ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
BUSINESS CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Action: Make a recommendation to City Council on approving the Business
Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan.
II.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) GRANT FOR IKEA
Action: Receive and comment on additional information requested concerning:
1) An ED Grant to build a connector road to support the construction of a
325,000 square foot IKEA retail building at I-85 and City Boulevard in
University City; and, 2) Reimbursement Agreement to construct City Boulevard.
III.
DISCUSS APRIL 18th ED & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter and
James Mitchell
3:30 p.m. – 4:35 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
1.
Subject:
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan
Chairman Lassiter: We had a meeting two weeks ago and only had three members of the
Committee present and I felt because of the importance of these two issues that we
wanted to have a broader vote, especially on our first item. We have had a couple
meetings now that goes through the details on the proposed Business Corridor
Revitalization Strategic Plan. It has gone to our Business Advisory Committee and their
suggestions are incorporated along with our Stakeholders’ Committee. That is what is
before us today.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Carter:
One small addition to add a statement that we will collaborate with
BizHub in partnerships …
Flynn:
In terms of small business?
Carter:
Right.
Flynn:
I know we have one that speaks to – do you know where you looking?
Carter:
Page 27 – I’m very appreciative of your eliminating blight. You have 1B
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Carter:
Dulin:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
as addressing blight …
We will get a reference to the BizHub into the appropriate place about
small business.
The other thing is in the evaluation of economic ranking and social
ranking, etc. there was an extension of Independence I think I remember
on a map that showed a section of Independence that was likely
challenged.
What page are you on Nancy?
The map is on page 37.
Some extension out beyond segment 26?
Yes.
I think that is Monroe Road and I think we did ask them to run one that
had Independence.
The other one on 56 shows Independence as 57.
That may be what we need to add.
We don’t have it coming up on social ranking.
Social or economic?
One caveat on that, we may not be able to do that because the UNC Urban
Institute which did this work has now changed their data set and we are
not sure that they saved the data set that they ran this on.
On the Equity Loan Program, Page 13, I am just curious. Do we know
where the delinquency rate has been, or has it been a problem?
We track pretty well with other programs like this. I don’t have the
delinquency rate right off the top of my head, but we can get that for you.
You are unaware of any …..
Not at this time. We gave you a report at the end of last fiscal year and we
didn’t, but we will get that for you.
Do we go back and do an audit whether or not we are operating at least
one job per 10,000?
Yes, we do.
Could we put that out and publish that yearly, annually or what?
We look at it and have internal documentation of it.
Do you look at annually?
Yes.
Who handles that program for you?
The Equity Loan Program? Basically we have a person on our staff who
does that and we also partner with Business Expansion Funding
Corporation (BEFCOPR), a small business loan processor that actually
does the reviews for us.
But for instance the data.
We do that internally. Gail Whitcomb, Economic Development Office
staff does that.
She keeps it in her computer or somewhere?
Yes.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Mitchell:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Made a motion to made a recommendation to City Council on approving
the Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan. Ms. Carter seconded
the motion.
We have some discussion about future revenue beyond $8.9 million, but
what I understood that you were going to specify a future number, but
where is that expressed in this?
Page 25.
The vote was taken on the motion and was recorded as follows:
In Favor:
Councilmembers Carter, Dulin, Lassiter and Mitchell
Against:
Councilmember Lochman
Flynn:
Recognized Alicia Jolla and said she is really the linchpin to this effort
and did a great job for a person who joined us pretty much in the middle of
this.
II.
Subject: Economic Development (ED) Grant for IKEA
(Tracy Finch used PowerPoint to give an overview of the Reimbursement Agreement and
the outstanding issues)
Questions/ Answers/Comments
Lochman:
It is my understanding that we have active plans to pursue some of that
road activity regardless of whether this goes forward or not.
Finch:
The 29/49 project was a funded project and that had planned to go on.
Lochman:
Will that mean moving that up for more planning to be done?
Kimble:
It is worse than that.
Schumacher: What you see in green represents what we call the 29/49 connector project
which is the connector that comes from I-85 over where we have the odd
weave condition through there. It has been a safety issue for quite
sometime. It was in a bond referendum several years ago to upgrade that
project. Actually the State’s original concept was to make a grade
separated interchange out of it. We sort of picked up their project and
started moving forward with it and found out the amount of money it took
to do an interchange project was way more than we had available through
our bond referendum. We tried to step back and find a project that would
be functional, but be at a cost of $25 million that we have from the bond
referendum. Just last year, we got the State to agree to it. As you know,
all these roads are State system roads so everything we do is subject to the
State’s review and approval. We are finally on a course to complete the
design and do the construction of this project. It includes the new portion
of City Boulevard that is in red. Getting that in place sooner than we
normally would is part of the IKEA equation. What Crescent has
proposed and asked us to work out is a encroachment deal where they
would go ahead and construction of that portion of the roadway earlier
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
than we would so that it can be there as the IKEA store comes on line. The
connector road that actually takes you up to the IKEA Store is not part of
our project and is a completely private project that is the subject of the
grant that Mr. Flynn is talking about.
Lochman:
So it is safe to say that with exception of that grant piece, the rest of it
was on the board or we had reason to anticipate trying to get it done?
Flynn:
Do you want to talk about the rest of that slide in terms of how we are
going to fund the additional because this is the part that will be on your
agenda on April 9th?
Schumacher: As I said, $25.5 million is the bond funding that we have for the project
and what we had to do was try to find a project that would be functional,
satisfy the State and not cost more than $25.5 million. That solution is an
at grade intersection where 29 and 49 intersect at University City
Boulevard and Tryon Street. All the other connections converting the
connector to a standard intersection. We have been developing the scope
of that work to stay within the budget. One of the things we did to try to
stay within the construction budget was not to put in curb and sidewalk on
City Boulevard. One of the State’s goals is to widen City Boulevard and
have the opportunity to put additional lanes on City Boulevard in the
future. We all know that when the State will have the money to do that is
probably long in the future. To go ahead and put curb and sidewalk now,
we would probably get a lot of use out of it. We figured we could look at
the residual value of some of the land that they have already acquired as
part of the intersection. Once we build the intersection we will have some
surplus of land that we can then turn around and sell. If we consider that
residual value as part of our budget equation that allows us to spend more
on construction up front with the presumption that we will get it back
when we sell that land. By adjusting our budget equation that way we
have added the scope to add the curb and sidewalk to City Boulevard,
which was an issue that was important to Crescent and IKEA.
Carter:
By doing the curb and gutter and sidewalk, we will increase the value of
that land, correct?
Schumacher: I think having that infrastructure makes the land more valuable for
development.
Carter:
My initial question was whether that area would be developed …
Schumacher: This would get us curb and sidewalk along all of Tryon and City
Boulevard.
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
(Continued her presentation with the information on Page 4)
What is ROW?
Right of way.
Finch:
Carter:
(Continued her presentation on Page 5)
Does that take out some of the proposed connector streets? It looks like
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Hack:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Hack:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Finch:
the parking lot blocks some of the proposed streets.
No, some of the streets are moved closer in and shows some future
connections back over to City Boulevard and would be right in and right
out.
This map shows some outparcels. Is that what those are off of the main
IKEA entrance road? There are three outparcels there.
That has changed a little bit now as you can see.
Do those outparcel sales of that ground help with the cost of the road?
No, what we are proposing to work with is from there to McCullough, not
the section that would be built with IKEA piece, to make a connection all
the way up to McCullough. It is important to note in making that
connection, Crescent doesn’t own it all the way up to McCullough. There
is a piece there, even if they were to develop all their land and build a road
as they were developing, that connection may still never be made or could
be a long way off.
Is Crescent doing this on land built to suit or selling the property?
IKEA owns those front parcels.
We are only being asked to provide the dollars to build this connector to
McCullough. The rest of this grid that is shown is that the build out plans
for Crescent or are those the plans that we developed?
That is the plan that we developed through Planning, but there are pieces
of that that would be tied to the redevelopment agreement and the
University City Area Plan when it would be adopted.
The idea is that with the connector road and the improvements, it allowed
them the redevelopment of the remainder of the land of which Crescent
will be a participant in that and build out the remaining street network
connecting to these other points where it could be connected.
There are numerous points on our plan where we show grids coming and
all our plans show these new grid streets so as the development happens,
those things will get … as part of our rezoning and whatever will be
required down the road.
The discussions we have had, with this development agreement, they
would go ahead and reserve the right-of-way to make this future
connection. Part of that road is already a part of that proposed Wal-Mart.
Does that connect all the way across I-85?
It does not connect now. That would be a future alignment.
The future plan at some point when everybody has lots of money, would
be to build a bridge.
(Continued her presentation with information on Page 7)
That total is the tax or the reimbursable amount?
Reimbursable and that is how we generate our tax.
And that is 90% of the line above it?
Correct.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Hack:
Finch:
Carter:
Flynn:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Flynn:
Carter:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
If development doesn’t happen as quickly as that chart indicates our
maximum contribution for the 10 years is the $5.4 million. Crescent
carries the original risk on top of that.
If the land doesn’t develop, the tax don’t go up.
(Continued her presentation on Page 8)
If you look at the priorities of this area, not just this specific space, but I
had heard proposals for the area south and to the east as well. Have those
proposals been mentioned as you look at this proposal?
No
(Continued her presentation on Page 10)
What are we on the hook for? Nothing occurs unless IKEA is built and
IKEA doesn’t occur arguably unless the road is built?
Correct.
If the remainder of the property does not build out to the plan, the
reimbursement will only track that the amounts of new tax generated, but
potentially not to that full amount until such time as those new tax
generated total to that?
Or ten years. At the end of 10 years whatever we’ve paid…
But there is not an allocation of reimbursement in advance of the tax
generation, only upon receipt of tax generated.
Correct.
For instance if only IKEA wanted to develop out there, you are looking at
about $97,000 per year for 10 years, if that was all that were to happen.
Let me go back to the I-85 connector. Did I hear correctly that if we do
not build that IKEA will not come?
The 29/49 project is a separate project that moves without the IKEA. It is
the connector road that would connect City Boulevard with McCullough,
you wouldn’t have to necessarily have to look at having to do right now.
Did we throw that in as a way to entice IKEA to come or did IKEA ask us
to building that road for them to come? Which came first?
They requested it.
The impact in the future on City revenue – we are biting into the property
tax coming in and we know that right now our property tax does not cover
the cost of fire and police, so as we decrease that amount of property tax
available to us, what are we sacrificing?
We have summarized all of these and we are almost ready to come back to
the Committee. We have them all tabled in tabular form and the difficulty
in answering your question is, if you didn’t do this,you wouldn’t have
IKEA, you would have something else so what is that something else and
how do you track that and include that in your analysis?
What we would want to do and I don’t think I have seen yet, is taking the
ones we’ve done and tallying them up.
We’ve sent that to you, and we are adding some others to it that happened
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
as of late, but we sent that to you about two months ago in January.
We’ve got them all organized and we are going to do a more elaborate and
deeper analysis of that with you as we put it together.
Isn’t that the one I thought I saw that wasn’t completed?
We showed it to you in one way and what Ron is saying you asked us to
dig deeper into to and that is what we are doing. I think we had tentatively
tried to schedule at the Retreat, but we didn’t get to it so now we are trying
to get that on your Committee meeting in April to make a recommendation
on IKEA.
One thing I think has happened is the point you just made. It seems to me
there is less and less discussion about the original tax increment financing
strategy was to apply this to the circumstances where development was
unlikely and therefore the incremental revenue that legitimately suggested
… It almost seems like that has now become something that is an after
thought at best. What I find us doing, and we are doing it on every project
now, is saying we have some similar investment or group of investments
that we now use … for this investment. On Scaleybark, it was six other
tax increment financing deals, on this on it is five places around America
have gone into these amounts of money. It leaves me very uncomfortable
that we just keep gravitating towards a rational that I think is getting
further from Amendment One and what it implied the application to be.
Our reason for doing that and maybe we are not being clear. It was not to
say we did there, therefore you should do it here. This one looks like in its
attributes like this other one. The Council has the opportunity each and
every time to vote it up or vote it down and we are not trying to do that
and put pressure and say you did it before so you should do it again. MidTown Square was an economic development grant that was a gap
financing tool. The Elizabeth was one in which you actually go in and use
incremental property tax on a reimbursement basis to buy parking spaces
inside parking decks. The North Carolina Music Factory was one that was
similar to what this one is, it is for road infrastructure. Maybe we need to
be more clear that we are not trying to say you did before, so therefore you
should do it again, and give you the relationship. What this one looks like
in terms of the kinds of things it is doing, we should do a better job of
clarifying our intent.
I think that would be helpful because in the absence of that explanation, it
appears like – but it seems to me that it is becoming a way of doing
business, a vote to potential investors and to Councilmembers.
Let me make this observation. There are numerous ideas and projects that
come to staff for consideration that do not get to this point. A number of
them are suggested by various development interests or whoever and they
don’t fit, it isn’t what we want to try to do, doesn’t meet our greater goal.
I think what we expect is that in the evaluation of these kinds of
opportunities, this does meet in fact some public policy directive, some
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
revitalization. In this case, it helps construct a road network that doesn’t
currently exists in an area and receive the added benefit of attracting a
redevelopment that otherwise would not be here and generate positive
cash flow, looking a whole lot more like the way we do water and sewer
where you build it out and you get it paid back over a period of time, and
then you own it all. I think it is appropriate to make sure that we explain
it appropriately as it is coming before us so it doesn’t get lumped into this
stack of public money that is being given for private development and
everybody who asks for it gets it, which is not true.
You have even caused us to think a lot about what eventual policy we are
going to come back to you because we are getting nervous about the
erosion of property tax money for specific projects and maybe we ought to
have a policy that looks more at what this incremental is over the present,
versus what you would have gotten over a longer period of time, slower
growth, but you would’ve gotten some growth so your calculation of
increment ought not to be the whole increment, Maybe it needs to be the
differential increment. Those are things that we are thinking about as a
staff.
That is the danger. I think with so many and when you start getting into
areas of the City that are not problematic, I admit it is a judgment call. I
think you are probably right, something should be there.
Maybe it is a split policy in the areas where you want to stimulate that
growth and development, it is one policy, but in other areas where its got
an inertia of its own, it’s not that amount.
I read an article on the City of Memphis and they did what you are
suggesting. It was a staggering amount of money and they had re-adjusted
their thought process since based on that occurring. I am not suggesting
that we are there, but it does behoove you to keep on top of it.
You’ve got our attention and we’re paying attention because the numbers
are pretty significant now.
How many jobs would this potentially bring to the area?
Approximately 400.
It would be great if we could do a timeline so I can get an overall picture.
We are talking about the connector road, City Boulevard, IKEA so can
you put a timeline so we can see that on one sheet of paper how all the
dates are in sequence?
Finch:
Carter:
Flynn:
(Continued her presentation with Benefits)
Is the County involved in this at all?
No, they are not involved with this.
Finch:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
(Continued her presentation with Outstanding Issues)
What is the timetable on the rezoning?
April hearings.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Kimble:
And the scheduled time for us to vote on this is when?
The reimbursement agreement on the City Boulevard April 9th. The 50/50
cost sharing on the loan is April 9th and then we need more time to work
out the specifics of the development agreement and the economic
development grant.
Flynn:
That will probably be sometime in May because we also want to bring
back to you the TIF information.
Lassiter:
Going back to Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion, it would be good to see all that
just so we can know. I don‘t want to get confused with Council what is in
front of us and what we are voting on. I was under the impression that we
were going to try to vote on this today, but it sounds like we need at least
one more meeting. I want to make sure we are properly sequenced as we
are coming into Council because it gets a little confusing when you’ve got
a rezoning matter.
Flynn:
Why don’t we try to provide that to you as an attachment to your April 9th
Agenda item.
Carter:
Are there any barriers or outstanding design issues?
Campbell:
No, not on the City side. I’m not sure about IKEA’s side. I don’t think
there are, but I can’t speak for them.
Dulin:
What are the plans for the run-off from the parking lot and where does that
water go and what stream system does it get put in? It is hilly over there
and there is a lot of community.
Schumacher: I don’t know the details, but that will be addressed through the normal
development review of their plans.
Dulin:
There aren’t any downstream lakes by chance over there are there? This
probably flows up under I-85 somewhere.
Lassiter:
This will come back to us for our April 4th meeting?
III. Subject: Discuss April 18th ED& Planning Committee Meeting
Tom Flynn: We are thinking about your later meeting in April. We have to talk to you
about rescheduling that because there is a conflict with a Budget Workshop on the 18th.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
Could we just flip it to the noon hour?
Lassiter:
We have a meeting scheduled for April 4th.
Dulin:
I will be absent on that day.
Kimble:
It would be a good idea for this Committee to see the reimbursement
agreement for City Boulevard and you could take that under advisement
on April 4th and make a recommendation to Council on April 9th. Then we
could bring back to you the economic development grant piece at a later
time and we would be okay.
Lassiter:
We will only have three members on the 4th. Our next meeting is
scheduled for the 18th which is the same time as the Budget Retreat, but
we could meet at noon that day.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
We will check for any other Committee conflicts, but that sounds good.
I’ve got two other meetings scheduled for noon that day, but they are less
important than this one because we’ve got to get some stuff voted out so I
will just have to tell the other two organizations I can’t be there. If we
meet at 1:30 to 3:00 on April 18th, would that be good? There will be no
meeting on the 4th and our next meeting will be on the 18th. We will deal
with IKEA in total.
Is it okay then to put the reimbursement agreement and the water line on
the April 9th agenda and you can speak to it even though you won’t have
seen the actual agreement to vote it out of Committee.
Can we appropriately, with what we know now give a recommendation
back to Council on that issue?
Yes, if you are comfortable doing that.
I don’t think our outstanding issues has anything to do with that. So we
would need a motion that recommends the Council approval of the
Water/Sewer Reimbursement Agreement and the City Boulevard
improvements reimbursement which we have seen. There are no design
issues or sustainability index issues tied to that connector that would be
tied to our meeting on the 18th.
Motion was made by Councilmember Dulin to recommend to the Council
approval of the Water/Sewer Reimbursement Agreement and City
Boulevard Improvements Reimbursement.
Dulin:
We are trying to fix roads and this is an opportunity for us to go out there
and do what we are supposed to be doing. It is expensive to do that, but I
have been traveling 29/49 by whole life and to be sitting on a Committee
to make that a safer, better intersection in there and to build this road
where we can create some economic development and make it a better
way of life for those folks that live out that way, I am pleased to do that.
The vote was taken on the motion and was recorded as unanimous.
Lassiter:
Kimble:
We will just deal with the economic grant on the 18th and if we will
prepare for that meeting kind of a timeline where all these things are
because we will have already had the rezoning hearing.
No, it will be the 16th.
Other Topics: Eastland Mall
Chairman Lassiter: Just to get you up to speed, and this will come to Council on the
April 2nd meeting for Council. There will be a presentation on the ULI report on
reinventing Eastland Mall. Several of us were at that presentation a couple weeks ago
and it was a very valuable exercise and I want to thank Tom and his staff for working
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
hard to make that happen because we had to reach out to some outside sources and have
them take advantage of that. I think they gave us a lot of food for thought that is going to
be important for this Council and arguably this Committee to work its way through it in
the coming months. It was a very valuable presentation and a lot of us got a chance to
talk to the folks when they were here preparing the report. It is a terrific step and it is
going to your comments Don, about what are you going to pay for and what is the return.
A lot of these recommendations are going to require public investment in order to get a
return, but you’ve got real issues relative to the viability of the existing real property that
is not in fact paying what it could pay if it had a different kind of use. That is coming and
it will not be easy work.
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
To the extent that you have market forces working against what is there,
recruited being a successful enterprise, to the extent that other things are
being suggested, are they also being balanced against the same backdrop
or the same overall economic circumstances?
Yes, I think you will see in the presentation, it was very market driven in
terms of what is going on. Having a willingness on the part of the land
owners involved on that parcel made a lot of difference because they
recognized they cannot … the current model. They are going to have to
figure out what their role is. The current dynamic is not going to play
itself out and it is going to take a lot of work and a lot of redevelopment
effort that will change it dramatically in a wide variety of ways. It will
take a lot of work for the neighbors to come to grips with what that is
because they’ve got an expectation. It will be a real test for us as Council
to drive some of these things which I think will ultimately force us to
make some investment in advance of things without the sure bet that it is
going to work. The players all have an interest in doing that because they
are reading the same trend.
The last thing we want is taxpayer money being funneled into more of the
same without significant differentiation from what …
You may have seen in the newspaper, it is a very different place. They
want us to lose the name Eastland and come up with another way to
describe that area. It will be a much more transitional mixed use
environment that should bleed itself along Sharon Amity, along Central
Avenue and along Albemarle Road and our role may be a different role
than it has currently been in terms of making sites ready for us and
delivery of other public resources that investment it would ordinarily do,
but try to put into place where it stimulates the walkability and the
community nature that doesn’t currently exists.
If it is a different configuration what is it about the overall circumstances
there that would preclude this development being successfully done by
privately owned?
I think the big issue is the inclination for the private holder would be to
shutter large portions of the malls and wait out the market place. Your
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 21, 2007
Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
IV:
property tax declines, your sales tax goes away and the inherent problems
with still the large … All the things you want to happen will not happen.
They talked about for example in one location that they studied, Target
came into the market because they walled up their end of the mall and
prohibit any other thing coming into so you end up with an environment
that is not going to stimulate new investment and the likelihood for a
larger private enterprise is to go shutter it and just wait until the market
comes back. That could be decades.
We wouldn’t be bailing out private …
No, there is no bailing out issue here. There may be partnerships that says
we are willing to do X if you are willing to do Y and as a consequence it
will create Z. There is a lot of ifs to that and if you take for example
where Mid-Town Square was and sitting there for a long period of time
and not much going on and just a few viable activities, yet it had the
benefit of being right next to Center City and right next to highly affluent
areas. Take the same environment where Eastland is and carry that out
probably … so you don’t have the other attributes that make it attractive
for reinvestment. That is the dilemma they are dealing with in which case
you’ve got to say this is no longer a regional mall site, what should it be,
what are the components and how does the players who currently own
assets there turn their assets into this new development or sell them to
somebody else who says I would be interested in finding a way to buy you
out. We are going to have to participate in that to make it happen.
There is 90 acres over there.
It is a big piece of land. It is as big as half of the Center City. I think it
will be a very stimulating and good investment. At the end of the day, if
we make it, we will all look back and say we did pretty good.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting is scheduled for April 18th at 1:30 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 3:30pm
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 CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION STRATEGIC PLAN – 15 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director
Action: Make a recommendation to City Council on approving the Business Corridor
Revitalization Strategic Plan. Attachment
II.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) GRANT FOR IKEA -- 45 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director
Action: Receive and comment on additional information requested concerning: 1) An ED Grant
to build a connector road to support the construction of a 325,000 square foot IKEA retail
building at I-85 and City Boulevard in University City; and, 2) Reimbursement Agreement to
construct City Boulevard.
III.
DISCUSS APRIL 18th ED & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
IV.
NEXT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2007 at Noon, Room 280
Possible Topics: Update on Bryant Park
Continue Review of Business Investment Grant Program
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Tom Flynn
Mindy Levine
Pam Syfert, City Manager
Mac McCarley
Saskia Thompson
Leadership Team
Brenda Freeze
Executive Team
Business Corridor Revitalization
Strategic Plan
2007-2010
Prepared by
Economic Development Office (EDO)
City of Charlotte
with assistance from The Coman Company
March 21, 2007
1
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan
I.
Executive Summary
II.
Introduction
a. Mission and vision
b. Document objective
c. Methodology
III.
The Business Corridors
a. Understanding the corridors
b. Wilkinson Boulevard- A case study
c. Relevant City programs
i. Grants/Other
ii. Measures of success
d. Current state
e. SWOT analysis
IV.
Peer Cities
a. Best practices
b. Unique ideas
V.
Recommendations
a. Required activities
b. Implementation plan
Appendices
Appendix I:
Appendix II:
Appendix III:
Appendix IV:
Appendix V:
Appendix VI:
Appendix VII:
Appendix VIII:
Appendix IX:
Appendix X:
Maps of the Business Corridors
Industries and the Corridors
Wilkinson Park Business Center: Before and After
Existing City of Charlotte programs
Peer City Information
List of BCR Strategic Plan Steering Committee Members
List of Acronyms
Economic Development Office Job Descriptions
Budget
References
2
I.
Executive Summary
Business corridors radiate from the city core like spokes of a wheel: Freedom
Drive, Central Avenue, Tryon Street, West Boulevard and Beatties Ford Road
constitute but a handful. Taken together, the City of Charlotte recognizes
approximately twenty major inner city business corridors. The state of these
corridors varies as much as their geography. Even portions of a particular
corridor can be very dissimilar. For example, the Center for Real Estate at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) pointed out in a study for
the Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation (CMDC) that the
median home value and household income increased in neighborhoods
abutting West Boulevard the closer the neighborhood was to booming South
End.
The City of Charlotte long ago recognized that strong business corridors make
for stronger neighborhoods and equitable city-wide development. Since 1988,
the City has funded ongoing infrastructure improvements along the corridors
and supported corridor businesses with a variety of loan and grant programs.
The infrastructure spending alone accounted for $170 million from the
business corridor revitalization program’s inception through 2006, not
including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars invested of
approximately $47 million. The City’s support and funding of the CMDC
further impacted the corridors. For example, the Wilkinson Park Business
Center, a public/private partnership spearheaded by the CMDC, helped to
bring businesses and growth to an otherwise moribund portion of that
corridor. The tax value of the property alone went from $3 million to a
current assessment of $5.4 million and its projected assessment is
approximately $20 million once the entire park is built out.
In June 2006, the City Council authorized $8.9 million to further support the
efforts of business corridor revitalization. To assure the greatest impact of this
investment, the City Council directed the City Manager and the Economic
Development Office (EDO) to convene a steering committee composed of
private, business and non-profit representatives from across the community
and from within the corridors to provide input and direction to EDO staff as it
developed a unified strategic plan for the business corridors.
Strategic Plan
To support the plan for the business corridors, the EDO gathered both
qualitative and quantitative data, studying its existing programs, peer cities
and existing reports and research. It also reached out for direct feedback via
focus groups, individual interviews and an online survey. Taken together, this
data both informed and structured the resulting strategic plan. By
understanding these multiple components, the City could then position its
policies and programs moving forward for ultimate effect. The plan
3
encompasses a guiding policy statement, goals, and activities to reach those
goals, including estimated time and funding to implement.
The following policy statement will guide the City’s efforts in business
corridor revitalization moving forward:
The City will take a leadership role in developing and implementing public
and private collaborative strategies and investments that aim to 1) Attract
private sector investment to grow jobs, businesses and services; 2) Expand the
tax base in the business corridors; and 3) Support the revitalization of the
corridors into mixed use areas promoting the adjacent neighborhoods as safe,
viable and sustainable.
The goals of the plan are:
•
•
•
•
Eliminate blight
Create strong local economies
Align City policies and programs
Promote environmentally sustainable development
Critical to all of the above is partnership – partnership between public sector
and private sector, the City and corridor businesses, community development
corporations and developers to leverage the City’s dollars. Equally important
is to focus these joint efforts and garner the greatest impact possible in
specific corridors. While a solid beginning, the money currently earmarked
for the business corridors simply cannot meet the above goals across all
twenty corridors. Therefore, based on factors such as the existence of recent
NIP (Neighborhood Improvement Projects) projects in adjacent
neighborhoods, other city infrastructure projects, and a variety of economic
and social variables, the City has identified its priority corridors (listed in no
specific order):
•
•
•
•
•
Beatties Ford Road
Eastland Mall area
Rozzelles Ferry Road
North Tryon Street
Wilkinson/Freedom/Morehead/Bryant Park area
Prioritizing the corridors enables the City to make the most of the original
$8.9 million investment during the next three years. Focusing the investment
on these corridors gives the City an opportunity to demonstrate obvious and
lasting impact with measurable results. Vibrant and diverse economies in turn
build the platform for ongoing and sustainable redevelopment of the corridors.
Finally, showcasing success in the corridors makes a much stronger argument
for a continuing and escalating involvement both on the part of the City and
on the part of its partners across all of the business corridors.
4
The Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan also encompasses a
number of specific recommendations in addition to a work plan for years one
and two. The recommendations support the goals of revitalization outlined
within the policy statement (attracting investment, expanding the tax base, and
supporting the improvement of adjacent neighborhoods along the corridors.)
Specifically these recommendations can be categorized into four overarching
goals: 1) Eliminating Blight; 2) Creating Strong Local Economies; 3)
Aligning City Policies and Program to Support Corridor Revitalization; and 4)
Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development. The activities required
to reach these goals are outlined in detail in the body of the plan.
To implement the plan properly, there are significant implications for the City
and its partners, including but not limited to increased marketing and
communication to the business corridors, the utilization of the allotted $9
million for corridor revitalization, increased staff resources at the EDO and
the purchase, assembly and redevelopment of land in distressed areas along
the corridors. Setting its revitalization goals is only the beginning. The City
must also take the necessary steps to make sure they become a reality.
5
II.
Introduction
In the past, the City of Charlotte invested in infrastructure and programs to
benefit the corridors and the businesses along those corridors. The recent
decision by the Charlotte City Council, however, to spend almost $9 million
in the business corridors offered the City an opportunity to develop a
comprehensive proactive strategy to address the corridors and prioritize how
and where that money would be spent.
This document will present that strategy, including its goals, the activities
required to meet those goals and finally the implications the strategy contains
for the City and its departments if it is to be implemented correctly. The
aforementioned policy statement or vision that guides this strategy is
straightforward- the City will take a leadership role to attract private sector
investment, expand the tax base and support the revitalization of the corridors
into mixed use areas promoting the adjacent neighborhoods as safe, viable and
sustainable. The role that the EDO sees for itself is an active one, working
with multiple public and private sector partners to develop, sustain and market
the business corridors.
The goals to support this vision are equally straightforward. The City seeks to
eliminate blight, create strong local economies, align its policies and programs
and promote environmentally sustainable development across the corridors.
Transforming the business corridors into anchors for economic development
and neighborhood stability is neither an easy nor a quick task. It is, however,
a necessary one within the overall framework of local economic development.
The more benefits the corridors can bring to either expanding or relocating
businesses, the greater the City’s opportunities may be of capturing and/or
keeping those businesses in Charlotte. To reach this point, however, requires
a strategy attuned to the realities of the corridors, the capacities of the City of
Charlotte and its partners and the pertinent question of current versus future
funding.
To develop the strategy, the Economic Development Office and the City
Manager’s Office convened the Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic
Plan steering committee in October 2006. Chaired by Tim Crist of Wachovia
and Darrel Williams of Neighboring Concepts, the twenty-five member
committee was charged to provide input and direction to the Economic
Development Office staff during the strategic planning process, including:
•
•
Review and discuss information received from peer cities and best
practices review, and make suggestions for incorporation of findings
into strategic plan
Review and discuss evaluation of Charlotte’s current business corridor
efforts, making suggestions for improvements and/or areas to study
6
•
•
•
•
Help to ensure appropriate representation of business corridor interest
in focus groups
Provide guidance on focus group questions
Help staff synthesize information from the focus groups to create the
SWOT analysis
Provide input and feedback on the written strategic plan and the
recommendations of the strategic plan
The members of the committee represented a variety of interests, including
developers, corridor business groups, neighborhood associations, non-profits
and business owners. A full listing of all committee members can be found in
Appendix VI. Meeting monthly from October 2006 through February 2007,
the committee helped to guide the efforts of the Economic Development
Office as it reviewed and distilled both qualitative and quantitative data
pertinent to the business corridors, culminating in a draft version of the
strategic plan.
The Economic Development Office also engaged other key business units of
the City of Charlotte in developing this strategic plan. This team included:
Planning, Engineering, Neighborhood Development and the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department.
During this period, the Economic Development Office actively reviewed the
history of City investment along the corridors, its current program offerings,
the program offerings of Charlotte’s peer cities, pertinent business and
demographic data as well as existing studies relevant to the corridors, e.g.,
Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation projects, the Big Box
report, etc. The Economic Development Office hired consulting firm The
Coman Company to conduct a series of five focus groups in November and
December 2006, including one especially for commercial realtors. The
Coman Company also conducted one-on-one interviews with key individuals
unable to attend the focus group sessions. Together, the Coman Company and
the EDO structured an online survey that was mailed out to a sample of 1,300
businesses located in the corridors. The survey asked some of the same
questions discussed in the focus groups, but focused more on very granular
topics, e.g., availability of parking, access to public transit, etc. Fifty-eight
corridor businesses responded in total. Between the survey, the interviews
and the focus groups, the EDO was able to get a sense for perception and
reality of its programs, their impact and overall opportunities moving forward.
Together, this information guided the EDO in its formulation of the business
corridor revitalization strategy. Assisted by the Coman Company, EDO
structured the vision, goals, and activities of this plan to accurately reflect and
respond to the findings from the data gathering process. The document also
includes a preliminary implementation plan with estimates of both one-time
and continuing funding. It is not intended to discuss in detail each and every
7
corridor nor summarize all past, current or possible future projects in the
corridors. The strategic plan will instead provide a framework for activity and
targeted, prioritized investments for the City and its partners within the
business corridors.
III.
The Business Corridors
Understanding the Corridors
In 1988, the Transportation Bonds of that year provided for a Business
Corridor Revitalization Program. The original business corridors included
Wilkinson Boulevard, Central Avenue-The Plaza, Beatties Ford Road,
Freedom Drive, North Tryon Street, West Boulevard and South Boulevard. A
short time later, the NoDa (North Davidson) corridor was added to the group.
The criteria to select these corridors were threefold: the areas were distressed,
there was either an opportunity to leverage existing public and/or private
sector investment and finally the corridors spanned that inner space between
Charlotte’s center city and outer suburbs. In addition, the program invested in
corridors that would otherwise not have received any investment to promote
equity across the city. These initiatives also served to lay the groundwork for
potential future redevelopment efforts, clearly investments with a long-term
payback horizon.
Led by Neighborhood Development and the Planning Commission, and
encompassing Engineering and Property Management, Transportation, Police,
Budget and Solid Waste Services, the program sought to revitalize the
identified business corridors and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
This interdepartmental team took sometimes conflicting issues and priorities
and structured them to form a coherent approach to inner city revitalization,
e.g., weighing desired outcomes for the business corridors versus existing
policy. The revitalization efforts spanned water and sewer infrastructure,
streetscape improvements, e.g., sidewalks and medians, and targeted support
for businesses and business groups along the corridors. Examples of the work
completed as part of this program include:
•
•
•
Wilkinson Boulevard: Built planted medians, sidewalks, widened
planting strips and planted trees
Beatties Ford Road: Partnered with Johnson C. Smith University on
improvements to Five Points
West Boulevard: Improved streetscape by adding pedestrian lighting,
sidewalks and signage
Beginning in the late 1990s, the approach also included a heavy dose of
research. Accurate and neighborhood specific data that could be easily
manipulated in a database was very difficult to come by. The revitalization
8
team needed better information to make better decisions across the corridors.
First, the City began doing market studies for the corridors, including
Wilkinson Boulevard, Freedom Drive, and Beatties Ford Road. The City
learned what areas were under or over retailed. It also learned that a lack of
housing, both market and affordable, was a major deterrent in many of the
corridors. Corridor businesses used the studies to their ends, getting a better
idea of whom their customers were and where they came from. The City also
completed Neighborhood Action Plans (NAPs). Although focused on the
neighborhoods, inevitably the plans included some economic development
components. For example, a real need for a particular type of retail such as a
grocery store, surfaced in many of the NAPs. Together, the market studies
and the action plans allowed the City a much more detailed view of the
business corridors and the neighborhoods surrounding them. With this
information the City further refined its program offerings and infrastructure
investment targets as a result.
The City also engaged its partners, both public (including the State of North
Carolina, Mecklenburg County and the US government) and private. Perhaps
the best known and best understood of revitalization efforts is the work they
undertook along Wilkinson Boulevard. The below case study summarizes
these joint efforts and the investment required to meet the objectives.
Understanding its success and the requirements of that success is critical as
the City defines and undertakes revitalization opportunities moving forward.
Wilkinson Boulevard: A Case Study
In 1990, the City of Charlotte recognized the need to make strategic
investments on Wilkinson Blvd. The City began with streetscape
improvements along the corridor - with over $6 million invested in medians,
sidewalks and street trees. For example, $1.6 million was spent for the
Wilkinson Blvd. Gateway project that included sidewalk and median
replacement in addition to landscaping and an additional $4.5 million to widen
Morris Field Drive to provide for a median, center turn-lane, bike lanes,
sidewalks with planting strips and landscaping. By 2005, these median and
sidewalk improvements extended from Billy Graham Parkway to Interstate
77. This was only the beginning. In the late 1990's, City and corporate
leaders looked for alternative ways to remove blight and stimulate growth.
The Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation (CMDC) was the
solution. CMDC was organized in 1998, incorporated in early 2001 and
began work with its first project, the Wilkinson Park Business Center. The
Business Park project equity fund stemmed from collaboration between public
and private sector investors which topped over $8.5 million. See Figure 1 for
an exact breakdown. This $8.5 million was used to purchase and clean up 40
acres, and build the business park’s infrastructure. The pad ready sites were
then sold to companies for vertical development. Today, Wilkinson Business
Park is 97% sold with the remaining 3% under contract and a total of nine
9
businesses reside there which employ 120 people (not including construction
jobs or any additional jobs resulting from the final buildout.)
Following this project, the City located a Charlotte Mecklenburg Police
Department (CMPD) Adam Service Center, the West Side Bureau, on
Wilkinson Blvd. The City invested $5.8 million in 2000. Two years later, the
City built Fire Station 10 for an additional $4.3 million of investment. See
Figure 2 for further details. Nor were the neighborhoods adjacent to the
corridor ignored. In 2000, approximately $3 million was issued in
Neighborhood Improvement Bonds for Ashley Park neighborhood located
off Wilkinson Boulevard. This year’s Neighborhood Improvement Project
(NIP) includes an additional $3 million in bonds for Ashley Park. These
bonds were used for sidewalks, curb & gutter, and storm drainage
improvements. This project laid the groundwork for redevelopment.
Just the above investments along Wilkinson Boulevard total over $30 million
dollars, coming from both public and private investors. This is not an
inconsequential sum. The impact of the investment, however, is obvious.
Wilkinson Park Business Center, for example, is a far cry from the blight that
confronted CMDC when it began its first project. See Appendix III for
photographs of the area in question before and after the project in question.
Figure 1
Wilkinson Park Business Center
City
$2,137,500
County
$2,450,000
State
$1,000,000
Federal
$1,713,997
Other Private
$234,600
Wachovia
$1,000,000
Total
$8,536,097
Source: City of Charlotte Economic Development Office
10
Figure 2
Other Investments
West Side
$5,800,000
Bureau
Fire Station 10
$4,300,000
Morris Field
$4,500,000
Widening
Ashley Park NIP $5,700,000
bonds
Wilkinson
$1,600,000
Gateway Project
Total
$21,900,000
Source: City of Charlotte Economic Development Office
Relevant City Programs
By 2006, the City’s Economic Development Office administered six target
programs targeting the business corridors in addition to its infrastructure fund.
The information below details each of the programs, total direct investments
from the beginning of the program through 2006 and the approximate number
of program participants, if applicable, during that same period. Leveraged
investment refers to the private sector investment made as a result of the City
making these grants or loans. Detailed information on each one of the
programs can be found in Appendix IV.
Grants
•
Facade Improvement Grant Program- The program provides 50%
reimbursement up to $10,000 to commercial or industrial businesses or
property owners for eligible renovation costs. Buildings with multiple
businesses (shopping centers) may apply for a maximum of $40,000.
The goal of this program is to remove blight and improve the
appearance of the buildings in the corridors. Begun in 1998
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
•
$1,088,414
$8,649,656
104
Infrastructure Grant Program- The program provides grants of up to
$10,000 or 10% of the total private investment, whichever is less, to
independently owned businesses and multifamily infill developers for
City-required improvements such as landscaping, sidewalks, curb and
gutter and backflow prevention. Begun in 1998
11
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
•
Security Grant Program- The program provides 50% reimbursement
up to $2,500 to businesses for eligible security improvements. Owners
of multiple sites are limited to a $10,000 maximum. Designed in
partnership with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, its
goal is to create a safer environment for employees and customers.
Begun in 2001
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
•
$248,350
$3,087,614
18
Business District Organization Program- The program supports the
work of business groups operating in the business corridors by helping
with approved operating/administrative expenses. The maximum
award amount is $7,500 per year. All City funds must be matched by
the organization in hard dollars. Begun in 2003
Total investment:
Matched Funds:
Number of Participants:
•
$129,649
$209,974
45
Brownfield Assessment Program- The program provides 50%
matching funds up to $20,000 per site for assessment activities that
will lead to site redevelopment. Covered expenses include reasonable
Phase I and II assessment activities and remediation design activities
and legal expenses per the NC Brownfield Property Reuse Act of
1997. Begun in 1997
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
•
$289,009
$36,257,049
30
$27,896
$27,896
2 organizations, six grants
Grease Trap Program: This program provided grants for existing
restaurants along the corridors to install grease traps. This program
began in 2001 when the City required all restaurants to install grease
traps. It was ended in 2003 when all the restaurants in the City had
complied. All City funds were matched by business owners
Total investment:
Matched funds:
Number of participants:
$24,216
$24,216
10
12
Other
•
Equity Loan Program- The City will lend up to 20% of a business’
total loan funds (including bank and City funds.) Repayment of the
City’s loan is deferred for a period of time in order to provide “equity”
to the small business that is needed for the primary loan. The
maximum City loan is $100,000 or $150,000 for manufacturing. The
business must create one job per $10,000 in City funds. The goal of
this program is to stimulate small business investment in the targeted
business corridor geography, create new service and retail businesses
in support of targeted neighborhoods, provide low-wealth persons
access to capital for business start-ups and expansions and create jobs
for low to moderate income people. Begun in 1991
Total City investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
•
$5,746,119
$34,823,408
159
Business Investment Program (BIP) - This program seeks to encourage
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.
Total City investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
$629,511*
$36,100,000
6
*Does not include Mecklenburg County participation
Operating outside of the Economic Development Office but equally critical to
the business corridors is the Infrastructure Fund. Begun in 1989, this fund
pays for critical infrastructure expenses along the targeted business corridors,
e.g. water, sewer, sidewalks, etc. Most often these investments leverage
additional private sector redevelopment investment. The City has provided
funds for Wilkinson, Beatties Ford Road, Plaza Central, NODA, West Blvd,
Freedom Dr, and Tryon Street, for example. This program has been funded at
approximately $1million and continues this level of funding through FY 2012
based on the City’s current Capital Investment Plan. See Appendix IX for a
list of all the funding sources and current account balances for these programs.
13
The Current State of the Corridors
The City programs pertain to all the original business corridors save for South
Boulevard corridor- it has now “graduated” from the program due to the
private sector investing heavily in this area. The City now recognizes a
business corridor “geography” that includes additional corridors such as
Brookshire Freeway, Eastway Drive, Graham Street, Central Avenue,
Rozzelles Ferry Road, Statesville Avenue, Tuckasegee Road, and Wilkinson
Boulevard. See Figure 3 below for a recent map of the existing business
corridors. The yellow portion is the current eligible business corridor
geography.
Figure 3
Source: City of Charlotte Economic Development Office
The corridors above are geographically disparate; however, they evidence
many similarities, especially when compared to the general Charlotte MSA
(Metropolitan Statistical Area.) Using North American Industrial Code
information (NAICS) and the number of employees in those industries, a
quick comparison between the corridors and the MSA highlights some key
differences. Only three industries were equally represented or represented in
greater concentrations across the business corridors as compared to the
14
Charlotte MSA: Other services (excluding Public Administration),
Construction and Wholesale Trade. In those three industries, their location
quotient (LQ) was 1.0 or greater. The location quotient simply represents
industry employment numbers in the corridors compared to the Charlotte
MSA. Figure 4 details the location quotients in the business corridors for key
industries as of January 2007.
Figure 4
Employment Concentration (LQ) in BCR compared to Charlotte MSA
Finance and Insurance (38,868)
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (42,240)
0.2
0.5
0.6
Accommodation and Food Services (52,990)
0.7
Healthcare and Social Assistance (71,517)
0.8
Educational Services (42,434)
Manufacturing (40,418)
0.9
Retail Trade (65,749)
0.9
1.1
Other Services (Except Public Admin) (42,140)
1.6
Construction (46,560)
1.8
Wholesale Trade (44,039)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Source: Charlotte Regional Partnership
Finance and Insurance, perhaps the best known industry in the Charlotte
region, conversely was significantly underrepresented in terms of employment
along the business corridors as were Professional, Scientific and Technical
Services, Accommodation and Food Services and Healthcare and Social
Assistance. In terms of total employment, there are clearly some industries
significantly absent from the business corridors.
Equally disparate is growth in employment by industry. From 1990 to 2005,
some of these industries grew by more than 100%. Educational services, for
example, grew by an astounding 434%. Educational services includes all
entities that provide training or instruction, including schools, colleges,
universities and any other training establishment, e.g., driving schools, beauty
schools, etc. The entity may be either private or public, not-for-profit or forprofit. Figure 5 compares the growth of employment by industry during this
period. The red bars indicate industries with lower Location Quotients in the
business corridors; these industries were not as concentrated in the business
corridors as they were in the Charlotte MSA.
15
Figure 5
1990-2005 % Change in Employment Units for Charlotte MSA by Industry
Information
128.6%
Finance and Insurance
151.8%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
93.5%
Industry
Professional and Technical Services
134.0%
Management of Companies & Enterprise
200.0%
Administrative and Waste Services
117.4%
Educational Services
434.3%
91.9%
Healthcare and Social Assistance
Accomodation and Food Service
96.2%
Arts & Recreation
88.3%
0.0%
50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 300.0% 350.0% 400.0% 450.0% 500.0%
% Change in Employment Units
Source: Charlotte Regional Partnership, City of Charlotte Economic
Development Office
See Appendix II for an entire listing of employment by industry in both the
business corridors and the Charlotte MSA. Clearly, not every industry makes
the ideal target for the corridors but opportunities exist to broaden the business
sectors represented in the corridors.
To pursue that route, however, requires a deeper understanding of the
strengths, weaknesses, threats and other opportunities facing the corridors, its
citizens and existing City programs. To that end, the City of Charlotte
convened and conducted five focus groups in the fall and early winter of 2006.
The participants reflected the diversity of the business corridors themselves
representing neighborhoods, business owners, business groups, developers
and non-profits. In addition, several individuals were personally interviewed
who were not able to attend the focus groups and an on-line survey was
mailed out to over one thousand businesses in the corridors. Fifty-eight (58)
respondents took the survey.
The participants and respondents spoke frankly about the situation in the
business corridors. The survey highlighted the major benefits of being a
business in the corridors:
1. Access to center city
2. Access to highways
3. Convenience for customers
16
The same respondents cited the cost to purchase/lease the business, office or
retail site as a mild advantage.
The strongest disadvantages were:
1. Perceived crime rate (55% cited this as a strong disadvantage)
2. Actual crime rate (40% cited this as a strong disadvantage)
3. Overall neighborhood image
According to one business owner, “Safety is (the) number one concern.
Whether real or imagined, clients comment on location of office…Secondly,
appearance is most important. Again, whether real or imagined, people
assume that an area that is attractive is somehow safer and more upscale.”
The focus group participants and interviewees also discussed safety.
However, they covered a host of other issues as well. The salient points
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The value of the public and private partnerships, e.g., Wilkinson
Boulevard
The customer needs help with the permitting process
City programs are mostly unknown to their target recipients
A lack of funds to acquire land and subsidize redevelopment
A lack of product to show businesses
Public safety is critical
Need for vision and strategy to address corridors
A great deal of discussion centered on the role of the City, especially its role
moving forward with business corridor revitalization as a result of the
strategic plan. According to the participants the City needed to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plan and provide vision
Cultivate partnerships
Provide infrastructure
Market and promote the corridors
Reach out to corridor businesses
Facilitate public processes for businesses
Public safety
Land acquisition and assembly
Redevelopment financing (bonds)
The first point was particularly important. Many of the participants believed
that the City needed to provide the vision, the strategy and the linkages to
enable business corridor revitalization. As one participant said, “(The City
needs) A prioritized list- well thought out. Take one and nail it, like
17
Wilkinson Boulevard. Do it and do it right. With success, it becomes easier
to reload…use success as a showcase.”
The wealth of qualitative feedback combined with relevant industry analysis,
historical programmatical analysis and peer city analysis (to be discussed
separately in the next section) structured the very real strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats currently facing the Charlotte business corridors.
SWOT Analysis
Figure 6, the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
analysis, below repeats some of the findings already covered earlier in this
section, especially the obvious strengths and weaknesses facing the corridors.
Its discussion of opportunities and threats, however, furthers the discussion a
bit more. The opportunities constitute instances where the City and its
partners can leverage the existing advantages of the corridors and thereby
further growth and development. For example, by better understanding the
types of industries represented in the corridors, attracting new businesses
could and should be an easier task, e.g., marketing a warehousing company on
the strength of Freedom Drive due to its location and existing businesses
along the corridor.
Threats represent the opposite side of the same coin. It might be difficult if
not impossible to assemble and market sites to new businesses due to property
owners who neither want to sell nor improve their property.
18
Figure 6
SWOT analysis
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Success of targeted programs to small
business, e.g., Nova Bakery
Infrastructure development and
improvement capabilities
Existence of the CMDC
City provides spark for development and
partners with private sector for development
Charlotte programs on par with key peer
cities
Police sub-station(s) as anchors for
development
Demonstrated capability to leverage City
investment in conjunction with private, State
and Federal dollars, e.g., Wilkinson
Boulevard and brownfields
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Marketing of existing programs/success
stories
Representation of high growth/high
employment businesses in Charlotte MSA
vs. business corridors
Current process of land and building permits
Perception/reality of public safety
Ability to assemble land, e.g., product
Lack of connectivity (in some cases)
Ongoing funding
Lack of coordination among relevant entities
Opportunities:
Threats:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Municipal service districts
Transit corridor development
A comprehensive, communicated plan for
the corridors
Education of the community and of local
business
Utilization of TIF where applicable
Track and measure impact of corridor
programs
Access to center city and to major highways
Existing industry clusters in the targeted
corridors
City Council earmark of $9M for business
corridor revitalization
Investigate potential peer city programs for
local implementation
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Dispersal of dollars and focused impact
Narrower focus could impact some corridors
more than others
Potential changes in zoning
Lack of corridor/neighborhood champions in
all corridors
Fastest growing businesses not represented
in the corridors
Perceived growing government bureaucracy
Property owners (local and out-of-state) who
neither want to sell nor improve their
property
Increasing number of vacant big boxes
Source: Focus groups, surveys, interviews and EDO research
The subsequent recommendations of this plan will seek to abate the threats, build up the
weaknesses, leverage the strengths and enable the opportunities for the ultimate
revitalization of the business corridors
19
IV. Peer Cities
Equally important to structuring the recommendations of the plan is
benchmarking, understanding the policies and impact of Charlotte’s peer
cities. The peers were selected on the following basis: standard economic
development metrics (population, types of industry, competitive activity, etc.),
unique approaches to the redevelopment of commercial areas and structure of
economic development department. In addition, many of these cities were
selected as peers in past comparisons, including the Economic Development
Strategic Framework for 2005-2010. The peer cities were Atlanta, GA,
Columbus, OH, Dallas, TX, Denver, CO, Indianapolis, IN, Jacksonville, FL,
Kansas City, MO, Memphis, TN, Oakland, CA, Portland, OR, San Diego, CA,
St. Louis, MO and Tampa, FL.
City staff surveyed all of the above cities and conducted telephone interviews
with eight of the above twelve. Typically speaking with the Economic or
Business Development Department, a City staff person pursued a series of
questions with the peer city representative inquiring about:
•
•
•
•
Revitalization tools, e.g., roads and streetscape, utilities and façade
improvement
Funding, e.g., bonds, tax increment financing (TIF), grants, etc.
Partnerships for revitalization
Method and metrics
Based on this feedback, the City of Charlotte concluded that its programs
were indeed consistent with the peer cities selected. Figure 7 summarizes this
comparison in areas critical to inner city revitalization.
Figure 7
Peer City matrix
Atlanta, GA
Columbus, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Oakland, CA
San Diego, CA
Kansas City, MO
Tampa, FL
Charlotte
* Very little
TIF
Districts
Land
Acquisition
Use of CDCs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Use of Federal
and State
Grants
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
Source: EDO interviews with peer city officials
Most of our peer cities use similar tools to drive inner city revitalization.
However, this sameness did not extend to how each City measured success.
For example, some cities gauge success with economic indicators: Columbus
looks for increases in income tax revenue and for decreases in vacant
storefronts; Oakland seeks a “critical mass” of industry/business. Other cities
use broader social data. Denver looks for school improvement, environmental
improvement, homeownership rates, and increased perception of safety while
Atlanta seeks decreases in blight, crime, and unemployment. Some cities even
take a hybrid approach. For example, Dallas measures property values, but
also the popularity and cachet of the district. Charlotte, in turn, measures
annual investment through the value of building permits.
The interviews also uncovered some real best practices in inner city
revitalization, public sector practices that inspire private sector investment by
diminishing their risks.
Best Practices: Land Acquisition (Columbus, OH)
The City of Columbus, OH uses land acquisition frequently as a tool for
business corridor and older industrial area revitalization. Mark Barbash,
Columbus’s Director of Development, sees land acquisition as a catalyst for
private investment. “There’s a market problem at the start” he says, “and
developers don’t want to go through the hassle when they’re not sure there’s a
deal. The city assembling the land mitigates that risk.”
Best Practices: City as Master Developer (Kansas City, MO)
Though they’ve had success with aggressive use of TIFs, using the
incremental tax revenue to pay back private developers rather than to finance
borrowed money, Kansas City will act as Master Developer for tracts with
very little private interest. This approach not only induces the private market
by minimizing their risk, it also gives the city a clearer picture of their
obstacles and forces them to prioritize. When they take this approach, Kansas
City develops a clear exit strategy and receives advice from a private group.
Numerous statewide examples of best practices also exist. While Economic
Development Office staff did not interview these organizations or agencies
directly, they did review their materials and their websites. The below
information is sourced directly.
Best Practices: Urban Entrepreneurship Partnership
Urban Entrepreneur Partnership is an unprecedented national partnership to
encourage minority entrepreneurship in urban areas. The Kauffman
21
Foundation joined the National Urban League, Business Roundtable, and
federal government programs to expand entrepreneurship and jobs in
historically neglected and economically underserved urban areas. Unveiled in
October 2004, the partnership encourages minority entrepreneurship by
providing business training, coaching, procurement opportunities, and access
to financing nationwide. The initiative provides for the development of onestop economic empowerment centers to provide business training, counseling,
financing, and procurement opportunities to minority and urban business
owners. Thus far, Kansas City, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and
Jacksonville have served as pilot cities for this initiative. The National Urban
League's local affiliates will house and administer the economic
empowerment centers. UEP mobilizes resources of corporate America, major
service organizations, the non-profit sector, and federal, state and city
governments.
Best Practices: CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement
System) CURE (California Urban Real Estate)
CURE is a key component of California Treasurer’s Double Bottom Line
initiative to invest in urban and underserved communities in California. Since
its launch in May 2000, reports show that CURE is generating solid returns
for taxpayers and pensioners, and creating housing, jobs, and economic
opportunity in California’s underserved communities. As a key component of
the Treasurer’s Double Bottom Line investment strategy, the State treasurer
successfully urged both CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement
System) and CalSTRS (Calfornia’s State Teacher Retirement System), the
nation’s largest and third-largest pension funds, to adopt the goal of investing
two percent of their investment portfolios in domestic emerging markets –
communities that have struggled to attract investment capital, but that hold
great potential for financial returns and economic success—and make
significant real estate investments in California’s urban neighborhoods. The
Double Bottom Line initiative is now looked to as a model for public and
private sector investment officials across the country as an innovative method
for investing in urban, inner-city neighborhoods. (Press Release)
Best Practices: Florida CRA’s (Community Redevelopment Areas)
Under Florida law (Chapter 163, Part III), local governments can designate
areas as Community Redevelopment Areas when certain conditions exist.
Since all the monies used in financing CRA activities are locally generated,
CRAs are not overseen by the state, but redevelopment plans must be
consistent with local government comprehensive plans. Examples of
conditions that can support the creation of a Community Redevelopment Area
include, but are not limited to: the presence of substandard or inadequate
structures, a shortage of affordable housing, inadequate infrastructure,
22
insufficient roadways, and inadequate parking. To document that the required
conditions exist, the local government must survey the proposed
redevelopment area and prepare a Finding of Necessity. If the Finding of
Necessity determines that the required conditions exist, the local government
may create a Community Redevelopment Area to provide the tools needed to
foster and support redevelopment of the targeted area. There are currently
over 140 Community Redevelopment Areas in the State of Florida. The
designation is used by Florida cities of all sizes, from Jacksonville and Tampa
to Madison and Apalachicola. Many familiar locations, such as Church Street
in Orlando, Ybor City in Tampa and the beachfront in Ft. Lauderdale are
successful examples of Community Redevelopment Areas. The activities and
programs offered within a Community Redevelopment Area are administered
by the Community Redevelopment Agency. A five- to seven-member CRA
“Board” created by the local government (city or county) directs the agency.
In other cases, individual cities simply had some good and unique ideas about
how to approach inner city revitalization.
Unique ideas
•
•
•
•
Market corridor business in citywide branding campaigns and
subsidize advertisements in private publications (Oakland, CA)
Focus city services with a deliberate effort on distressed areas
(Oakland, Columbus)
Expedite the permit process (San Diego, CA)
Create a public authority to administer revitalization in specific area
(Denver)
While Charlotte may be consistent with its peer cities in many regards, the
City can learn from both the best practices and unique ideas of its peers.
Many of the challenges to urban renewal and revitalization are universal;
however, the solutions to them are not.
23
V. Recommendations
The City of Charlotte stands at an important juncture in its approach to
revitalizing the business corridors. The City understands the strengths and
weaknesses of its current programs, the value of its development partnerships,
both private and public, and the ideas and best practices from its peer cities.
To make the most of this knowledge, however, requires a governing policy,
targeted goals and an action plan to reach those goals.
The recommendations included in this section will cover all of those areas in
addition to the short term implementation plan. This plan further details
activities in addition to budgetary impact where appropriate.
Policy Statement
The City will take a leadership role in developing and implementing public
and private collaborative strategies and investments that aim to 1) Attract
private sector investment to grow jobs, businesses and services; 2) Expand the
tax base in the business corridors; and 3) Support the revitalization of the
corridors into mixed use areas promoting the adjacent neighborhoods as safe,
viable and sustainable.
Goals
•
•
•
•
Eliminate blight
Create strong local economies
Align City policies and programs
Promote environmentally sustainable development
The policy statement above in addition to the subsequent proposed activities
suggests the following significant implications for proper implementation:
•
Marketing & Communication: The need for the City’s Economic
Development Office (EDO) to make “marketing and communication” a main
component of its efforts. This includes: marketing of the business corridors as
attractive locations for businesses; marketing and administering existing
programs offered by the City of Charlotte that may benefit businesses located
on those corridors (facade and security grant programs); and maintaining
communication with businesses along the corridors to provide exemplary
customer service and solve problems.
•
Funding: Over the next 3-4 years utilize the $9 million Economic
Development Corridor Revitalization Fund to support projects such as: the
purchase and redevelopment of vacant and/or dilapidated retail and
commercial buildings in the Eastland area; CMDC projects on Beatties Ford,
24
Rozzelles Ferry, and N. Graham; and the provision of public infrastructure to
support private sector redevelopment opportunities on the corridors (e.g.,
Bryant Park). Any net proceeds from investments will be reinvested into the
Fund. Once the $9 million is expended, we anticipate the need for additional
capital funding based on the development of a Phase II Plan of Work for
corridor redevelopment.
•
Staff: The implementation of this policy puts staff in a more proactive role of
pursuing corridor redevelopment. The Economic Development Office will
require additional staff resources to focus solely on business corridor
revitalization efforts. Currently, there is only one full time equivalent
dedicated to meet those requirements. Tailoring those resources to specific
needs will be identified in the plan of work.
•
Land Purchase, Assembly and Redevelopment: The need for the City and
its partners to take an active role in assembling land in distressed areas and
forming public/private partnerships to redevelop the land. This includes
writing down the land cost to achieve City policy goals for corridors (grow
jobs, businesses, services, and tax base) and make redevelopment financially
viable.
Eliminating blight is the first and perhaps most obvious goal. Visual blight can
and does negatively impact the business corridors. How likely is a business to
buy or lease an office or retail site next door to a dilapidated site littered with
stray shopping carts? By addressing the issue of blight, the City attacks
perception and reality simultaneously. An attractive site more easily attracts
businesses and broadcasts a message of improvement. Less obvious but equally
important is the sense of pride that the local business and residential community
can now take in their business corridor. Together, these results help to build the
foundation and set the stage for redevelopment moving forward.
By leveraging both the Façade and Security Grant Programs and addressing
vacant retail and commercial spaces, the City can take the necessary steps to
remove blight.
I.
Eliminate Blight
A. Façade and Security Grant Programs
1) Upgrade façade and security grant programs including eligibility
requirements to increase effectiveness and ease of use
2) Increase maximum amount of façade and security grants
3) Improve marketing of façade and security grant programs
B. Address Vacant and/or Blighted and/or Underutilized
Retail/Commercial Spaces
25
1) Use Corridor ED funds to purchase vacant big boxes and
other blighted buildings, and write down land costs for
redevelopment to other uses supported by the market and
City policy goals and objectives for corridor development
2) Actively pursue rezoning vacant retail and commercial
buildings, to other mixed uses on corridors with too much
retail (e.g., Freedom Drive/Independence)
3) Pursue stricter enforcement (and/or request changes) of
existing NC Code on vacant commercial buildings
4) Review current NC Code and request changes if necessary to
the Code that address vacant commercial buildings
5) Revisit recommendations from Big Box Study that are not
otherwise addressed within the Business Corridor Strategic
Plan including:
- Studying tools to assist developers financially in the up
fitting of their vacant big boxes. The City may wish to
target their assistance to providing infrastructure
improvements, such as a grid street system, that will
provide additional redevelopment opportunities in the
future
- The City of Charlotte needs more flexibility to consider
reducing setbacks and parking requirements for vacant
big boxes as part of a larger corridor plan
- The City of Charlotte should solicit proposals from
developers for redevelopment areas with large amounts
of vacant big boxes. Through this solicitation the
developers could give the City their ideas for
redeveloping these areas and what assistance they
would need from the City. This may avoid the need for
the City to buy and hold land for redevelopment
Removing blight is an important start. Building a strong economic foundation
along the corridors, however, also requires the City to answer more fundamental
questions- how does it market the advantages of the business corridors, what
companies would like to be in the business corridors and how should it partner
with key players to make that happen? Because only with a strong local
economy can the corridors build a framework for revitalization.
II.
Create Strong Local Economies
A. Recruitment / Relocation / Retention / Incentives
1) Identify companies in business sectors that grow employment
or leverage competitive advantages in Charlotte, and recruit
those companies to the corridors
26
2) Work with the Charlotte Regional Partnership and the
Charlotte Chamber to market business corridor locations to
companies that are relocating to Charlotte
3) Target and market the corridors to a diverse array of
businesses to strengthen the economic base of the corridors
4) Provide incentive payments to commercial brokers and
developers that successfully recruit targeted businesses to the
corridors (incentive payments should be scaled to
development/investment size)
5) Realign Infrastructure Grant Program to be a useful tool in
business retention and recruitment
6) Identify and fund City facilities that could be located on the
corridors as a catalyst to development (e.g., City Fire
Stations, CATS STS Maintenance facility, Police
substations) matching the facility to the specific identity of
the corridor
7) Identify and target major business employers in corridors and
target them for business retention and expansion
initiatives/visits
8) Assist viable corridor businesses, which for various reasons,
need to relocate, find new development sites for business
locations (using local, federal and state programs as
appropriate)
B. Develop Strong Partnerships
1) Request a NC Legislative Study Commission on initiatives
the State can take to promote business development in urban
inner city locations throughout NC (Examples include:
Florida’s Community Revitalization Areas; California Public
Employee Retirement Systems Urban Initiatives Fund) (See
www.ncinitiative.org)
2) Organize interdepartmental teams to address revitalization on
corridors (Neighborhood Development, CDOT, NCDOT,
Planning, CMPD, CATS, Solid Waste, etc.)
3) Partner with utilities and other private partners to address
revitalization requirements along the corridors, e.g., power
loads, wiring for high speed internet, etc.
4) Partner with appropriate City departments to develop and
deploy City infrastructure, e.g., water and sewer, to maximize
future development potential
5) Develop commercial, retail, industrial, and residential
product through partnerships with CMDC, CDCs,
neighborhood associations and private sector developers
6) Partner to support CMDC capital redevelopment and assist
with the purchase of land
27
7) Engage the support of Mecklenburg County on the
redevelopment of distressed business corridors including
issues involving building business code permitting,
commercial building code enforcement, parks and
greenways, libraries and service centers, and funding capital
redevelopment with CMDC
8) Engage in national organizations and associations (e.g.,
Initiative for Competitive Inner City, Local Initiatives
Support Cooperation, International Economic Development
Council, etc.) involved in inner city redevelopment efforts to
stay abreast of new ideas and to network with private and
non-profit sources of investment capital for Charlotte’s
corridor revitalization efforts
C. Corridor Research, Assessment, and Marketing
1) Study ways to promote small businesses and entrepreneurial
start ups in the corridors such as the Kauffman Foundation’s
Urban Entrepreneurship Partnership. Utilize Biz Hub and the
City’s SBE Program to promote small businesses in corridor
redevelopment
2) Create a redevelopment plan for each specific corridor based
on the corridor’s geography, demographics and development
patterns
3) Market City programs to commercial brokers and others in
the private sector community
4) Create an inventory and prioritize existing infrastructure
needs in commercial areas and business parks in the corridor
geography and develop programs to address these
infrastructure deficiencies
5) Identify unmet local demand for consumers near the
corridors and work to attract retailers to the corridors that
meet these needs
6) Study benchmarks for providing assistance with parking
management and infrastructure for development on corridors
7) Work with corridor business groups, CDC’s, and other
community organizations to develop plans and action steps to
change perceptions about the corridors and adjacent
neighborhoods and market corridors as a good place to do
business
8) Continue to assist corridor business groups with funding
through the Business District Organization Program (BDOP).
Review BDOP program to better align with current corridor
needs
9) Study successful inner city companies in other cities to
identify ways to grow businesses in the corridors
28
10) Continue to research and analyze best practices and cutting
edge programs that relate to distressed business corridor
redevelopment including ways to positively impact
surrounding neighborhoods
D. Workforce Development
1) Study possible partnership with CPCC to create a small
business incubator in one of the corridors
2) Partner with CPCC and Workforce Development Board to
study corridor business workforce needs and develop
solutions to meet those needs
3) Work with companies locating in the business corridors for
specific job training needs. Partner with other education
providers/career developers (Latino Pathways, JobLink, etc.)
and perhaps locate the educational activity site on the
targeted corridor
Directly supporting both the elimination of blight and the support of strong local
economies are the city revitalization policies and programming. Aligning them to
support the above goals must also be an objective. A key part of implementing
this plan is the collaboration among the key business units of the City of Charlotte
which impact the business corridors including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department, Neighborhood Development, Economic Development Office,
Charlotte Department of Transportation and the Charlotte Area Transit System.
Critical to the process of aligning policies and programming will also be the
determination of the business corridor geography.
III.
Align City Policies and Programs
A. Encourage and Facilitate Development on Corridors
1) Develop criteria for expediting permitting and other specific
services for corridor development projects
2) Revise Business Corridor geography using Quality of Life
indicators to define geography
3) Establish interdepartmental teams (Police, EDO, Solid
Waste, Neighborhood Development, CATS, CDOT) on high
priority corridors develop plans of action in support of
community policing and crime prevention activities.
4) Work with Police Crime Prevention unit to market CPTED,
crime prevention surveys, and security grant programs to
corridor businesses
5) Work with the CMPD to determine where officers on bikes
might address perception and reality of crime
29
6) Utilize Community Police Officers to build lines of
communication with business owners to support solutions
and institute corridor “watches”
7) Partner with neighborhood liaisons to identify neighborhood
and business leaders on corridors and adjacent communities
8) Study a “lighting ordinance” that would require some
minimum level of lighting on all buildings to promote safety
around the building
9) Work with the State, County, and ABC officials to address
the issuance of ABC licenses that, in CMPD's opinion, would
have a detrimental affect on business corridors and the
surrounding neighborhoods
10) Study landscaping, façade and fencing requirements for car
lots, and a program to help used car lots along the corridors
comply with the proposed requirements
11) Provide special assistance for large impact projects (e.g.,
Morningside Drive) similar to the special staff teams formed
to assist the Wachovia First Street Project
B. Customer Service / Accountability
1) Provide Corridor Business Customer Service professionals in
the Economic Development Office
2) Continue EDO “C2B” (City to Business) program of
visitation to small businesses located in the corridors
3) Track success with the following measures:
- Dollar value of building permit near activity
- Dollar value of private sector investment leveraged by
public investment
- Increase in value of commercial property
- Retail and commercial vacancy rates
- Per capita income
In a larger sense, redevelopment and revitalization along the business corridors
gives the City an opportunity to showcase and promote environmentally
sustainable development where possible through education, program alignment
and perhaps most obvious, the reuse of inner city sites versus Greenfield sites
located further from the city center.
IV.
Promote Environmentally Sustainable Development
1) Promote infill redevelopment to efficiently use existing
infrastructure and reduce consumption of Greenfield sites
2) Market City Brownfield Assessment Grant and State
Brownfield Property Tax Credit programs to incent
redevelopment of contaminated sites
30
3) Study need for public funds to assist with brownfield clean
up
4) Promote use of building codes that support building reuse
and redevelopment
5) Study aligning grant programs to incent green building
technologies
6) Work with CPCC, US Green Building Council and Green
and Greater Charlotte to promote green building technology
and recruit green companies to the corridors
7) Facilitate education on green building technologies
The goals and activities so far describe a coherent approach to the revitalization of
the business corridors. However, to guarantee the greatest impact for the $8.9
million investment authorized by the Charlotte City Council in June 2006 requires
focusing the above activities on a handful of immediate target corridors. This plan
recommends using the following Quality of Life indicators developed by the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte and other variables to prioritize the City
corridor reinvestment funds:
Sample variables include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tax Base Change Location Quotient
Tax Base Value Location Quotient
Commercial Building Permit Value
Median Household Income
Percent of Persons Receiving Food Stamps
Percent of Persons with Access to Basic Retail Facilities
Home Ownership
Existence of Small Area or Pedestrian Enhancement District Plan
Adjacencies to Neighborhood Action Plan Neighborhoods
Adjacencies to neighborhoods with Neighborhood Improvement Projects
scheduled and funded
Adjacency to concentrations of City Housing Trust Fund or Charlotte
Mecklenburg Housing Partnership affordable housing communities
Concentrations of vacant or blighted retail and commercial buildings
Using these criteria, the following corridors are recommended as high priority for
funding (listed in no specific order):
•
•
•
•
•
Beatties Ford Road
Eastland Mall area
Rozzelles Ferry Road
North Tryon Street
Wilkinson/Freedom/Morehead/Bryant Park
31
The City will also continue to provide infrastructure to support private sector
development across all corridors.
Focusing on the above corridors does not signify a lack of interest in the
remaining ones. It does, however, allow the City to have the greatest impact
possible with existing funds. Its investment along Wilkinson Boulevard, an
example brought up multiple times as a revitalization success story, was
significant. The City and its public private partners invested over $30 million
dollars along that corridor. To make the most of the $8.9 million and enable
another success story holds the most potential for finding additional revenue for
revitalization from both public and private sources moving forward.
Plan of Work
The next logical step is to commence with the subsequent Plan of Work for Fiscal
Year 2007. While a partial year, there are still many activities to accomplish in
support of the overall larger strategy. The work plan also includes relevant
metrics and budgetary impact. Only by recognizing success and the cost to
achieve it can the City validate the plan, its activities, goals and strategies.
Fiscal Year 2007
Activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Complete Business Corridor Strategic Plan with guidance of steering
committee
Partner with Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation
(CMDC) on Belvedere project
- Purchase $950,000 of land from the Charlotte Housing
Authority (CHA) to kick off project
- Work with and advise CMDC as needed during redevelopment
process
Identify top priority infrastructure improvements to leverage private
sector investment in Bryant Park, e.g., sewer, medians, roads
- Allocate funds from Economic Development Fund to pay for
this infrastructure
- Structure plan to complete infrastructure improvements
Restructure façade and security grant programs to address ease of use
and overall effectiveness
Realign Infrastructure Grant Program to assist business retention and
recruitment
Option vacant retail and commercial buildings in the Eastland Mall
area for redevelopment purposes
Work with developers and other partnering agencies to identify other
private sector development opportunities to assist in infrastructure
development on a project by project basis
32
•
•
•
Study successful inner city companies in other cities to identify ways
to grow businesses in the corridors
Request a NC Legislative Study Commission on initiatives the State
can take to promote urban inner city redevelopment and private sector
investment throughout NC
Complete Eastland ULI Advisory Panel
Metrics
•
•
•
•
•
Adoption of Business Corridor plan
Purchase of Belvedere land from CHA
Dollars leveraged through grant programs
Total number of grants
Number of buildings optioned for redevelopment purposes
Budget impact
•
$950,000 for Belvedere land from EDO Corridor Revitalization
The work plan for fiscal year 2008 encompasses a greater range of activities,
many of which will be supported through the addition of two full time employees
to the Economic Development Office, both focused upon the programs and
policies targeting the business corridors. Currently, there is no one dedicated FTE
within the EDO whose focus is the business corridors. To guarantee the level of
attention and requisite customer service described in this plan, the Economic
Development Office must add these two staff persons during FY 2008. Activities
within the four target corridors will also commence in earnest. This general plan
does not include those activities. Those will be determined by mid-2007 by the
City of Charlotte in conjunction with the relevant business groups in those
corridors.
Fiscal Year 2008
Activities
•
•
•
•
Roll out marketing program to corridor businesses regarding City
programs
Begin development with CMDC on a retail center within the Belmont
community
Identify and begin recruitment of potential target companies to attract
to the business corridors in conjunction with the Charlotte Regional
Partnership and the Charlotte Chamber
Develop improved customer service program
- Provide team review of land development permits
- Draft brochures that clearly delineate required steps in the
process of investment and provide relevant contact information
33
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare redevelopment feasibility plan for vacant retail/commercial
space optioned by the City in the Eastland area corridor. Seek private
sector development partners for this redevelopment.
Conduct a small business study along the targeted business corridors
Partner with Central Piedmont Community College and Workforce
Development Board to study corridor workforce needs and develop
solutions to meet those needs, including a potential small business
incubator
Establish interdepartmental teams (Police, EDO, Solid Waste,
Neighborhood Development, CATS, CDOT) on high priority corridors
to respond to problems in support of community policing efforts
Participate in NC Legislative Study Commission on initiatives the
State can take to promote in urban inner city locations throughout NC
Work with partners to implement recommendations of Eastland ULI
Advisory Panel
Complete North Tryon redevelopment plan
- Prioritize activities for implementation
- Identify Economic Development funding for the activities
- Pressure test selected activities, e.g., landscaping, façade and
fencing requirements for car lots
Partner with CMPD to address safety concerns:
- Determine where to deploy officers on bikes
- Market CPTED, crime prevention surveys and security grants
- Leverage Community Police Officers to build lines of
communication with business owners
Study opportunities to support environmentally sustainable
development
- Need for public funds and brownfield clean up
- Alignment of grant programs to invent green building technologies
- Partnerships to promote green building technology
Implement next steps in terms of corridor specific strategies
- Develop Belvedere Business Park
- Begin infrastructure construction for Belvedere Business Park
Perform mid-course evaluation at end of FY 2008 and assess current
and future funding for business corridor strategic plan implementation
Investigate and make recommendations on establishing a Kauffman
Center for Urban Entrepreneurship
Metrics
•
•
•
Number of buildings optioned for redevelopment purposes
Dollars leveraged by City business corridor programs in targeted
business corridors
Number of LEEDS certified buildings in the business corridors
34
•
•
•
•
Number of brownfield sites redeveloped
Number of companies targeted to relocate to the business corridors
Number of companies who relocate to the business corridors
Increase in value of building permits in the targeted corridors
Budget impact
•
•
•
$60,000 for additional EDO staff person to focus solely on business
corridor revitalization efforts, $20,000 in addition to transferring an
existing funded position from SBO to business corridors for additional
EDO business corridor revitalization staff person
$5,000 for additional printing expenses
Funding for specific corridor activities TBD
Based on the mid-course evaluation at the end of FY 2008, the City will redirect
and/or refine its activities in support of the larger goal of business corridor
revitalization if City Council approves the results of this mi-course evaluation and
Phase II Work Plan that will govern the City’s corridor revitalization work
through 2012.
As stated earlier, strong business corridors make for stronger neighborhoods and
equitable city-wide development. The challenge is, of course, how do you
“make” strong business corridors. Working alone and with its many economic
development partners, the City has answered this question. This strategic plan
serves as its response.
35
Appendix I:
Maps of the Business Corridors
Courtesy of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Development
Corporation
CMDC Business Corridor Segments
36
CMDC Social Ranking
37
CMDC Economic Ranking
38
CMDC Overall Ranking
39
Appendix II:
Industries and the Corridors
Courtesy of the Charlotte Regional Partnership
BCR
Employees
LQ
17,526
6,274
3.8
Wholesale Trade
44,039
7,633
1.8
56
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation
20,738
3,140
1.6
23
Construction
46,560
6,962
1.6
92
Public Administration
30,248
3,929
1.4
81
Other Services (except Public
Administration)
42,140
4,236
1.1
31
Manufacturing – Nondurable
20,218
1,955
1.0
32
Manufacturing - Natural Resource Goods
23,110
2,121
1.0
53
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
17,548
1,604
1.0
49
Transportation and Warehousing Warehouse, Storage, Courier
2,742
241
0.9
44
Retail Trade
65,749
5,592
0.9
33
Manufacturing - Durable Goods
40,418
3,382
0.9
61
Educational Services
42,434
3,367
0.8
51
Information
12,525
992
0.8
62
Health Care and Social Assistance
71,517
4,455
0.7
22
Utilities
8,035
500
0.7
72
Accommodation and Food Services
52,990
3,025
0.6
45
Retail Trade
27,548
1,334
0.5
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
7,661
362
0.5
54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services
42,240
1,993
0.5
52
Finance and Insurance
38,868
912
0.2
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
807
15
0.2
21
Mining
353
1
0
55
Management of Companies and Enterprises
372
0
0
NAICS
Description
48
Transportation and Warehousing Transportation Services
42
Charlotte MSA
Employees
40
Appendix III:
Wilkinson Park Business Center: Before and After
Courtesy of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Development
Corporation
Before
After
41
Appendix IV:
Existing City of Charlotte programs
Note- All summary totals for investment and participants encompass the
period of the beginning of the program (which varies) and 2006.
Grants
Facade Improvement Grant Program- The program provides 50% reimbursement
up to $10,000 to commercial or industrial businesses or property owners for eligible
renovation costs. Buildings with multiple businesses (shopping centers) may apply
for a maximum of $40,000. The goal of this program is to remove blight and improve
the appearance of the buildings in the corridors. Begun in 1998
Eligible businesses:
•
•
•
•
•
Owners or tenants of buildings that are used for for-profit business. Prohibited
buildings include bars, nightclubs, tattoo parlors, body piercing shops, check
cashing and adult businesses
All individual businesses, including tenants, must have less than $2 million in
gross sales for each of the last three years
Owners of vacant buildings are eligible, but expenses will be reimbursed only
after an eligible business occupies the space and opens to the public
Owners and tenants are eligible to re-apply until the maximum award is reached.
Participants in the program are not eligible for participation in the Infrastructure
Grant program
All real property taxes must be paid in full
Eligible expenses:
Detailed guidelines are available from Economic Development. These guidelines are
used by a review team of City staff that approves each application.
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants submit an application to the Economic Development Office
City staff reviews and approves proposals quarterly
The City does not reimburse for work done before the application approval and
contract signing
Applicants are responsible for obtaining all necessary government permits,
including building permits
Staff will be permitted to inspect the project to ensure conformance with the grant
agreement
The City will authorize reimbursement payment after completion of the project in
accordance with the approved plan. The City will not contract to perform any of
the work , but will reimburse the applicant for approved expenses
42
•
Projects should be completed within 90 days of contract signing or funds will not
be guaranteed
Program facts:
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
$1,088,414
$8,649,656
104
Infrastructure Grant Program- The program provides grants to independently
owned businesses and multifamily infill developers for City-required improvements
such as landscaping, sidewalks, curb and gutter and backflow prevention. Begun in
1998
Eligible businesses:
•
•
•
Commercial or industrial business and multifamily residential construction
projects containing four or more dwelling units
Prohibited businesses include chain stores, department stores, tattoo parlors,
body piercing shops, adult book stores, bars, hotels/motels, fast food
restaurants, gas stations, check cashing and businesses that have received
funds from the City’s Business Investment Program or the Façade
Improvement Grant Program
Property must be properly zoned and all real property taxes must be paid
Eligible expenses:
The program provides grants of up to $10,000 or 10% of the total private investment,
whichever is less.
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants submit an application to the Economic Development Office
Staff reviews applications quarterly to determine if projects meet program
objectives
The City does not reimburse for work done before application approval and
contract signing
Applicants contract for an install infrastructure improvements and provide
staff with invoices of actual costs
The City inspects the improvements and disburses grant funds, which shall not
exceed actual costs, at completion
Program facts:
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
$289,009
$36,257,049
43
Number of participants:
30
Security Grant Program- Designed in partnership with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department, its goal is to create a safer environment for employees and
customers. Begun in 2001
Eligible businesses:
•
•
•
•
Owners or tenants of buildings that are used for businesses such as retail,
office, service, manufacturing, industrial, warehouse, distribution, check
cashing, restaurants or hotels are eligible. Bars and adult establishments are
prohibited
All businesses must have less than $2 million gross sales in each of the last
three years
Owners of vacant buildings are eligible but expenses will be reimbursed only
after an eligible business occupies the space and opens to the public
Participants in this program are eligible for the Façade or Infrastructure Grant
Programs
Eligible expenses:
The program provides 50% reimbursement up to $2,500 to businesses for eligible
security improvements. Owners of multiple sites are limited to a $10,000 maximum.
Based on a security analysis by a Certified Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design Police Officer, improvements may include alarm systems, gates, security
lighting, cameras, windows, doors, ironwork, fencing, locking devices, and other
suggested modifications.
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants submit Part One of the application to the Economic Development
Office
If the property is eligible, a police officer will make initial security
improvement recommendations
These recommendations will be reviewed monthly by City staff and returned
to the applicant with Part Two of the application
The applicant completes Part Two with a description and cost estimates/bids
for the proposed work along with a photo(s) of the property
The City does not reimburse for work done before application approval and
contract signing
Work is expected to be done by professionals and to be completed within 60
days of approval. City staff will inspect the project to ensure conformance
with the grant agreement
The City will authorize reimbursement payment after completion in
accordance with the plan. The City will not contract any of the work, but will
reimburse the applicant for approved expenses
44
Program facts:
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
$129,649
$209,974
45
Brownfield Assessment Program- The program assists with the redevelopment of
underutilized brownfield sites which are contaminated or suspected of contamination.
Providing services and jobs to the community, removing blight and increasing the tax
base, retaining and attracting quality businesses and reducing the potential of harm to
the community from hazardous substances are all benefits of the program. The
program provides matching grants to property owners at sites suspected of
contamination. Begun in 1997
Eligible applicants:
All property owners or potential property owners holding a contract to purchase can
apply.
Eligible expenses:
The program provides 50% matching funds up to $20,000 per site for assessment
activities that will lead to site redevelopment. Covered expenses include reasonable
Phase I and Phase II site assessment activities and remediation design activities and
legal expenses related to negotiating Brownfield Agreements under the NC
Brownfield Property Reuse Act of 1997.
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants apply to a site selection committee
The City does not reimburse for work done before application approval and
contract signing
Funds are awarded on the following criteria:
- Contamination is eligible under EPA grant guidelines
- Contamination is an impediment to redevelopment
- The project is likely to succeed if contamination is mitigated or
removed and/or environmental issues are resolved
- The proposed end use is consistent with community needs, zoning and
land use plans
City coordinates development of consultant contracts with applicant
Funds are dispersed based of invoices from consultant
Program facts:
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
$248,350
$3,087,614
45
Number of participants:
18
Business District Organization Program- Business District Organization ProgramThe program supports the work of business groups operating in the business corridors
by helping with approved operating/administrative expenses. The maximum award
amount is $7,500 per year. All City funds must be matched by the organization in
hard dollars. Begun in 2003
Eligible business organizations:
The business organization must:
•
•
•
•
•
Serve one of the City’s “Distressed Business Districts” as defined by the
City’s Economic Development Office
Have documented 501(c) (3) or 501 (c) (6) not-for-profit designation.
Municipal Service Districts (MSDs) are not eligible
Have a minimum of ten business members
Demonstrate ongoing active business participation with 75% of the
organization’s board representing district businesses
Hold monthly public, membership or executive meetings
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants submit an application to the Economic Development Office
Applications must include a Work Plan outlining objectives for the year. The
Plan will be reviewed and approved by the City
The maximum award is $7,500 per year
All funds matched by the City under this program must be matched by the
organization in hard dollars (cash-on-hand or signed pledges.) In-kind
donations and/or volunteer time do not qualify
Approved organizations must report accomplishments of the Work Plan
submitted to the City at the end of each year
The grant will be awarded as invoices are submitted for approved
operating/administrative expenses
Program facts:
Total investment:
Matched Funds:
Number of Participants:
$27,896
$27,896
2 organizations, six grants
Other
Equity Loan Program- The Equity Loan Program was established to stimulate small
business investments in targeted areas, create new service and retail businesses in
support of target neighborhoods, provide low-wealth persons access to capital for
46
business start-ups and expansions and create wealth for low-to-moderate income
people living in the Communities Within A City (CWAC) area. Begun in 1991
Eligible businesses:
Start up and expanding for-profit businesses needing additional equity. The business
must create one job per $10,000 in City loan funds. The borrower’s tangible net
worth may not exceed $300,000. Prohibited businesses include adult businesses,
bars, hotels/motels, pawnshops, tattoo parlors and auto sales lots. Businesses
requiring ABC permits are subject to additional restrictions.
Eligible expenses:
The City can lend up to 20% of a business’ total loan funds (including bank and City
funds.) Repayment of the City’s loan is deferred until a determination is made at the
time the loan is reviewed by the City (typically at year 3) that the borrower can repay
the City loan. Maximum term of the City’s loan is ten years. The maximum City
loan is $100,000 or $150,000 for manufacturing.
Program details:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The City’s loan works in connection with a loan from a bank
Applicants may apply directly to a bank of their choice. If the lender is not
familiar with the City’s program, they should be referred to the Economic
Development Office for explanation
Banks use standard underwriting criteria when reviewing a loan request. The
lender makes the determination of whether the borrower needs additional
equity funds from the City
A bank’s request is made in the form of a loan commitment letter that includes
a contingency for the City to provide the additional equity needed in the form
of a deferred loan
Interest of the bank’s loan cannot exceed Prime +2% while the City’s loan is
outstanding
An Economic Development representative will be assigned to process the
request. The bank or borrower will be contacted if additional information is
needed. Loan requests are typically processed within two weeks. The normal
timeline for closing an approved loan is approximately two months
Program facts:
Total investment:
Leveraged investment:
Number of participants:
$5,746,119
$34,823,408
159
Source: Economic Development Office
47
Appendix V: Peer City Information
Charlotte
Peer Cities
(8 interviews)
Roads/Streetscape
X
7
Utilities
X
4
Façade Improvement
X
6
City Bonds
X
4
TIF Districts
X
8
Federal and State Grants
X
7
Benchmark Criterion
Tools for Revitalization
Funding (City bonds, TIFS, grants, BIDs)
Tax Allocation Districts
4
BIDs/MSDs
X
5
Land Acquisitions for Revitalization
X
7
Focus on Multiple Corridors Simultaneously
X
8
Use of CDCs
X
7
Support of Small Business Incubators
4
Parking as an Incentive in Neighborhood Business Areas
3
Partnerships for Affordable Housing
X
Programs for Business District Signage
7
6
Source: Economic Development Office interviews with peer cities
48
Appendix V: Peer City Information (continued)
City
Economic
Development Director
Phone Number
Email
Atlanta
Charles Whatley, Manager of
Business Development
(404) 880-4100
cwhatley@atla
ntada.com
Columbus
Mark Barbash
Director of Development
(614) 645-7795
nademyan@co
lumbus.gov
Dallas
Daniel Oney, Research and
Information Manager
(214) 670-3441
daniel.oney@d
allascityhall.co
m
Denver
Director of Economic
Development, John Huggins
Real Contact: Mary Buckley
(720) 913-1999
john.huggins@
ci.denver.co.us
Kansas City
Tom Coyle,
Director
(816) 513-2865
tom_coyle@kc
mo.org
Memphis
Wanda Martin
(901) 576-7107
Wanda.Martin
@memphistn.g
ov
Oakland
San Diego
St. Louis
Tampa
Daniel Vanderpriem
Director of Redevelopment,
ED & Housing
Community and Economic
Development Agency
Real Contact: Stephanie
Floyd-Johnson
Scott Kessler, Deputy
Director of Economic
Development
Rodney Crim,
Ex. Director St. Louis
Development Corp.
Vince Pardo, Economic
Development Manager
(510) 238-2910
dvanderpriem
@oaklandnet.c
om
(619) 533-4234
skessler@sand
iego.gov
(314) 622-3400
x300
CrimR@stloui
scity.com
(813) 274-7937
Vince.Pardo@
ci.tampa.fl.us
Completed
Survey
Completed
Phone
Interview
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Buckley
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
49
Appendix VI:
List of BCR Strategic Plan Steering Committee
Members
Mic Alexander, President/CEO, Overflow Corporation
Chris Campbell, Executive Director, Charlotte Enterprise Community
Tim Crist, Senior Vice President, Wachovia Bank
Nancy Crown, Senior Vice President, Bank of America
Patricia Garrett, Executive Director/CEO, The Housing Partnership
Brian Fincher, Representative, Camp Greene Neighborhood Association
Dale Harrold, Regional Director, Self Help Credit Union
Karen Henning, Business Owner, EDO Business Advisory Committee
Linda Holden, President/CEO, Holden Properties
Gwen Isley, Executive Director, Northwest Corridor CDC
Dick Klingman, President/CEO, Klingman/Williams
Brandon Lofton, Attorney, Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Gresham and
Sumter
Mattie Marshall, Representative, Historic Washington Heights
George McAllister, Director, Small Business and Technology
Development Center (SBTDC)
Franklin McCain, Neighborhood Leader
John Nichols, President/CEO, The Nichols Company
Eligio Pena, President/CEO, Compare Foods
50
Andy Phillips, President/CEO, D.L. Properties
Rob Pressley, President, Coldwell Banker Commercial- MECA
Vanessa Ramseur, Senior Librarian Manager, Freedom Drive Regional
Library
Jeffrey Riddick, Network Manager, Bell South
Bob Sweeney, President/CEO, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Development
Corporation
Keva Walton, Senior Vice President, Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
Darrell Williams, Principal, Neighboring Concepts
Mary Wilson, Executive Director, Friendship Community Development
Corporation
51
Appendix VII: List of Acronyms
BCR
Business Corridor Revitalization
BDOP
Business District Organization Program
CDC
Community Development Corporation
CMDC
Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation
CRA
Community Redevelopment Area
CRP
Charlotte Regional Partnership
EDO
Economic Development Office
LQ
Location Quotient
MSA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
NAIC
North American Industrial Code
NAP
Neighborhood Action Plan
NIP
Neighborhood Improvement Projects
TIF
Tax Increment Financing
52
Appendix VIII: Economic Development Office Job Descriptions
Currently, neither one of these positions exist within the EDO
ED Specialist: Corridor Business Recruiter
Primary Responsibilities will include:
•
•
•
•
•
Conducting market studies to identify retail and other business needs and
opportunities in the corridors and then recruiting retailers to meet those needs
Working with commercial landowners and brokers in the corridors to identify and
recruit retail and other businesses to the corridors
Working with Chamber, CMDC, CRP and others to identify and recruit
companies (retail, service, office and industrial), in the targeted business sectors,
that would benefit from the competitive advantages of a corridor location
Linking incoming companies with existing City programs for the corridors
Integrating attraction strategies within larger EDO strategic framework
ED Specialist: Corridor Business Customer Service
Primary responsibilities include:
•
•
•
•
•
Helping businesses in the business corridor geography with government service
problems, working with other City and County departments
Assisting corridor businesses through all steps of the land development and
building permitting processes, and being a single point of contact for that business
Identifying customer service problems that may be specific to businesses in the
corridors, and developing recommendations on ways to resolve those problems
Maintaining relationship with existing and new companies on the business
corridors through surveys, interviews and aggressive outreach
Promoting existing City programs to businesses on the corridors
53
Appendix IX: Budget
Economic Development
Capital Improvement Projects
Program Title: Business Grant Programs/DARF
Description: Funds the City’s Business Revitalization Programs including the Security, Façade and Infrastructure Grants
Programs, Business District Organization Program and the Brownfield Assessment Program. Also funds the Business Equity
Loan Fund (formerly CWAC Loan Fund)
Costs
Construction
Total
2006-07
400,000
400,000*
2007-08
400,000
400,000
2008-09
400,000
400,000
2009-10
400,000
400,000
2010-11
400,000
400,000
Total
2,000,000
2,000,000
Program Title: Old Convention Center Redevelopment (Epicentre)
Description: Agreement with EpiCentre Associates for $2.2 million in infrastructure assistance payable for the redevelopment of
the Old Convention Center. The contribution is payable over four years 60 days after the project completion date.
Costs
Construction
Total
2006-07
0
0
2007-08
550,000
550,000*
2008-09
550,000
550,000
2009-10
550,000
550,000
2010-11
550,000
550,000
Total
2,200,000
2,200,000
Program Title: Business Corridor Revitalization
Description: Project provides public improvements along inner-city distressed business corridors & supports Business Corridor
Strategic Plan.
Costs
Other
2006-07
8,900,000
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Total
8.900,000
Total
8.900.000
8.900.000
Program Title: Business Corridors/Streetscape/Pedscape
Description: Supports corridor improvement by infrastructure development & visual enhancement
Costs
Other
Total
2006-07
2007-08
6,100,000
6,100,000
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Total
6,100,000
6,100,000
54
Program Title: Elizabeth Mixed-Use
Description: Tax increment support of public parking up to 1,000 spaces within structured parking decks to be constructed within
the project area. The parking supports a mixed-use project currently planned to include appx. 250,000 sq. ft of retail, 340,000
office, 810 residential units, 150 hotel rooms, and 3,000 total structured parking spaces.
Costs
Other
Total
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
10,000,000
10,000,000
2009-10
2010-11
Total
10,000,000
10,000,000
Program Title: Belmont C- Store Acquisition
Description: Acquisition and demolition of seven convenience stores in the Belmont neighborhood by the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Development Corp. (CMDC), which were identified as problem sites by a CMDC Highest and Best
Use Study in 2004 and supported by the community and Police.
Costs
2006-07
Land Acquisition
Construction
Other
2007-08
1,100,000
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
1,100,000
Total
Total
1,100,000
1,100,000
Other Programs & Funds Available
Program Title: Business Investment Program Budget
Description: The Business Investment Program (BIP) seeks to encourage the creation, retention and/or expansion of
new or existing businesses and jobs. The program provides grants to eligible companies based upon the amount of
new property tax generated by the business investment being made.
Costs
Grants
Total
2006-07
396,163
396,163*
2007-08
498,262
498,262
2008-09
589,299
589,299
2009-10
536,531
536,531
2010-11
502,940
502,940
Total
2,523,195
2,523,195
Program Title: Economic Development RLF
Description: Revolving loan fund for projects which require CDBG compliance for moderate scale redevelopment
projects that fall outside the scope of other ED programs, such as City West Shopping Center and University Village
Shopping Center. Projects must either serve low to moderate income residents or eliminate blight.
Fund balance
2006-07
Total
1,200,000
2007-08
975,000
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Total
2,175,000
55
Program Title: Mid Town Metropolitan Square Redevelopment
Description: Infrastructure support grant for road, bridge, intersection improvements in support of Home Depot
Expo, parking decks, retail/restaurant, office, and residential development.
Funds Available
2006-07
Total
2007-08
196,439
2008-09
531,426
2009-10
778,276
2010-11
879,761
Total
2,385,902
Program Title: Smart Growth Land Acquisition (funds remaining from original appropriation)
Description: Funds acquisition of property in close proximity to transit stations where Smart Growth initiatives can
be leveraged with private sector development. Scaleybark was acquired in FY 06 for mixed-use station-area
development.
Funds Available
2006-07
Total
1,584,149
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Total
1,584,189
Program Title: Business Equity Loan Fund
Description: Small business loans made in business corridors, & Business Services Geography.
Funds Available
Total
2006-07
345,707
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Total
345,707
56
Appendix X: References
References
Center for Real Estate at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (2006). Economic
Development Feasibility Study: A Report Prepared for the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Development Corporation. Prepared by Dr. Steven H. Ott and
Dustin C. Read.
Charlotte Regional Partnership (2007) BCR Location Quotient by 2-Digit NAICS.
City of Charlotte (2006). Best Practice Study in Business Corridor Revitalization.
Prepared by Adam Ricketts.
City of Charlotte (2002). Big Box Review Committee Report. Prepared by the committee.
City of Charlotte (2005). Business Corridor Revitalization Geography. Prepared by the
Economic Development Office.
City of Charlotte (2005). Business Works in Charlotte: Business Revitalization
Programs. Prepared by the Economic Development Office.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (2004). Unprecedented National Partnership
Launched to Encourage Minority Entrepreneurship. Found at
www.kauffman.org. Viewed December 2006.
Florida Redevelopment Association. (2006). Found at
www.redevelopment.net/crabasics.aspx. Viewed December 2006.
Office of the State Treasurer of California (2005). State Investments in Urban Real
Estate Reaping Hefty Financial Returns While Strengthening California’s Inner
Cities. Found at www.treasurer.ca.gov/news/releases/2005/20050815_urban.pdf.
Viewed December 2006.
57
Crescent Properties
Connector Road
in University City
Economic Development &
Planning Committee
March 21, 2007
1
Overview
•
•
•
Project Overview
City Boulevard Reimbursement
Information Requested
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
Connector Road
Tax district
Tax generation
Assistance to IKEA in other cities
Sustainability Index
Terms of Development Agreement
Outstanding Issues
2
Project Overview
3
City Boulevard
• Funded at-grade intersection of North
Tryon and City Blvd.
• Surrounding street network is key part of
NCDOT approval of at-grade intersection
• Reimbursement agreement for Crescent
to construct from I-85 east to connect with
Hwy. 29
• Will now include sidewalks, curb & gutter
• Sale of surplus property will pay
additional improvements
• Crescent will donate ROW as part of
agreement
• CMUD will incorporate a water line in
City Blvd. through a 50/50 reimbursement
agreement with Crescent
• Road cost: $25.5 Million
• Timeline: 2012
4
Connector Road
DRAFT
•
Avenue design: two lanes
with turn lanes, landscaped
median, bike lanes,
sidewalks, and planting
strips
•
Part of a larger designed
street network system for
University City
•
Would not be built in its
entirety without City
assistance (connection to
McCullough may never be
made)
•
Estimated road cost: $7.5M
5
Framework for Proposed
E.D. Grant Agreement
6
Projected City Property Tax
2008
IKEA
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
93,229
28,000 Restaurant
37,304
244,000 retail
13,000 restaurant
195,000 hotel
294,897
10,000 restaurant
10,000 office
65,000 hotel
214,500 retail
204,233
7,000 restaurant
5,000 retail
80,000 office
93,373
40,000 office
32,160
City Tax
(w/ land appreciation)
164,960
201,616
484,741
678,540
773,689
816,044
832,365
849,013
865,992
883,313
Reimbursable Amount
(90% increment above
base year)
97, 685
130,675
385,487
559,899
645,542
683,661
698,350
713,332
728,615
744,203
Source: Crescent Resources
Total: $5,387,449
7
• West Sacramento (opened March ’06)
– Located in Enterprise Zone, received $5-10 million in state tax
incentives
• West Chester, Ohio (opening Spring ’08)
– Cost of road improvements are shared by County, Township, and
IKEA
• Draper, Utah (opening May ’07)
– City obligated to provide off site infrastructure, purchased ROW
from IKEA, and waived all city-controlled fees (approx. $7.8M)
• Frisco, Texas (opened August ’05)
– Frisco Economic Development Corp. executed a performance
agreement to reimburse IKEA for infrastructure improvements
– Retail development agreement where IKEA received program
payments based on store sales over 10 years (approx. $450,000
annual)
8
Sustainability Index
Categories:
- Council Strategic Priorities
Smart Growth Initiative
Score G
- Other Smart Growth Principles
Score F/G
- Financial Need
Score X
- Financial Risk/Return
Score G
OVERALL SCORE G
9
Framework for Proposed
E.D. Grant Agreement
•
Reimbursement not to exceed $5,387,449 million
–
–
–
90% of new City property taxes
Estimated annual payments: $97,000 to $744,000
10 year agreement
•
Road will follow specific cross section and is estimated to cost
$7,519,000
•
Dedication of ROW for connector road and future east/west
connections
•
Crescent at risk if payments do not reach $5.38 million over 10
years
•
Future Design and use of district will follow a PED overlay or
similar type district may be pursued after the current review of
the PED zoning district is complete if it is determined to be an
appropriate strategy to implement the University City Area Plan
(UCAP) recommendations.
•
Contingent on IKEA locating on this site
10
Benefits
•
Improved connectivity that supports 29/49 at grade
intersection and mobility in the University City area
•
Demonstrates to NCDOT that City will build road
network that supports at grade 29/49 intersection
•
Annual new sales tax from IKEA: $463,750
(w/o transit ½ cent)
•
Crescent donates land for connector road and future
street connections
•
Crescent donates land for City Boulevard
•
Development agreement allows the opportunity to
design road and adjacent land uses consistently
•
Ikea contributes to University City as one of a kind
retailer
11
Outstanding Issues
•
•
Complete Sustainability Index
Outstanding Design Issues
12