg County and create new jobs in Mecklenburg
County.
We are tracking to make sure those jobs aren’t going to Lancaster County?
Absolutely. Those 18 active grants, we gave those grants on a condition met.
Not only do you invest in new tax base, but you retain and/or expand your
workforce in Charlotte.
(Continued presentation – Current Policy)
During the course of the 16 year cycle, businesses are bought and sold everyday.
When a business that we are investing in gets in place, is there something that
makes them report to us or do we find out after the fact?
We communicate with each of our grantees at least once a year and often times
more, but once a year, through Business Retention Outreach, visits inside their
office, having conversation with them, but certainly at the end of the year,
December timeframe, when we ask them to report to us on wages, on number of
new jobs. We also check tax records to make sure the investment is still on the
books. We don’t proactively require them to get in touch with us or notify us if
there is a sale pending or a move pending, but we do keep fairly close tabs on
these 16 to 18 companies.
Is there any reason why we should try to dial that in a little, particularly when
you said move? I would like to watch the money a little closer and maybe we
need to discuss that. It makes a difference, for instance if we are investing in a
company and if a guy is going to buy it and move it to a different state, or close it
whatever it might be. Shouldn’t we have some sort of advance warning that
something has happened?
Clawback will do that.
(Continued presentation – Proposed Policy)
I presume that circumstance would happen very infrequently. Only 10 jobs with
that kind of investment. I presume it is because it is in some particular
technology that seems to be extremely attractive.
Yes, technology is real expensive, but is attractive for our tax base and may not
require a whole new line of employees to operate.
I am looking at Page 4. Is that where we were initially talking about the 10 jobs
ceiling base because it is 20 here and I am wondering …
On Page 4, bottom slide, the Job Creation is 20 or more. That is the minimum
the job creates. This slide is a provision that we like to keep in the Program. It
requires a higher investment, but in return for that we felt we would offer some
flexibility on the job. Just acknowledging the trend that companies are often
increasing equipment costs and high tech computers, high tech machinery that
does not sometimes bring with it 20 or 30 new jobs.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Richardson:
Kimble:
Richardson:
Richardson:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Richardson:
Lochman:
Richardson:
Lochman:
Richardson:
Lassiter:
Richardson:
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 5)
Commented about the $3 million capital investment example on Page 7,
probably what we could do would be run a net present values on those numbers
also because you are paying out a little bit more money early, but you are paying
out less overall. The gap would close in terms of the savings to the City.
These numbers don’t reflect appreciated equipment, highly computerized
equipment. Over that 5-year term it is going to appreciate a lot more and be
worth about 25% of its value in 3 or 4 years.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 7)
We had that consultant group to meet with us in groups of three. I would still
look forward to seeing, and as a Council, I think we need to see the totality of
that study. I think in some ways it threw some cold water on some of the reasons
or rationale for some of these incentives. I just want to make sure that we all
hear that.
Quite frankly, what we are hearing in some instances some companies that
actually move from the North Carolina side of the line to the South Carolina side
of the line, regret it after a certain number of years because they didn’t
experience what they thought they were and a lot of their employees don’t have
any place to go outside that plant for getting away at lunch time or getting away
during the day at all. There are no amenities in and around the new development
to which they moved. They are experiencing some negative impacts of what they
thought would be total positive impacts of a move.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 8)
That would really concern me because while it is a point in fact that we have
some higher building costs here, typically when you expand, you are expanding
upon existing base of substantial capital, etc. It is generally much to your
advantage to expand where you are for those reasons. Talking about the “but
for”, I just think that would bring about a lot cases where the “what for” would
be a totally appropriate discussion.
We think the rest of these concern you from what you have given us directions in
the past, eliminating the “but for” clause we acknowledge and we’ve discussed it
is hard, but not impossible to substantiate that. We can often times substantiate
the competitive nature of a project, through phone calls, through research,
through a lot of logical things, even written incentive offers from other
communities.
I heard that we created something like 37,000 new jobs in Charlotte last year.
Obviously, a significant percentage of that is re-capital coming into Charlotte.
Just as obvious, a huge percentage of it has to be expansion of existing
businesses. I just think you are opening Pandora’s Box.
We agree and that is why this is part of our recommendations today.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the second suggestion, we already do in our current
policy. If you meet the target industries and you have a significant amount of
new investment you get that. If you are in one of the targeted industries and you
create a new investment of $3 million or more and create 20 more jobs, you
qualify.
You qualify, but the last point also is maybe appropriate to discuss because it is a
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
discretionary program, we … at a staff level and we do always at a staff level
communicate that I can’t give you the incentives. You may qualify and get
everything but I’ve got to take it to my Board in the City and County. It is not
like if you meet these we can say you qualify. Someone argued that if they raise
the standards high enough so that if they meet all of the criteria, they can be
assured and that is the last point the Chamber makes – make it an entitlement for
these small grants, invest 30, create 20, pay the average wage, can prove
competition.
My sense is that the Council wants to maintain control of that. We may approve
all the ones that appear to be entitled and met where we are trying to go, but I
don’t think there is a great deal of risk of simply having, you just submit the
paper work and you get the money. That would subject us to a lot of questions
about our judgment.
I mentioned the 37,000 new jobs, and I understand there was a question about a
year and a half ago when Debra was saying by the year 2020 we are going to
have an astounding number of new jobs. It bates the overly simplistic question
that if we are doing that well attracting jobs - the number of jobs we are talking
about in the Program is simply nibbling around the edges. It is almost incidental.
I am presuming the answer to that question is, we do that because of either target
parts of the City or particularly attract new technologies, or and I support this
strongly, large companies moving here with large numbers of jobs. What
concerns me is our instruction earlier before the meeting that the Chamber, in
recognition of a clear problem, and that is we are slow in permitting, less than
attractive sometimes on fees. In other words, we have problems. The idea was
to compensate for that set of problems by being more liberal with these grants. I
can’t object too strongly about that. Let’s fix the real problem and not try to use
these inappropriately as a band-aide for the real problem.
We have in our work plan for the year, an entire review of fees and permitting.
I gave Pam and Ron, from a developer’s perspective, literally a year and a half
nightmare and I hope we make a case study out of that.
I have spoken to him already and will have some more interactions. When we
say we are slow in the permitting process, compared to some others that may or
may not be the case, but we want to be better and faster than we are so you’ve
made it a priority, we’ve made it a priority and we’re going to get there.
We have some other advantages. You used to live in a City where graft was
expected, where requirements of union labor was expected and we don’t have
those issues. We are able to operate in a cleaner environment to allow somebody
to come in and begin their project. That doesn’t mean that we can’t improve
because we have significant issues in the speed under which we get things
through the process. That task we have selected to do as a Committee this year.
We’ve had three very fruitful focus groups already. One with about 80 people,
another with about 25 and another with a group of mixed use developers that
were about 12 to 15 so we are moving through that and getting some good
information.
Richardson:
(Continued with the first slide on Page 9)
Lassiter:
Based on the comments, we’ve got four recommended changes from staff. (1)
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Carter:
Richardson:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Richardson:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Raise capital investment requirements. (2) Increase in the payout percentages, but
reduce grant terms. (3) For large impact grants, reduce payout percentages
outside the zone. (4) Working with the regional partners on developing
agreements to stop some of the cross county and cross state interactions.
I think the suggestions are constructive and I move that the Committee accept
them and recommend them to the full Council. Mr. Dulin seconded.
There is a listing of eligible business clusters in our attachment that was sent out.
Has there been any refinement of this list?
Not since 2005.
I am experiencing some difficulty looking at the financial, insurance and
professional services. If they are doing so well, I am wondering why we would
incent them in this area.
If you recall, as we went through that discussion we had target industries
identified by the Chamber, some identified by the Regional Partnership, some
identified by COG and some identified by the City. We asked staff to work with
each of those bodies to align a common set of goals and that is in fact where
everybody is focusing now in terms of what businesses they are trying to
continue to contain and part to grow and tract. I think that is the rationale that we
vote on as a Committee and Council, to align ourselves with a common …
I was asking if there is any refinement, because it seems like it is such an
established practice.
If you look at this as it ran across to South Carolina, they were all in the financial
services business. It is cheaper, especially to call centers and economic
operations to simply move those just a couple miles. If we have no ability to be
competitive, despite the fact that they can’t get a cheeseburger for lunch, there is
a great deal of risk in the short-term turnaround to move those into fairly quick
buildings and reduce costs. Those jobs would in effect go away.
The study I was talking about, correct me if I’m wrong, but they came close …
that the South Carolina program was not prudent to be advantageous for South
Carolina, which is interesting.
For South Carolina, yes, you are right.
That is why I think it is important that Council at large hear that report.
I think it is appropriate to continue to look at that issue. Let’s continue to
examine the sectors we focused on and keep aware of these issues anecdotal as
well as ones that are driven by … so that if we find that in the opinion of our staff
and those who are everyday working these deals out that they are unnecessary
and they are not doing what they are intended to do, we ought to be bringing
them back here. I think in support of reducing the terms, if you talk to the CEO’s
who have been engaged in the movement of this community over the past 4 to 7
years, they will tell you that the biggest handicap has been the inability to get the
dollars in … that because of the stretch that has been in the program, both North
Carolina and our local program, all the expense shows up in the first year and if
they can’t accelerate beyond that expense, it begins to really question the value of
having those tax grants because … They can’t take it all the way back to a first
year … at the tax credit, but the degree to which you can compress that for three
years, I think is significant, especially for an office computer operation to bring a
headquarters. For them that is a significant change to move those costs on a
depreciation schedule and not have any out year tax benefit.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Are you talking about the more substantial grants?
Talking about General Dynamics that basically brought headquarters here which
meant office up fitting, office technology that the stretch on that really becomes
not nearly as valuable in the competitive nature. Some states and communities
will let you take it all year long and there is no clawback. They are so desirous of
the business that the community will take the risk on the tax payout and as a
consequence the business gets all the benefit in the first year which is a complete
write-off and then they are hoping that they stay there long enough to pay the
taxes to recoup the investment.
I agree with you completely on the larger ones and think it is a good move. If
you are talking about some of the smaller grants we give, …
The VOTE was unamious and recorded as follows:
Lochman – motion
Dulin - second
Review proposed revisions to the Business Investment Grant Program and make
a recommendation to City Council for May 29.
II.
Subject:
Update on Bryant Park
Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager, used a PowerPoint for his presentation.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lassiter:
Is the expectation that we will vote as a Council on the rezoning prior to the
approval of the Plan?
Warshauer:
That is possible, yes.
Main:
Lochman:
Main:
Lochman:
Main:
Lochman:
Main:
Kimble:
Campbell:
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Lassiter:
(Continued presentation starting with slides on Page 4)
What do you mean by support major projects already underway?
Those projects are the three projects that we will be discussing today. We have
rezoning petitions in for all three of them right now. We want to approve those
rezonings ultimately and we want those rezonings to move forward in concert
with the Plan recommendations.
I’m a little concerned about approving a rezoning without either the Plan being
made obvious.
I think we have an area to the North which is a fully occupied industrial area.
I am pressed to understand how you could perceive rezoning and then subsequent
to the approval of it, have the possibility of the subsequent land use or the
financing being deemed unacceptable.
We will not be proposing rezoning at this particular area.
The rezoning public hearing is on May 21st. You will see the Plan come back to
you again in June. It will be a matter of when will the decision …
I am not certain and we need to clarify, the May meeting is the hearing or
decision?
The May meeting with the Planning Committee will be their Public Hearing.
We are not going to be making a call before we have the Plan?
That’s right. The rezonings will be heard in May and the City will be in late June
at the earliest.
I was looking at this timeline and what we are going to do is have a Public
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Main:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Main:
Carter:
Hearing in May. The assumption is that we would have a decision in June unless
there was some reason for staff to extend the time to consider the rezoning. If
everything was in order, it would be a June decision. It wouldn’t get to this
Committee until the first meeting in June and I would think we would take at
least two meetings to get through it and then we make a recommendation to
Council so it wouldn’t get to Council until probably July. This is all fine and
good if everything makes sense, but we ordinarily would not find ourselves
upside down this way, trying to work through this. In some cases, we have tossed
things out because it didn’t go through the process in the correct order. I’m just
trying to keep the process clean.
I think that is the purpose for this briefing today, to kind of lay that out as to how
these things are happening. We’ve got a process right now where we have
developers ready to go.
I’m well aware of that, but I’m a bit of a stickler about how we appear to do our
work and I don’t want to be perceived as not doing our job, not properly
considering things, taking things out of order and you get to the point, which Mr.
Lochman has made, that there are going to be suggestions in here about how we
help fund some of this infrastructure. That then draws even more questions about
was this an arms length deal in the way we did a rezoning and the way we did a
plan. I like to make sure that whatever we do is transparent and people know we
did our job appropriately.
I total understand your concern about …, but what we’ve done on a number of
occasions is if there is a rezoning in an area where there is either an area plan
process underway or we have a draft document, you have been willing because
we’ve gone through the public input process and if there are issues and concerns,
we need to identify those issues and concerns related to the plan. If the rezoning
relates to any of those concerns, we can make you well aware of those concerns
prior to you acting upon the rezoning. I know the field is really close in terms of
the time, but it is not out of our ordinary practice. We have … recommendations
you all have been willing to vote on rezoning cases in relation to this plan.
There is one point on the $1 million contribution that is part of the process.
I hope that is not a part of your consideration for appropriate land use.
I understand, but I just want to make sure as we work through this sequence that
we have got it all clean because this is a corridor revitalization project, it is a lot
of private investment that I totally encourage, but we’ve got to make sure that
whoever looks at this says, boy, that was a pretty good deal.
This becomes a little bit different because we are here for a discussion with
Council to get your feedback and you are giving it to us and we are
understanding that we got to make sure that we are sync on these two because it
is a little bit different and there could be some potential risk in terms of financial
participation and we’ve got to make sure all the issues are known. Then the
question is, which one has to come first in the decision making to build all the
way up to the end. I think we are in a good spot because we are going to have
May meetings where we can work through this and figure out the right steps in
the process to get through.
(Continued presentation)
To the South of this proposal, the white area and then the prior indication of
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Main:
Carter:
Main:
Lochman:
Warshauer:
Steinman:
Dulin:
Steinman:
Dulin:
Steinman:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Steinman:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Main:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Main:
rezoning, it looks like it is industrial to some degree. Is that infrastructure that is
going on there?
What you see in brown is essentially industrial land and land that we are
recommending stay industrial. The white is the railroad right-of-ways, street
right-of-way and other vacant land.
So we are not breaking up a consistent parcel?
No.
How much public money are you looking for?
Virtually nothing. I will get to that toward the end.
(Continued presentation with regards to streets needing to be building in the
development)
Clearly, all those aren’t new streets?
The ones that are shown in red will be new.
West Morehead exists today?
West Morehead, Thrift and Tuckaseegee, those are more in category of creating
some changes to the sidewalks or installing bicycle lanes. It would change the
conditions along the streets.
Timeline again?
Some of these streets will be occurring now with development that is proposed
and some of these streets might be 5, 10, 15 years out.
With 15 probably max?
It really depends on the amount of traffic that will be occurring on the major
thoroughfares in this area. That would affect the priorities of finishing some of
these extensions.
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 5)
I had a conversation with one of the developers who was doing the Radiator
Specialty revitalization and they had issues relative to access and signalization.
Where is that conversation?
We are going into that just a little later.
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 6)
Currently, Thrift Road has a significant number of distribution, light industrial
manufacturing and a lot of trucks that come in and out of there. Is the long-term
vision that all of that changes in use as you get up toward Tuckaseegee and those
functions go somewhere else?
We think that is the long-term vision, but we are not suggesting that in the near
term. We are setting this up to accommodate that for the future and at the same
time we are providing for a network that will keep those trucks operating within
this area.
You don’t change that road network early and will just change the laneage?
The road network will accommodate the trucks in addition to accommodate
future changes. He explained further with slides on Page 7.
How far is it back on that new proposed lighted intersection, back to Freedom
Drive/West Morehead intersection? Is it a quarter of a mile?
It is between a quarter and maybe a half mile.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Main:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Main:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Main:
Kimble:
Wallace:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Main:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Lochman:
Warshauer:
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 7)
Is the proposal here something like City Boulevard where the developer does the
improvements, gets held whole for the value, basically has a schedule and then
we’ve got reinvestment coming in behind you?
Again, it is a question of timing because the City was going to do a project in a
location that we deemed was not the best location. We are going to proceed with
creating a signalized intersection and then obviously through development, part
of what will become Stewart Creek Parkway gets built. That is as far as we will
go for a number of years until we find the additional funding to continue.
(Continued with the last slide on Page 7)
Why is the City paying the entire cost of the realignment move on Thrift?
It was really at our request and it didn’t make any particular difference to the
developer whether it stayed, where it was previously or whether it moved. We
already had it in our budget to make the change.
If it is costing $500,000 more, what was the original costs?
$900,000.
So we are looking at a $1.4 million new intersection? Does that include the street
lights and decorative planters that we are now putting in?
Sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic signals, median and the complete function of the
intersection.
We get that back in year one, right?
But we would fund this through our CIP process or through the method by which
Mr. Lassiter was talking about City Boulevard?
That is something this Committee will have to determine.
It needs to be funded and how you fund that becomes the question.
I work with Norm Steinman in CDOT and have been a part of the team for this
Plan. The other location where we had planned this before, it did not include a
left-turn lane so the advantage of moving it, we are moving away from the
railroad tracks and will now make room to have a left-turn lane.
(Continued presentation with the slides on Page 8)
Who is that current property owner?
E. C. Griffin.
They at one time owned most of this land.
You all are doing studies, and we don’t do schools, but we hear about the added
load on them. I suspect there is some space in the schools. Herb Spaugh Middle
School is just around the corner. Is that work being done?
I don’t know the capacity of the schools and could absorb whatever children
might be living in this new development.
There are 500 residential units there and not that there would be 2.2 kids in all
those units, but that is something we need to think about. Those are the schools
that fight over that park being utilized.
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 9)
What does that mean, market for office less robust than residential? So we’re not
entertaining calls for office?
We would want it to be office and … in this location. We don’t see this as a
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Warshauer:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lochman:
Warshauer:
Lochman:
Warshauer:
Steinman:
Lassiter:
future residential location at all. The industrial aspect of this is gone as well. We
see this as being able to accommodate office and to be able to build the kind of
office and densities that we wanted is not as robust as it has been elsewhere.
So why don’t we just not do it until the market is substantial enough to demand
it?
That would certainly be an option, although we wanted to see more development
come to this side of town and a lot of the other areas where we don’t have strong
market, we have worked with people to bring that employment and help catalyze
areas of town where the market is less robust. That is certainly a call for you all
to be making.
We can’t build an office building and then think we are going to develop.
That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that because the
office will take longer to build out and lease, they won’t be able in their
development plan initially to construct all the internal roadways, part of which
are what are requested by the Planning staff to get the connectivity through this
to make the entire parcel open up. The consequence is that its natural
development pattern then would be more residential and retail, of which you
don’t need more retail along this corridor, but in fact want to create jobs and
more mixed use in this general area. I think that is the overall thrust of the Plan,
so what we would be asked to do is provide some road network construction that
would reduce some of the development costs that would then allow the developer
to begin to construct office ahead of a normal build out.
Correct.
I think I understand it, but I don’t agree with it. Markets are markets and demand
is demand and when the demand is sufficient it should be met in an economical
fashion. In the meantime, it is not the City’s role, in my perspective, to in effect
subsidize somehow, someway some inefficient development because the market
is not there. I presume the rationale would be because the road network is
required regardless.
We need the road network over there and would like to see our park property in
there and the City come back to life and be able to be utilized and contribute to
the taxpayers. If we don’t make investments in street networks in areas, we may
never see development happen. Now we have an opportunity of someone who
has a gap … between what it is going to cost to be able to provide that new
market, that new office space and what people can pay for that market space in
this location.
What is the point of empty office space?
It won’t be empty office space. There will be uses, and there may be gaps in what
can be paid for that and what it is going to cost to do, especially if we put on the
burden of having to create the infrastructure and the sidewalks and the
streetscape for this component.
It also ties into our centers and corridors policy, as well as our transit policy of
trying to incent and make a playing a field that encourages those kinds of uses to
be in close so it is close into downtown so it ties into our transit networks by
buildup of heavier density for our future transit network and over the long-term
provide for offices that are here rather than on the parameter of the City where
we have to have cars driving out there.
Let me give us some context. The City Council and this Committee have
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Audience:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Macon:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
adopted a policy of corridor revitalization. There is a $9 million fund that is in
the budget that was approved and we discussed that two weeks ago when we sent
the corridor revitalization proposal back to the full Council. It is our policy and
this is an identified corridor within that policy to spend that kind of money. The
idea is that we would want to do things, primarily infrastructure oriented that
would result in stimulation of private investment. The simple math is that we’ve
got an office building, you got certain rent rates that it can generate and that rent
rate is a function of what it costs to build the building, provide tenant
improvements and any infrastructure over all land costs. I think what is being
requested here is a way to reduce some of that costs so the rent can come in at a
rate that will attract market value earlier than if they were having to wait …
George Macon, Crosland/Merrifield Partners is developer for the project, and I
don’t think we have determined whether we can build office space out here and
get full market rate and the gap is in the infrastructure and improvements.
I think we have to get all the pieces in order. We aren’t asked to approve this
today anyway, it is just to get information. It is going to come back to us with
more specificity as to what the staff recommendation is and then if in fact there is
a specific request in front of us the proforma that supports it.
The bigger question is the one Tom is going to get to next which gets into a
parking deck. That is a real big question as to whether or not the Council, from a
policy perspective, wants to head in that direction.
I am having the same problem, but a different direction from what Mr. Lochman
has addressed. That is an office here would probably impact an already soft
office market elsewhere and that would further take other areas into blight. I am
being very specific because I am looking at what was covering the eastside and
there is a balance right now of demand. By taking another area further into
blight, there is going to be more money invested in that area ultimately to bring it
back. We need to be mindful of what we are doing overall in our City.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 10)
It is amazing to me that the discussion of WBT moving would even be spoken,
but is that moving forward at all? At one point, it was felt that they might move
and that would be developed as well.
I don’t think there is any specific discussion or plans for them to move like
tomorrow, but I think the fact remains that that is a very obsolete building and
logically for what their uses are. I think some kind of tv…
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 11)
Do we have an idea of the ultimate cost for the City of the whole project?
I will have to get back to you with that number.
The three development groups that are represented here, do they already control
the parcels that we have seen today?
Yes.
Then there is no competition in what they are up to as far as them being in
control and ready to go?
That is one reason we are trying to bring this back to you as fast as we can and
that may not be in order, but we know that they have projects out there and the
project is sitting on the money so we have been working as fast as we can to
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 2, 2007
Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Dulin:
Developer:
Macon:
Dulin:
Warshauer:
Lochman:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
bring all of this forward.
If all of this comes on line at once are we going to glut that area over there?
I don’t think so. It looks to me like they feel their market is different. We have
one that is really primarily office. One is more rental and one is more single
family and home ownership. They are really supportive of one another which is
why you see them all sitting together in meetings with us. We all see this as a
real win/win opportunity for us to impact this side of town.
What would be the build out of this area from these three development groups?
Are they going to be down there building for 6 to 8 years?
It wouldn’t be that long, especially if the first phase is a parking deal …... Phase
II would be 200 units and it would 2 to 3 years out. Phase III would be the
commercial piece, 20,000 square of office and retail and that could happen
anytime between now and 2 to 3 years from now.
I would say our build out … .
That is relatively a large area over there and if all three of them start construction
at the same time that area is going to be clustered up for quite a while.
There is a lot of construction activity for people in that area and they have been
wanting to see a lot of construction activity for a long time.
The sustainability analysis for TIF, that will include gap analysis?
Absolutely and small … as well.
Thank you very much. I would like some thought given to timeline. We’ve got
to be able to talk about the sequence in a way that has us making decisions …
and a plan that we’ve got those things all … The logic is if we approve the
rezoning in the Plan and incorporate it, expecting public investment, it is pretty
hard to say you couldn’t to do that. We need to make sure that the ask is running
ahead or at least is defined enough so people know when I raise my hand that I
am agreeing to do certain things.
That calendar and schedule, you are a hard working Committee, but I am just
kind of worried because you have Scaleybark proposals, you have IKEA
development agreement and you have TIF limits, you’ve got the item of street
lighting in subdivisions that can be pushed off a little bit, but that is on your plate
as well. You’ve got this, you’ve got the University City Area Plan coming
forward. There is a huge workload in the next six meetings of this group over the
next three months where it is a pretty active period. We have to map this out for
you and we will do that.
Some of our plans … .
They are woven into the revitalization forms.
III. Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2007 at Noon.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
Andy Dulin, Vice Chair
Don Lochman
Nancy Carter
James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble
AGENDA
I.
BUSINESS INVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM REVISIONS – 30 minutes
Staff: Brad Richardson, Business Advocacy Manager
Action: Review proposed revisions and make a recommendation to City Council.
Attachments
II.
UPDATE on BRYANT PARK – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager
Action: Receive an update on Bryant Park Report.
III.
NEXT MEETING DATE: May 10, 2007 at 3:30pm, Room CH-14
Possible Topics: Scaleybark Redevelopment
ED Grant for IKEA
TIF Limits
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Tom Flynn
Mindy Levine
Pam Syfert, City Manager
Mac McCarley
Saskia Thompson
Leadership Team
Brenda Freeze
Executive Team
Proposed Revisions to the Business Investment Program
Regular Grant:
1) Raise capital investment requirements from $1.5 million to $3 million.
2) Adjust manufacturing provision by raising minimum investment from $3 million to
$6 million and by setting a minimum job creation number of 10 (currently notspecified).
3) Reduce term from 5 years to 3 years.
4) Increase payout percentages from an average of 75% over 5 years to 90% over 3
years.
Large Impact Grant:
1) Raise capital investment requirements from $10 million to $30 million.
2) Reduce new job creation threshold from 300 to 150.
3) Reduce term from 8 year to 5 years.
4) Increase payout percentages inside the zone from average of 78% over 8 years to 90%
over 5 years.
5) Decrease payout percentages outside the zone from average of 78% over 8 years to
50% over 5 years.
Intra-Regional Moves:
1) Pursue agreements with surrounding counties to eliminate local property and sales tax
incentives for companies moving within the Charlotte region.
RATIONALE AND BENEFITS:
1) Capital investment numbers are low and haven’t been adjusted for inflation since
program inception. Small grants aren’t viewed as necessarily effective to affect a
company’s decision-making process.
2) Shortening grant terms reduces tracking time and administrative costs, a benefit to
both City staff and grantees.
3) Shortening the grant terms reduces the net cost to the City and County.
4) Increasing the payout percentages provides larger grant to the company earlier when
capital may be needed most to offset relocation or expansion costs.
5) Reducing percentages for Large Impact Grants outside of the Investment Zone
enhances the value of sites in targeted areas of the City.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Business Investment Program
What is the Business Investment Program (BIP)?
The Business Investment Program (BIP) seeks to encourage the creation, retention and/or expansion
of new or existing businesses and jobs in identified Investment Zones within the community. The
program provides grants to companies based upon the amount of property tax generated by the
business investment being made. The program aligns itself with local Smart Growth, Transit, and
Communities Within A City (CWAC) Strategic Plans.
Eligible Business Growth Clusters
Companies from the following business growth clusters who are relocating or expanding to or within
the program’s geography may be eligible for participation in the program.
•
•
•
Manufacturing
Transportation & Distribution (Logistics)
Financial, Insurance & Professional Services
•
•
Corporate Headquarters
Emerging Technologies & Industries
See Attachment I for a more detailed list of eligible business growth clusters.
Eligible Investment Zone Geography
Local Business Investment Zones include (i) Center City, (ii) targeted Business Districts, (iii) Transit
Corridors*, and (iv) the Arrowood-Westinghouse** industrial area. Locations that are consistent with
adopted land use policies and plans will also be considered. Additional geographies are considered for
projects that meet the program’s definition of a “Large Economic Impact Project” (see Attachment II
for additional information).
Grants may also be considered for projects that convert or adaptively reuse vacant retail “Big Box”
sites, whether inside or outside the development zone, provided that the planned use is consistent
with adopted plans for that area.
* If an adopted Transit Station Area Plan exists, the development zone will include the area defined
for mixed-use in the plan. If an adopted Plan does not exist, the development zones will extend ¼
mile from transit stations identified in the Major Investment Study.
** Eligible Business Growth Clusters in the Arrowood-Westinghouse industrial area are limited to
Transportation/Distribution and Manufacturing.
Program Guidelines and Requirements
•
A minimum investment of $3 million.
•
A minimum of 20 new jobs must be created.
•
Grant recipients must pay an average wage rate for all employees at the investment site equal to
or greater than 100% of the average annual wage rate for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill M.S.A.
The average wage can be lowered by up to 20% for those companies that pledge to employ Work
First participants and/or residents of the development zone itself in 25% or more of the new job
positions.
Deleted: 1.5
Deleted: BIP_r2_7/25/05
BIP_r3_04-07
•
Manufacturing companies creating less than 20 new jobs, but at least 10 may be considered for
the program with a minimum investment of $6 million within the Investment Zone.
•
Required investment and employment standards will be set forth in a contractual agreement
between the City, County and Grantee. These standards must be maintained throughout the term
of the Grant in order for Grant payments to continue. Failure to maintain these levels during the
Grant term will result in suspension of Grant payments until such time as the levels are once again
met and maintained.
•
Grant recipients that relocate outside of Charlotte during the term of the Grant – or within 3 years
after receipt of the final Grant installment – will be required to repay a proportional amount of the
Grant.
Deleted:
Deleted: 3
Deleted: 5
Criteria for Evaluating Projects
In making a recommendation for grant approval, the City will consider whether there is demonstrated
competition from other cities and whether the company’s planned relocation or expansion is a realistic
choice given the company’s product and market. Criteria will include a certification by company
executives that the relocation or expansion is contingent upon receiving local incentives.
Grant Amounts
Grants last for three years and are based upon new property tax generated by the investment:
Year 1: 90% of new property tax
Year 2: 90% of new property tax
Year 3: 90% of new property tax
Deleted: five
Formatted Table
Deleted: 85
Deleted: 80
Deleted: 75
How does the Program work?
• The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, together with the City, works to identify candidate
companies for the Program. If the candidate meets the criteria of a “Large Economic Impact
Project” (see attachment II) then the City and County governments are involved in the process.
•
City staff evaluates the prospective project and develops the proposed Grant.
•
The Charlotte City Council and Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners consider
approval of the proposed grant at a regularly scheduled business meeting.
•
Investment is broadly defined as improvements to land and/or buildings, or the purchase or lease
of new equipment, or buildings constructed for the qualifying company. Where circumstances
warrant, however, Grant calculations may give consideration to the value of leasehold
improvements in existing buildings when it can be reasonably demonstrated that the lease will
cause additional investment to replace the leased space, or that the lease results in a higher value
for the building.
For Additional Information, contact:
Thomas M. Flynn, CEcD
Director
Economic Development Office
City of Charlotte
PH: 704-432-1396
tflynn@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Brad Richardson
Manager – Business Retention
Economic Development Office
City of Charlotte
PH: 704-336-3857
brichardson@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Deleted: BIP_r2_7/25/05
BIP_r3_04-07
ATTACHMENT I
ELIGIBLE BUSINESS CLUSTERS
•
Manufacturing
o Focused on the following:
ƒ Automotive/Transportation Equipment
ƒ Medical Devices
ƒ Plastics
ƒ Metalworking
ƒ Industrial Machinery
ƒ Defense & National Security
ƒ Aerospace
ƒ Consumer Products and Food Processing
ƒ Research & Development Facilities
•
Headquarters
o Includes:
ƒ Corporate, Divisional & Regional
•
Transportation/Distribution (Logistics)
o Focused on the following:
ƒ Truck transportation
ƒ Support activities for transportation
ƒ Warehousing and storage
•
Financial, Insurance & Professional Services
o Focused on the following:
ƒ Financial investment & related activity
ƒ Credit intermediation & related activity
ƒ Insurance carriers & related activity
ƒ Funds, trusts & other financial vehicles
ƒ Professional & technical services
ƒ Software development
ƒ Back Office Operations
o Excludes:
ƒ Law Firms or Accounting Firms, or other professional service companies that
predominantly serve the Charlotte region.
•
Emerging Technologies/Industries
o Includes:
ƒ Opto-Electronics
ƒ Fuel Cells/Alternative Energy
ƒ Bio-Informatics
ƒ Film/Video Production Facilities
ƒ Industries which create synergy with programs of focus at the Charlotte
Research Institute or local colleges and universities.
Deleted: BIP_r2_7/25/05
BIP_r3_04-07
ATTACHMENT II
LARGE ECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTS
Consideration for participation in the Business Investment Program can also be given to projects that
have a larger economic impact than that set forth in the previous program guidelines as identified on
page one.
For the purposes of this program, Large Economic Impact Projects will typically be those that consist
of:
•
Investment of $30 million or more
Deleted: 10
•
Creation of a minimum of 150 jobs, resulting in the average wage rate for all employees at
the investment site being equal to or greater than 125% of the average annual wage rate for
the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill M.S.A.
Deleted: 300
It is important to recognize that some Large Economic Impact Projects may create fewer jobs yet
more investment, or higher paying jobs with less investment, or a higher number of jobs with lower
average wages, etc. For this reason, such Large Economic Impact Projects could still be considered
for the program based upon the project’s location and overall economic impact.
Eligible Geography for Large Economic Impact Projects
• City of Charlotte (any area)
•
Consistent with adopted land use policies and plans.
Criteria for Evaluating Large Economic Impact Projects
Economic Impact Factors
Number and quality of new jobs
Number of new jobs filled by local residents
Amount of investment
Quality of company
Net tax benefit to City and County
Primary economic impact
Other Factors
Competition from other cities
Demonstrated need for assistance
Location within local development zone
Large Economic Impact Projects Grant Amounts INSIDE THE ZONE
Year
Year
Year
Year
1:
2:
3:
4:
90%
90%
90%
90%
of
of
of
of
new
new
new
new
property
property
property
property
tax
tax
tax
tax
Deleted: 5
Year 5: 90% of new property tax
Deleted: 75
Deleted: 0
Deleted: Year 6: 70% of new
property tax
Large Economic Impact Projects Grant Amounts OUTSIDE THE ZONE
Year
Year
Year
Year
1:
2:
3:
4:
50%
50%
50%
50%
of
of
of
of
new
new
new
new
property
property
property
property
tax
tax
tax
tax
Deleted: 85
Deleted: Year 7: 65% of new
property tax
Year 5: 50% of new property tax
Deleted: 80
Deleted: Year 8: 60% of new
property tax
Deleted: BIP_r2_7/25/05
BIP_r3_04-07
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Business Investment Program
Presentation to:
Charlotte City Council
Economic Development & Planning Committee
May 2, 2007
Background
1998
• Program created in 1998 to target investment into
specific CWAC geography
2002
• Large Economic Impact Project guidelines created
• Added Arrowood/Westinghouse submarket for
manufacturing and distribution uses
• Added Transit Station areas to eligible geography
2005
• Updated eligible industry list
• Added Advanced Manufacturing Provision
• Added “but for” clause and competition criteria
Grants Awarded by City:
22
Grants Rescinded:
3
Grants Complete:
1
Active Grants:
18
Total amount spent to date:
$342,530
Maximum City expenditure in 2007:
$397,499
Maximum City-liability through 2017:
Total required investment:
$3,762,276
$237,460,000
Total required new jobs:
3,346
Total retained jobs:
2,721
Current Policy
Industry:
Manufacturing
Financial & Professional Services
Headquarters
Logistics
Emerging Industries
Location:
Business Investment Zone
Investment:
$1.5 million or more
Job Creation:
20 or more
Wage:
100% of local average ($38,480)
Term:
5 years
Average Payback: 75% of net new property taxes
Clawback term:
5 years
Current Policy
Advanced Manufacturing Provision
Investment:
$3 million or more
Job Creation:
None specified
Current Policy
Large Impact Projects
Industry:
Same
Location:
Anywhere within City of Charlotte
Investment:
$10 million or more
Job Creation:
300 or more
Wage:
125% of local average ($48,550)
Term:
8 years
Average Payback:
77.5% of net new property taxes
Clawback term:
8 years
Issues raised in 2006
1.
The appropriateness of incentives for intra-regional
relocations.
2.
It is more expensive to develop in Charlotte due to cost of
land and regulatory requirements.
3.
The advanced manufacturing provision doesn’t specify a
minimum job creation amount
4.
There is often a tool needed to match State incentives
5.
The “but for” argument is difficult to substantiate.
6.
Terms and clawback provisions require staff to monitor and
track recipients for up to 16 years.
Proposed Policy
Industry:
Manufacturing
Financial & Professional Services
Headquarters
Logistics
Emerging Industries
Location:
Business Investment Zone
Investment:
$3 million or more
Job Creation:
20 or more
Wage:
100% of local average
Term:
3 years
Average Payback:
90% of net new property taxes
Clawback term:
3 years
Proposed Policy
Advanced Manufacturing Provision
Investment:
$6 million or more
Job Creation:
Minimum of 10
Proposed Policy
Large Impact Projects (IN ZONE)
Industry:
Same
Location:
Business Investment Zone
Investment:
$30 million or more
Job Creation:
150 or more
Wage:
125% of local average
Term:
5 years
Average Payback:
90% of net new property taxes
Clawback term:
5 years
Proposed Policy
Large Impact Projects (OUTSIDE OF ZONE)
Industry:
Same
Location:
City of Charlotte
Investment:
$30 million or more
Job Creation:
150 or more
Wage:
125% of local average
Term:
5 years
Average Payback:
50% of net new property taxes
Clawback term:
5 years
Rationale & Benefits
•
Capital investment requirements have not been adjusted
since 1998. Resulting grants (at the minimum level) are
relatively small and can appear inconsequential.
•
Increasing percentages provides more money earlier
when capital is most needed to offset relocation or
expansion costs.
•
Shortening grant terms results in lower total payouts by
the City and County.
•
Shortening grant term reduces administrative costs.
Large Impact Grants:
•
Lowering percentages outside the Investment Zone
creates a more significant advantage for targeted areas.
Example:
$3 million capital investment
Year
Current
Proposed
1
$32,576
$34,493
2
$30,660
$34,493
3
$28,744
$34,493
4
$26,828
0
5
$24,911
0
Total
$143,719
$103,478
Example:
$30 million capital investment
Year
Current
Proposed
IN THE ZONE
90%
Proposed
OUT OF ZONE
50%
1
$364,088
$344,925
$191,625
2
$344,925
$344,925
$191,625
3
$325,763
$344,925
$191,625
4
$306,600
$344,925
$191,625
5
$287,438
$344,925
$191,625
6
$268,275
0
0
7
$249,113
0
0
8
$229,950
0
0
Total
$2,376,150
$1,724,625
$958,125
Proposed Policy
Intra-Regional Relocations
Pursue agreements with regional partners to eliminate local
property and sales tax incentives for intra-regional relocations.
Comments and Suggestions
ƒ Consider a “Green Development Grant” to encourage the
development of LEED certified or “green” buildings.
ƒ Consider an “Existing Industry Grant” to help expanding
companies with Charlotte’s higher development costs without
regard to competition and targeted geography
ƒ Eliminate the “but/for” and competition requirements because
of the difficult nature of substantiating these claims. Can cause
unintended consequences of inducing a company to look
elsewhere.
ƒ Make grants an entitlement for companies meeting program
criteria to eliminate uncertainty in the process. Leave Large
Impact Grants discretionary.
Recommended Changes
1.
Raise capital investment requirements.
2.
Increase payout percentages, but reduce grant terms.
3.
For large impact grants, reduce payout percentages
outside the zone.
4.
Pursue agreements with regional partners to eliminate
local property and sales tax incentives for intraregional relocations.
Action Requested
Approve recommendations for Business Investment
Grant Program revisions and send to full Council for
consideration.
Update on
Development in
Bryant Park
Economic
Development &
Planning Committee
May 2, 2007
Economic Development
Clt-Meck Planning Department
CDOT
CATS
County Parks and Recreation
Bryant Park
•Recap of the plan
•Update on development
•Outstanding issues
•Next steps
Bryant Park Study Area
Study Process & Schedule
History
• ED&P approval to move forward July 19, 2006
• Public Charrette / Workshop October 24-26, 2006
• Draft Plan Presentations
•ED&P November 1, 2006
•Freedom Drive Development Assoc Jan 9, 2007
•District 3 Meeting March 15, 2007
•Business Advisory Committee March 16, 2007
•Final Public Meeting May 1, 2007
Study Process & Schedule
Moving forward
• ED&P - Update on Development May 2, 2007
• Council Rezoning Public Hearings May 21, 2007
• Planning Committee - Plan Presentation May 29, 2007
• ED&P - Plan Presentation June 6, 2007
Study Goals
• Establish a long-term vision for area
• Define needed land use changes
• Influence the form & design of
coming development
• Identify needed infrastructure (new
roads, streetscape, parks, traffic
calming, etc.)
• Identify ways to fund/finance needed
public infrastructure
Existing Zoning
• Mostly industrial zoning;
to north stable older uses,
to south vacant and
changing
• Surrounding single family
neighborhoods
• Adjoins existing West
Morehead PED area
• Change already underway
• Lela Court
redevelopment done
• Wesley Village rezoning
• Westwood Apartments
redevelopment underway
Urban Design Vision
• “Greenway” oriented
development approach
• Stewart Creek Parkway begun
• Mixed use conversion of former
industrial
• Support, connect and expand
existing neighborhoods
• Extend and redesign streets to
support new land uses &
redevelopment
Proposed Land Use
• Support major projects
underway as revitalization
catalyst
• Retain warehouse/
industrial uses in north;
allow for future change to
residential
• PED overlay along West
Morehead Street
• Orient new residential
around greenway
• Build street network needed
to support new uses
Design of Study Area
Tuckaseegee
• New Stewart Creek Parkway
and Freedom intersection
• New Bryant Parkway and
Wilkinson intersection
Fre
ed
om
Stewart Creek
Parkway
• Expanded greenway
•Morehead Street Ped Overlay
and street conversion
W
.M
or
eh
ea
d
Berryhill
• New connectivity created
Wilkinson
Bryant Parkway
•Tuckaseegee Street
conversion
Tuckaseegee
t
rif
Th
Stewart
Creek
Parkway
Berryhill
New Streets
W. Morehead
Bryant Parkway
Wilkinson
Needed
Infrastructure
•High priorities
•Stewart Creek
Parkway/ Freedom
Thrift
•Bryant Parkway
•Include other projects
in City C.I.P.
•Cost of debt much
less
•Not required
immediately
•Greenway and Park
•Include in current
or future County
C.I.P.
New Development
• Wesley Village
•Wood Partners
• Bryant Park
•Martin Grimes Development
Wesley Village
Bryant Park
Radiator Specialty
• Bryant Park/Radiator
•Crosland/Merrifield Partners
Wesley Village
Tuckaseegee
t
T h ri f
•500 multi-family units with
20,000 sf office/retail in two
phases
•20.98 acres
Fre
ed
om
Stewart
Creek
Parkway
•$3,026,600 current tax value
increase to $100,000,000
($1,212,168 increase in annual
taxes)
•City request of developer
•New intersection location
to provide full access
from/to Freedom, increase
connectivity and orient
toward greenway
Wesley Village
•Rezoning 07-68 on Council’s
May 21 Agenda (MUDD-CD
Site Plan Amendment)
•Consistent with Bryant Park
Area Plan
•Developer request to be kept
whole for realignment
•City (CDOT) to relocate
Freedom/ Thrift
intersection $1,400,000
total costs ($500,000 more
than original budget)
•Abandon ROW – no costs
•Other roadway costs in
discussion
Wesley Village
• Long term
• Affect on operations of
Stewart Creek Parkway
connection through
Landscape Management
will need to be addressed
when constructed
• County Greenway
• Under construction
• Developer providing
greenway connection
Bryant Park
ill
•600 dwelling units: combination of
single family homes, rowhouses,
condos and apartments
M
i lle
rto
n
Berryh
•36.14 acres
Morton
M
Greenland
Arty
Wilkinson
d
a
he
e
or
•$5,737,416 current tax value increase
to $110,000,000 ($1,303,282 increase in
annual taxes)
•City request of developer
•Density close to Morehead
•Orientation and connection to
greenway
•Possible Millerton extension to
Morehead
•Possible roundabout at Berryhill
and Columbus Circle
Bryant Park
•Rezoning 07-58 on
Council’s May 21 Agenda
(R-22MF and I-1 to MUDDCD)
•Consistent with Bryant
Park Area Plan
•Supports and expands
existing neighborhood
•Provides for two
greenway connections
•Future Millerton
extension possible
•Roundabout possible
Bryant Park
•Developer request has no
current cost to City
•Millerton extension
and roundabout
impacts to be minimal
•Future improvements
to Morehead and
Berryhill requested in
C.I.P.
•County Greenway
•Camp Greene
Connector funded
from future County
C.I.P. when greenway
connectivity is
possible
Freedom
Bryant Park/Radiator
•600,000 sf office
250,000 sf residential
Phased over 10 years
Millerton
•34.03 acres
Morehead
Morton
Bryant
Parkway
•$ 7,783,240 current tax value
increases to $138,750,000
($1,643,750 increase in
annual taxes)
•City request of developer
•Mixed use fronting on
Bryant Park
•Connection from
Wilkinson to Millerton on
new Bryant Parkway
Arty
Wilkinson
Bryant Park/Radiator
Bryant
Parkway
•
No rezoning required for
Phase 1 (Building 1)
•
Site plan not final,
expected to be consistent
with Bryant Park Area Plan
•
Market for office less
robust than residential
•
Developer request of
assistance with
construction of Bryant
Parkway from Wilkinson to
Isom ($1,300,000 estimate)
– Possible $1,000,000
from ED Corridor
Revitalization Fund
Bryant Park/Radiator
Bryant
Parkway
•
Long term assistance with
connection from Isom to
Morehead
– $700,000 project from
CDOT street
connectivity funds
when density requires
•
County Park
– Improvements to
Bryant Park to be
included in County
C.I.P.
– 40 parking spaces
needed (existing
spaces not on County
property)
Bryant Park/Radiator
•
Achieving desired density
will require structured
parking
•
Market won’t support
lease rates with
structured parking
•
Request for City to assist
with parking deck in year
8, after completion of
buildings 1-4.
– Financing through
Synthetic T.I.F. would
require City and
County participation
Outstanding Issues
•
Wesley Village
– Stewart Creek Parkway /Freedom /Thrift design,
construction and cost sharing proposal
•
Bryant Park
– Millerton extension location
•
Bryant Park/Radiator
– Site plan development
– Bryant Parkway development agreement
– City/County participation in Parking Synthetic T.I.F.
•
County Park Improvements
– Work with County on greenway connectivity and
incorporation into future County C.I.P.
Next Steps
• May 21 rezonings for Wesley Village and Bryant Park
• More specific proposals brought back at June/July
ED&P meeting
– Freedom/Thrift/Stewart Creek Parkway agreement
– Bryant Parkway framework for reimbursement agreement
– Parking Synthetic T.I.F. proposal – Sustainability and
alternatives analysis for development
Questions ?