ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 2
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
SCALEYBARK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Action: Review staff recommendations on Scaleybark Transit Oriented Development,
and if ready, make a recommendation to City Council. Preliminary information
requested by the Committee is attached. Staff will send recommendations to
Committee on Tuesday,
January 16.
II.
BUSINESS CORRIDOR REVITILIZATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Action: Review Draft Recommendations for Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic
Plan.
III.
ED FOCUS AREA PLANS for 2008-2009
Action: Review and Discuss ED Focus Area Plans for 2008-2009.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Others:
Time:
John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Nancy Carter, James Mitchell and Don Lochman.
Anthony Foxx
3:00 p.m. – 5:35 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
Scaleybark Station Area Transit Oriented Development
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan
21st Annual Corporate Survey
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject: Scaleybark Transit Oriented Development
Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director, introduced the subject and recognized Ron Tober,
CATS; Debra Campbell, Planning; and, Stanley Watkins, Neighborhood Development. While
Economic Development has taken the lead on this issue, we have worked very closely with these
departments because of the implications for planning, transit and the affordable housing
neighborhood development piece. We thought we would be at the point of giving you a
recommendation today, but we are not there yet. We have drawn some conclusion as to where we are
and some other remaining issues with two of the proposals that we want to continue to work on and
come back to the Committee at your first meeting in February with a recommendation. We will give
Council the same presentation on Monday, that you are getting today to bring everybody up to speed
about where we are and than that would set the stage for a Council decision on February 12.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 3
(Tracy Finch, Economic Development Transit Station Coordinator used a PowerPoint to give an overview of
on the Scaleybark Station Area Transit Oriented Development)
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lassiter:
Explain to me – that’s our cost of money?
Finch:
They wanted 2%, our cost of 4.5%, a difference over a 20 year loan ended up to be $1.2
million.
Lassiter:
That is a cost we would have to issue for the loan or refinance?
Flynn:
Yes, we would have to own the debt and could have Certificates of Participation on the
debt.
Finch:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Tober:
Dulin:
Tober:
Dulin:
Tober:
Dulin:
Continued her presentation with the last slide on Page 4.
This is a larger project than the Bank of America project. Why would it qualify for less new
market tax credits?
It is on the line of retail and office and what they are going for. All the way around the site
qualifies.
So it is a function of commercial space?
You can’t use new market for housing. It has to be commercially built. Also it is how it fits
into their structure of their deals, what they are comfortable with.
Can you go back to their site plan and the open space? That is a little bit of a squeeze isn’t it?
It is smaller than their original proposal. It is the largest open space we have of the three
proposals. It is oriented down around the retail and transit station. It is going to be tight in
there, but it is the largest one we have.
Right there at the open space is a street crossing isn’t it? That is an automobile street
crossing, correct?
That is a full signalized intersection.
There will be arms coming down, back and forth, with ding ding ding and all kinds of stuff?
That has always been intended to be a full signalized intersection.
The station is further down toward the bottom corner of the project isn’t it? People will
congregate in the park or on the corner of the park before they cross onto the ramp.
Yes, the Park N Ride patrons would come through here pass the retail and open space and
cross to go straight to the station.
People have to park and then they are exposed to the weather while they are walking to the
station. There is a crossing gate at the street. Is there a second crossing gate where the
pedestrians cross or are the cars coming in and out of the development stopped and the
pedestrians stopped by the same crossing gates?
They are stopped by the same. At the intersection you can see how the roadway comes out
so pedestrians would cross and the cars would stop at that same location.
The cars would get a green light so the pedestrians would get a green light to cross as the
cars cross.
Perhaps, it depends upon the volume of traffic and cars in that area.
They will be crossing traffic and not the train tracks physically?
They are crossing one lane of tracks and the south bound traffic to get out to the center. One
of the reasons we reconfigured the railroad was to make it easier for people from the
neighborhood to get out there as well as, and hopefully it would all occur in this area.
While we are talking about this, I would like to go back to the Bank of America proposal and
have the same conversation. They don’t control the corner there, the Park N Ride is in
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 4
Finch:
Dulin:
Tober:
Carter:
Finch:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Tober:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
between the condos.
The Park N Ride facility is here and then you pretty much come out and walk the sidewalk
across.
That minimizes south bound South Boulevard greatly, but they still have to cross. There will
be full operational gates there to stop cars and pedestrians?
There is not much difference between the two.
Dealing in parking in Phase I, I think all of the different parcels need to address for us as a
group, how they will be handled in Phase I. I do have specific concerns particularly about
the Bank of America proposal and how those slots will be handled when we come to know
them.
Phase I for Bank of America, they are intending on having the parking deck half filled in
January of next year. That is not November and we talked with them about it and the
thought is that the interim lot would probably in the middle of this or in this general vicinity.
The first phase of their project is to build that parking deck and then they will come back up
here, build the grocery store and mixed income buildings and that makes a good spot for
their interim lot. In the Scaleybark Partners, they have 300 spaces here at the end of this year
when the Light Rail opens.
Would the affordable housing, which is a key reason I am interested in the City’s investment
at all, how many units in all three are devoted to 50% of the AMI and 30% of AMI?
We have that in a later chart Ms. Carter and we will talk about that.
The last bullet says it could convert the deck in Phase III. Is that a permissive language to
the development?
The way the proposal came in is that there could be Phase III if the landowners wanted the
construction of the deck. It is more of when the landowners get to a point that they need
some help to contribute to building that parking deck at that point. They didn’t want to
necessarily put a time for a true commitment to that.
It says at the discretion of the development.
We have had some preliminary conversations with their team about establishing some bench
marks that would give us a little bit more control over when that would be developed. If
they hit and miss then they would have to build the deck or something like that. Those are
very, very preliminary. If they are selected to move forward, that would be something that
we would want to talk to them and negotiate with them on.
Directed his question to Ron Tober, from your perspective do you have a concern or
significant issues whether it is service parking or deck construction?
On that specific question, no. There is an issue related to the surface parking lot which we
will get to later and the relationship with the FTA. It has nothing to do with performance
standard, but it has something to do with the fair market value. From an operational
standpoint, it is six of one and half-dozen of the other at this point.
I would like to drop back if I may and try to understand the basic foundation for what we are
talking about. We’ve got residential units and we build them all the time at different places.
We have … units, which I can understand the possibility of a subsidy for affordable units,
although I thought we originally talked about a proposal, at least in some measure, address
that requirement and for sale units obviously,… without a subsidy. I guess the question is,
is the issue that there is not market support at the moment or is the scope of these numbers of
…?
Yes, given the infrastructure requirements that this density requires, that is correct.
But the expectation is that the units will be filled under the affordable housing?
Yes, but that market rate is not sufficient to pay the full development costs of the projects as
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 5
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
they are proposed.
Okay, but in this instance, the 450 units would command a normal market rate. Retail goes
without saying because retail is retail. I presume the market is for retail.
Once again, it does not support your deck parking for the retail. The retail rates don’t
support the development cost for the retail plus the decking parking, plus the street
infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure. It is very similar if you go back to Elizabeth
Avenue. You remember the problem was, yes the retail was at market rate however, the
market rate is not a rate that will also support and pay for the parking decks at $15,000 to
$20,000 per space.
The parking deck isn’t really required to support retail. The parking decks are there for other
reasons, correct?
They are both for the retail and the housing.
In a typical circumstance, you wouldn’t build the houses if you didn’t have the ability to
provide a parking lot for the people living in the houses. For some reason this is the …. of
the parking in and of itself. It is inappropriate to the market requirement for these units and
for the retail. If I am getting the retail, I make sure I have parking for my customers and if I
want to build an apartment building, I make sure I have parking so people can live there.
That is the norm in most instances, but here it is not. I presume it has something to do with
the expense associated with the parking as opposed to the normal parking. Obviously, the
park is not an issue. I understand the library is putting money in and CATS’ parking I
assume is … capital expenditure associated with the Light Rail system. Again, I am having a
little difficulty. The need for a subsidy is because of timing and the nature of some of the
construction supporting other elements of the construction.
Yes, the density this is being built at and the requirements that brings for the infrastructure,
including parking decks. In summary, that is what is driving that.
Okay, so why are we contemplating doing this here? Is it because of the proximity to the
CATS’ parking deck? What is unique about this … to place on the South Corridor?
Yes, there are a couple things that are unique about it. One it is an opportunity to have 17
acres developed in one piece total which probably don’t have that opportunity any place
closer to downtown. Clearly, we thought this would be an appropriate place, given the fact
that we also have a real opportunity to make a special place with the transit in the median
here so you have that opportunity where the transit can serve both sides equally. That is the
other reason we were attracted to buying this piece of land adjacent to the CATS’ property.
We also thought this was probably the closest place into Center City that we could afford to
also do affordable housing at the transit station.
If you add all the subsidies per affordable housing unit for around $40,000.
Yes, $40,000.
The amount of the subsidy, we used to appropriate revenue … (inaudible)
We have some of that coming up later. We have looked at their numbers and rates of return
and made sure there were fully allocated costs and sorts of things. They have also come
back with some different, a much pared down requests.
Is there any likelihood that we will have similar requests down the road in other locations
along the South Corridor?
I think what we are looking at and the idea behind this is to set a tone for the market and then
have the market provide that in other places. That is our intention.
I don’t mean to be a wise guy, but tones can also mean precedents. I hopes tones doesn’t
mean that if anybody else wants to build along the corridor they will come and ask for help.
That is not our intention.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 6
Lochman:
Flynn:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
You are saying tones, indicating that the nature of construction.
Right, that it begins to set the market, brings the market rates up to where they can support
this type of development without assistance from the public sector.
Just for clarification, on the Scaleybark Partners, the 50 more units, that included in the 100
affordable units as it states now?
Yes.
The $2 million – is the total they are asking from us $6 million, $2 million for the 50 units
and $6 million for the … ?
Yes, a total of $8 million.
In the Phase III there is approximately 160 more units. What makes up that 160 more units?
Phase III was really the available land that was left over to provide markets rates, 160 more
units.
So that will be market rates 160 units.
(Continued presentation with the McCormack Baron & Salazar proposal on Page 6)
Mitchell:
Finch:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Lassiter:
Finch:
Mr. Dulin mentioned the 30 acres that Crosland owns in our last Committee meeting and I
think his comment was that Crosland would be interested in partnering with anyone to
develop that. How committed is Crosland to this development?
In the conversations that we have had with them, Crosland has indicated that this is the
proposal that they support. Should this proposal not be chosen, they do not know where they
are. They will have to step back and re-evaluate where they are on that. This proposal does
present a unique opportunity for the 50 acres.
Did the District Plan include the 30 acres that Crosland owns or just the 17 that we currently
own?
Torti Gallas was their designer and they did some stuff on that 30 acres and showed the
potential plan. It is not necessarily what Crosland was committed to. This one was a little
bit different and the approach seemed to be that they would go out and deal with a wide
community kind of outreach of how do we plan this 50 acres should we be picked.
Site acquisitions – was that acquiring the property that Crosland currently owns or was it
additional property?
It was part of the numbers for acquiring the CATS’ property, so the $6.4 was kind of rolled
into that.
(Continued presentation pointing out the comparisons of the proposals on Page 8)
Dulin:
Finch:
Dulin:
Carter:
Finch:
On the Crosland open space, the .6 acre, is that each of the three or the three combined?
The three combined.
That looks small. You can’t punt a football on that space.
Is affordable housing what you are going to discuss now?
As we go through our evaluation we hit on that affordable and all the issues around it.
(Continued presentation – Staff Evaluation on Page 9)
Mitchell:
Finch:
Flynn:
Why do we not make any reference to affordable housing?
We assumed in that that we would just sell the property out right with no restrictions on it.
Remember also the revised transit budget for the South Corridor, selling is also the issue
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 7
Tober:
Lochman:
Finch:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Mitchell:
Finch:
Flynn:
short $3 million.
It is $3 million in property and $1.1 million for the Park N Ride.
Where do you anticipate having apartments on City property and 10,000 square feet of
retail?
The 300 apartment units, I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of developers. What you take
this property down at and what would you do with it. That is not part of this proposal. That
is what I kept coming up to and that is also what the market is doing right now. The 20
residential units and the 10,000 square feet in retail, that is basically what that one acre with
the TH zoning would look to.
We assume that we could sell that for about a million dollars.
(Inaudible)
We put a column “do nothing” next to these so you will see that.
Some concerns about design. Can you give us a couple that are still outstanding that you
think could not be satisfied?
One of the big questions the team had was really kind of hammering down what happened on
the Crosland side. They heard those concerns and on the other side there were comments
made at some point that the 17 acres didn’t have quite the place making that the other two
proposals had. Again, it is what they proposed and the plan was a great plan, however what
we saw from the other two teams when we made comments about design is the quick flip
answer that we will figure this out. Their approach definitely is not wrong, it was a little bit
different. We know we can’t get all the details right now, however we wanted to try to work
out as many of them before we choose the developer. They were kind of choose us and then
we will work them out which is a very fair way of doing it, but in comparison to the way the
other two were trying to answer some of those questions.
We were concerned about what appeared to be a very suburban designed shopping center on
Crosland side, lower density on Crosland side. We were concerned about overhead
walkways we commented on and they remained on the plan.
(Continued presentation with slides on Page 10)
Carter:
Finch:
Carter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Watkins:
Carter:
Watkins:
Finch:
Carter:
Watkins:
With the Scaleybark proposal, what AMI are you talking about?
They had no AMI. They’ve got 30 units at 30%.
And that means 70 at 50%?
Seventy at 50% or up to 60 I think is what our range is.
They met the requirements of having 30% of the affordable units at 30% AMI with the
remainder under 60%, however the development requirements and Stanley may want to
speak to this, about having them all in one building.
This is related to the policy Council adopted several years ago as you built affordable
housing, on the transit station you really wanted to ……(Inaudible)
They added 20 at market rate within that building. Is that not correct?
In this particular approach at least 20 of the units they are saying for sale, but …..
No, they were putting 20 market rate units in a building of 100 and then they were offering
to do some affordable for sale in their for sale buildings. I think 15 or 20 in their for sale
buildings.
That somewhat resolves the question, it is not a perfect resolution, but it is moving toward
our goal. But who manages these units and what services are offered to the residents?
The way we typically do it, in many cases the owners will partner …. (Inaudible). They
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 8
Carter:
Watkins:
Flynn:
Carter:
Howard:
Cochrane:
Carter:
Finch:
Carter:
Finch:
Dulin:
Tober:
Dulin:
Tober:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Tober:
Dulin:
Tober:
would have a management firm that would manage the interest.
Were these services offered to those?
We have not seen that level of detail at this point.
Dave Howard of the Housing Partnership is here if you care to ask that question of him.
Mr. Howard, would you like to address your services, who manages?
Response was inaudible.
In terms of management, the Housing Partnership would be the general partner. We would
be responsible for the physical and financial care of the building. We do not have service
coordinator dedicated. The rest of his comments were inaudible.
Is there a difference in size for the library?
No, we set out pretty specific parameters for the library. They need over 60,000 square feet
and they are pretty much the same with the two.
Walking accessible, community gathering places, all those included?
Again, the do nothing option, there is … joint development policies.
Under that option, Ron mentioned that we would lose $3 million and then another million
for a $4 million hit. How can we assume that?
Well, remember the revised budget for the Light Rail project, we assumed that we would get
back the $3 million from the sale of this property or cooperation of this property into the
development and that the $1.1 million that we would get included in the construction budget
for the Light Rail project would be built by a developer. Those were mitigation savings to
the budget for the Light Rail project and it was part of getting to the revised number of $460
million to $470 million.
If we put it out for bid, we don’t know exactly what will come back.
We still have to build the 315 space Park N Ride lot. We are obligated to do that and we
need to do that for the people that are coming to the station. That takes up most of that
almost 10 acres.
In order to accomplish that Mr. Dulin, you remember that under the do nothing option, the
only land you have to sell is the City-owned land plus a one-acre strip along the front so you
would have to see a doubling in value of that in order to close that $3 million gap.
Okay, that lot doesn’t take up 10 acres in the quote up here.
Whatever ridership happens to come out of this development has to be an absolute epitomes
of the anticipated ridership required on the South Corridor. I only bring it up from respect to
my question, and it almost sounds like the icing on the cake here. It doesn’t sound to me to
be like a tangible substantive kind of criteria to be looking at.
The team felt it was a point to highlight. The question with the ridership is if you do nothing
out there and you just build the CATS’ Park N Ride facility, that generates something.
Let me be specific then, if they thought it was a point, how many trips did they assume we
could reap from that development compared to the number of trips that are assumed for
justification of the current expectation of operating subsidies for the South Corridor?
The modeling we have done for the project without any transit-oriented development is
assuming access of the Park N Ride lot by the adjoining neighborhoods that are within
walking distance and by drop offs that lets us feed the bus system. There are 850 passengers
per day at this location, so that is the base ridership.
One way or two Ron?
That is boarding one way. We didn’t do any specific modeling with the developments here
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 9
Lochman:
Tober:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Tober:
and the number of residential units and the jobs that would be created that could make an
estimate obviously greater. The greater the residential units, the greater the ridership is
going to be at that location.
Okay, I’m going to back off. I wasn’t comparing what it would be at that station without
this. What I’m comparing was is there an assumption, is it 30,000 rides per day, is it 66,000
rides per day?
The average ridership during the first four years of operation is estimated at 9,100 … The
average daily ridership during the year 2025 is estimated at 18,003 one way boarding.
I am interested to see the HTA’s comments on these proposals. I am very curious about the
wind of a hotel or motel or any type of HTA activity on the transit line and how that can
escalate use both philosophically or entertainment wise or drive. It could be availability of
tourism here in our City. There is a link here, but I think we are not building on it and it
could become very important to us. I’m not sure how to access information or to see if there
is an overlay on this.
We have not asked them to comment on that, but we can do that and share that with you.
See if they think there is as great a potential for other locations or to see what spread effect
they think this might have.
I don’t want to in anyway close down the questions, but we’ve got a lot of material still to
cover and another big item and then another item to put staff on by the Retreat, so I want to
be sensitive to the time. If you have questions that you need to ask, ask them and staff is
available to answer them anytime outside of the meeting.
I do want to follow up on the 9,100 – is that for a week or a day?
Average ridership per day.
(Continued presentation with the Financial Evaluation on Page 11)
Carter:
Finch:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
The $2 million from the Housing Trust Fund, is that included in that?
That is not included. We put that as part of the affordable housing number. Assuming that
would come from the Housing Trust Fund.
We separated them because we felt there was a clear policy tie between your Housing Trust
Fund and your affordable housing.
What is our break even line? If you run that of the two projects you are recommending of
where project cash flow based upon recovery of our investment?
Flynn:
It is 20/27 – 20/18. Oh, I’m sorry – when does that … exceed. That is around 2022.
Lochman:
I think I understand your questions, but I didn’t get the answer.
Lassiter:
Is 2012 when our positive cash flow?
Lassiter – Flynn – Lochman all talking at once, can’t tell what anyone said.
Lassiter:
Similarly on the Scaleybark I’m at 2017, but that does not include the $2 million in the
Housing Trust Fund?
Flynn:
No it does not.
Lochman:
So it is in year 2012 … receive debt payments or whatever?
Flynn:
That is correct.
Lochman:
It is not a payback on the total investment?
Flynn:
No, it is just the public infrastructure piece and does not include the affordable housing
piece. We can run those numbers if you would like.
Lochman:
I would like to see all three, Bank of America, Scaleybark and Do Nothing bottom line if you
could.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 10
Finch:
Mitchell:
Watkins:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Since we have looked at it both ways with affordable housing on Scaleybark Partners, we
assume that is $8 million instead of $6 million. We get into the positive in 2019.
HTF has come to be very important at $2 million. How would that score based on our
current criteria? Would that score be higher for the additional 50 units at $2 million, based
on your experience, how would that score?
You are talking about Scaleybark, it would probably score … you see that stand alone now
in terms of a mix and because they are talking about bringing in the project at 30 below. It
would probably score very low in terms of the Housing Trust Fund.
Are we double entering the …
We were just trying to say if we move forward with Scaleybark Partners, here is one
potential way to get to that $6 million.
(Continued presentation with the last slide on Page 11)
Lochman:
Flynn:
Why is this germane. When I see this the first thing I think of and two years of our hearing
about other corridor investments that are being compared to this one.
We wanted to show you that this is not out of the realm of the other projects that you have
made public investments into. That is the sole purpose of this slide.
(Continued presentation with Staff Conclusions on Page 12)
Carter:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Tober:
Carter:
Tober:
Could I ask staff, as you go through your deliberations, to look at our goals and see which
one better realizes the Council goals? Number one would be Transit and TOD would not be
transferring to development or either planning goals. Number two, Economic Development,
Number three, Neighborhood Regeneration and Benefits, number four, Services and number
five, Safety, and see how these score relatively.
Remember the clear instruction we got back from Council was to score in on basically two
issues. I think it is fair to ask that questions, but the only authority we have is based upon
two financial standings, return on investment and whether construction parking spaces. I
would put that in reference to specifically what Council asked us to do. There will be an
opportunity on the 22nd to go back to Council and ask if they want us to expand our analysis.
You’ve got a number of those and I think they have included that in this policy proforma.
They have in essence scored them against each other relative. I think to get to that point, I
asked staff … to produce … in more detail on those particular points. We need to get
direction from Council to let us do that.
I want to make sure that we have … and the process is fair, but on your precious slide on
Staff Conclusion, you did a nice write-up about Scaleybark Partners and what it provided,
but you did not do one for Bank of America. Let’s just make sure we can highlight what both
proposals bring to the table.
From the Federal viewpoint, is there any reason that one would be chosen over the other
when we look for Federal funding?
Let me ask for clarification on that. Are you talking in terms of evaluation of proposal or
future Federal investments in Charlotte?
Answer was inaudible.
There is an issue – the Fair Market Value, when you have the Scaleybark proposal. What the
Feds require is that if we are going to, as we purchase this property under the project with
Federal funds involved, we are going to give it up as part of the joint development project.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 11
Carter:
Tober:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
We have to pay fair market value for that because they are talking about the surface parking
lot. There is a question about getting fair market value. If the parking deck in Bank of
America’s proposal gives us the fair market value in terms of actual dollars so we have to
work through that issue.
That to me is a pivotal question.
It is a pivotal question because the FTA is not happy. We either have to cash the FTA out of
this location or not pursue the …
I asked earlier what is the basis on which subsidies would be, what it would be based upon. I
know in … we had appropriate returns in the developer and you said that was forthcoming in
this presentation. Did I miss that?
No.
Normally, we’ve got subsidies on … obviously, it is critical at some point to understand the
appropriateness of the subsidies.
The internal rates of return and those sorts of things, the market, what it costs to build it and
what they can rent if at. We can get all those assumptions for you.
We will have this in front of Council next Monday for presentation. It will come back to us
at our meeting on February 7th and any additional questions, we will have respond to those
and will have recommendations by the Committee and then we will make a recommendation,
based on what recommendations come back from staff, to Council for a decision in February.
II.
Subject:
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan
Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director, explained that what is being handed out is a copy of the
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategic Plan which shows the changes we made as a result of meeting with
the Business Corridor Advisory Committee yesterday. He walked through the Plan with the Committee
pointing out the significant changes.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lassiter:
I want to understand the premise for that statement. Have we got some proforma on how we
spend the $9 million and on what?
Kimble:
Let’s back up another step. The request of staff was to make sure that we placed
something as food for thought in front of the Council in advance of the Retreat. We have
pushed this forward at a break neck pace in order to try and get something meaningful that
gives you an opportunity to have dialogue and debate at the Council level that can lead to the
development and adoption of the policy. At one time, we had X million dollars here and I
guess it would be the Committee meeting yesterday that had a conversation about putting the
number 2 in here. It is a matter of saying that if you want to embark on more ambitious
programming than you have had in the past, it will require additional funding.
Lassiter:
My sense is that until we get any idea what it cost, writing a number down is without any
basis. It would seem to me that the more appropriate statement is as a project is completed,
analysis should be drawn for what future funding would be necessary, based upon identified
corridors. What that does is automatically send a signal to folks, well let’s just put $2 million
in for that when we haven’t spent dollar one of the $9 million. It is based a little bit on the
consultant effort, but the fact or the matter is we are not very far into that. What I don’t want
to do is have a butcher’s thumb on the scale that says $2 million every year for unknown
expense. We don’t have any frame of reference of what it costs. We are in uncharted
territory here. We know some of the things we have done in the past and what those are for
Neighborhood Development, but in terms of core revitalization, we don’t have real sense of
what it is going to cost and it may be that we consume half of that in a single project. We
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 12
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Kimble:
may need $5 million.
My feeling is that the thing that Council will occur, whether or not you have a
number in there or not, and that is what happens. As of yesterday it was just, you will need
an annual appropriation at some point in time, yet to be determined. That might be sufficient
for moving this forward.
Ron made a good point, we are moving this forward to try and get this to you. When you get
the whole report, we will have in there a historical perspective that says the City spent $3
million on Wilkinson Park in addition to another $3 million of infrastructure improvements
on Wilkinson Boulevard. You will have that type of historical reference to see what type of
magnitude you have spent in the past, which I think does give some support to these
numbers.
I am looking ahead at the next line and I see funding positions. I don’t want this to be a
budgetary outcome. I want this to be a policy outcome. I personally have concerns about
laying in perspective budgetary numbers because they become fact. I don’t think that is
anywhere even close to being fact. That is absolute speculation.
I think the points you are making are good ones, but let me offer at least a counter deal in
perspective on it to see if we can find some way to develop a good census on this. I think
part of what is driving this is our staff is telling us that if we want to dip our toe in the water
to try to help address these issues there is going to be some costs involved. These figures, I
imagine from a staffing perspective, you probably got a pretty solid idea of how much it
would cost to bring on an additional person. The project stuff is a different kind of issue, but
conceptually, I think what you are basically telling us is we can’t do this without investing
some money. I think that is a legitimate point to raise. I think operationally we need to
understand what the plan of work is that would support these figures. You may not know
every project that might be considered in the future, but if you can tell me that from the time
Council implements this policy perspective, here is the actual plan of work that the staff has
in front of them, and I think you’ve got at least 4 or 5 corridors that CMDC has identified for
investment. That may make more sense, but I think the tension here is between making a
policy statement describing and articulating a plan of work that would back up that policy
statement and sending a signal to us that there is going to be some costs involved in doing
this. I don’t think what they have done is necessarily wrong, I just think it needs to be
backed up by some specific targets on a plan of work.
I agree. The original language identifies a need for future funding. It just doesn’t as far as to
say here is another one. I think it is important in the revised language to talk about identified
areas for engagement. As a matter of principle, I don’t want to make this policy guide into a
budgetary guide because it will be used for that. You have identified where they are, you’ve
got a plan at work and then it is very appropriate to debate that.
I think I can see for the next year, potentially two years, a very specific set of projects that
would be coming through the pipe that could be identified and worked around the budget. I
think there is a way to massage this language to make it fit what your concern is, but also to
give us, as Councilmembers, some understanding of potentially the scope of the investment.
Particularly if we are talking about bringing on a staff person. I think it is very appropriate
to raise that issue. I think the project based stuff is a little more speculative and get to that in
some of what John said, but you’ve got some projects that have talked about that do have
price tags associated with them. I think you all can figure out how to massage that language.
One suggestion I have is that we simply address these issues and if the Council at
this juncture on January 17th, the Council will need to engage in that conversation, based on
the work plan, at what level future appropriations would need to be set and at what level
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 13
Lassiter:
staffing and resources would need to be set to carry out a work plan that will be described for
the five-year period. We could be more generic and still capture the needs that will come
along with that. I think maybe that is what we should do toward this document as we revise it
to send it into the Council Retreat. If that meets with the Committee’s approval.
If Council elects to add language that is fine, but I don’t want to start with a bad negotiating
position to begin with.
Kimble:
Before Tom goes down the next list, this list is very, very preliminary. This is a
draft and this list was probably put together between Christmas and today through the
conversations we’ve had in the Stakeholder’s Committee, with you several times at the
committee level and this is rolled out to you for the very first time for you to give feedback
and add to this list that we have thrown and made revisions to, in trying to get this into a
framework that is best presented to the Council at its Retreat. This is our first stab at it, so
please take it for that and give us food for thought and make some good observations back.
Mitchell:
Let me thank the stakeholder for addressing Item B and vacant lots, because I think in some
of the corridors, this is a real big issue. I need clarification on brownfields because another
thing is asbestos and to remove it. Staff, help me – from a Federal level, we don’t have
brownfield funding, but on the State level we do have brownfield funding? Clarify that for
me because someone told me that at the State level we do have brownfield funding and
money available, but from the Federal level we do not.
None at the Federal level and none at the State level; however, there is a State reduction in
your property tax if you get a brownfield agreement.
So it is a reduction in your property tax, or the potential developer if you get a brownfield
grant.
Right, but there is no other State money for that and the only City money we have is very
small and it just helps you see what type of problem you have. We have no money for
remediation.
No money for remediation, but you have money to do assessments.
That appears on your last page, Promoting Environmentally Sustainable
Development.
I am not sure whether this would be addressed in the North Carolina Code, but it would
perhaps be some local ordinance with regard to how we zone big boxes. If you create the big
box entity you are … to have some way to remediate the removal of that big box. I think it is
researching whatever ordinances are existing or proposed to see where we can go with this.
One of the things we need to do is go back to the big box report and pull that out and pull
that together into this and we have not done that yet.
Under Item 3-B – Customer Service Accountability, looking at measures of success, these
are all important ones to have and I asked this question when I went to one of the stakeholder
meetings about whether there is a measure of whether you can track the development of a
project in an area with jobs that flow back into neighboring communities. Have you figured
out whether some measure like that exist?
We could do it on a project basis and could work with a company that comes in and they
would be able to tell us from the zip code data. Otherwise, the unemployment data just
doesn’t keep up and it is not kept very closely by zip codes.
The reason I asked that question is because I don’t want to create more barriers to entry than
companies already have, or details they already have to these areas, so some of this tracking I
hope that we can do internally, but the other issue is inevitably you are going to run into
Flynn:
Mitchell:
Flynn:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Carter:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 14
Flynn:
Foxx:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
questions of, as much as people want a grocery store, when a grocery store comes in and
people are working in that grocery store who don’t live in the neighborhood and people who
live in the neighborhood are highly employed, there are going to be issues there. I am not
suggesting that we need to have a policy that says the retailer or whoever is in there, needs to
hire a certain percentage from the community, but it would be great to know that if you go
into an under employed area that that business is having some positive impact or potentially
a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
I think we try to capture that under these workforce development where we talk about
partnering with CPCC and the Workforce Development Board, so if a supermarket does
come into an area that has a lot of unemployment, how can we bring training resources to
that supermarket and to those people in that area that they can successfully compete for jobs.
I think that is where we capture that idea and maybe we can spell that out a little bit more.
I will say this again, a little bit more emphatically, I think that is what is critical here. I think
this is a great piece of work first of all and I thank the staff and stakeholders for doing it. I
think coming closer behind this, a plan of work is very important because I don’t think we
can commit ourselves to resources or to going out into the community and talking about how
the City is going to effectively use its role to make some good things happen or to facilitate
some good things happening in the community until we have that cleared up. There are a lot
of issues there. I was talking with Mr. Lochman yesterday about our CDC’s that are
currently focused on housing and they are not typically performing very well on that score. I
personally think it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us to look at taking them off of an operating
kind of framework and put them on a project-based framework, taking them off of housing
and potentially moving them to a more economic development focus, but shifting some of
the focus to some areas where they can actually meet the targets that we set for them. That
has a budgetary impact and it also has an operational impact internally in the City, and also
out there. I think as you start looking at how the Chamber interrelates with this, how CPCC
is going to relate with it, how our partners like the Housing Partnership, it is a huge
undertaking to figure out how to get all these pieces in the right place. I think we are going
to have a lot of challenges getting this implemented, if in fact, the Council adopts and I do
think it is important to get that plan of work done pretty quickly.
Are we jumping around somewhat here?
Apparently. Some of our students are quicker than others.
With the map that we saw develop a … and we are not going to necessarily address the
CMDC projects. I think we on Council are dedicated to service around our City, not just one
specific area. I know I have invested interested here and I am sorry about that, but I have to
speak up. To see that we identify those business corridor locations and make sure that those
business corridor locations are the most critical .
I think that point is simply to encourage the partnership, as it identifies sites, to not discount
Center City sites. That is the whole plan because the tendency of the Partnership
is to look broader scale and identify sites that are in other counties or in green fields and I
think the idea there is to … that there are locations inside Charlotte and on the northwest side
of Charlotte is such that they fit, and put them in your program of work to include those. I
think you actually want them as opposed to telling them what to do.
Yes, but also to give higher emphasis to those corridors.
I think we can get them. They are an 11 county organization, and I don’t want to argue, but I
think what we are asking is to put emphasis on these corridors and what they do and not to
discard them. Would this successfully recruit targets?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 15
Flynn:
Yes, successfully. That was one of the ideas that came out of Tampa.
(Continued presentation – Develop Strong Partnership)
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Can we go back to 2-A? In the typical big dollar economic development projects, what role
does the City play and will that role be different if we were to adopt this section on Creating
Strong Local Economy? We have Center City Partners, the Chamber, University Partners,
two of them in the Service District, but they are thinking all the time about how to bring
economic development into those areas. One of the things I have heard is that we don’t have
those types of things in other parts of the City. Have you given much thought to that and
who really takes ownership of that? Is that going to be our job?
If Council’s direction to us is going to be more proactive on corridor redevelopment in this
area, what we foresee doing is taking a much more active role and saying we would be
marketing the inner-city corridors. We would out there working with commercial brokers,
showing them the product, helping others develop product and working with the Chamber
and the Regional Partnership to identify out of this industry, here are some companies that
make sense to locate in the corridors. Let’s go out and talk to them about it and let’s go out
and recruit them. Let’s go to the big employers in the corridor and find out what are their
supply chains. The Chamber is not doing that now. The Regional Partnership is not doing
that now. This would be a role that the City would take on and that would be part of the
work program for one of the positions that is mentioned on the first page.
My question to Mr. Lassiter and other Councilmembers is how do you all feel about that? It
is not necessarily a question we need to answer today.
I make some assumptions that we were already thinking that way anyway and not just
focusing on the big fish because it is the correlated value of the large fish investment that
creates this small business and secondary higher jobs.
We think that way but we do not have the resources to do that.
Another way of saying it is there are champions out there for Center City and there
are champions out there for Arrowood, but there are not champions out there for the business
corridor. What this document is saying is, the City will take a leadership role, as the opening
policy statement, to work with the Chamber and Charlotte Regional Partnership to market
business corridor invitations for companies …
On 2-B is the idea that we would try to get this to Raleigh in our upcoming Legislative
agenda?
I think we are probably a little bit late on that. I think we would want to first talk to them. In
the program of work that is going to be, we are going to lay out what will be our short-term
goals, medium-term goals and long-term goals. I see that as a medium-term goal given where
we are right now in terms of our staff work load.
Because of the way the General Assembly operates a lot of times study commissions set up
to operate between the long session. If we keep that in front of us as we work to early
summer, then it is not impossible to get the matter forwarded onto some study committee
activity or latch another study committee’s work plan for consideration over the course of
next year.
It would be helpful and I think we meet them on January 22nd, and at least we could float
another idea or maybe a partner that is coming. This is the long session, but the more we can
get in front of them early as opposed to waiting until their plate gets full in the July
timeframe, it really starts pushing us back to the short session and they will say it is not
important. If we could at least have some discussion on this Monday, and I don’t know how
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 16
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
we frame it, but maybe at the end say here is our package, but here is something else we
think is high priority. I think it is key that we do it early.
We agree in principle and we are already figuring out how difficult a time we are
going to have in an hour an a half breakfast on Monday morning to get in front of them the
issues of criminal justice funding, the issue of transportation and walking through the
individual local bills that you have adopted in your package. We will do our best to try to
mention that as an item that is working through the City Council right now. We will have to
play it by ear in terms of how long this session is going to go on Monday morning. There is
a lot on your Legislative package.
We can bring that up with the Delegation leadership and just say we’ve got some things that
are coming that are not quite ready and they don’t need to be introduced necessarily early in
the session, but they need to be talked about.
I think there is a way to mention it and say we will want to talk about this you during
this session.
Responding to a comment from Mr. Mitchell that is specifically for those companies that fit
into what was once upon a time called William S. Lee, which is one thing. Some of the other
states will provide, for example, some incentives for affordable housing in these areas. Some
will provide equity out of their state pension funds for projects in these areas. That is what
California Pension System does. That is their urban initiative fund. It is ideas like that that I
think we want to talk about.
The reason I think it is important to look at those other states, I think that they have
been urban for a much longer period of time than we have and they are more advanced in
their thinking because they’ve had to deal with it for longer periods of time. Quite frankly,
North Carolina is in its infancy in terms of urbanization, but we can learn from those other
states.
Does that go as far as to suggest that there could be a fast track or expedited resolution of
zoning permitting?
You will see that further on when we talk about customer service, you will see that.
I am very cognizant of the Committee’s time, so maybe I should react to your questions.
I think it is the third bullet of 2-C, Identify Infrastructure Needs, I wonder is infrastructure
needs inventory, something that literally spells out here are all the items and then that gives
you back in the work plan. Like we did on Scaleybark, you can grid out where things are
and where things aren’t, based upon particular projects, begin to develop cost estimates and
what that is to come up with a little more objective methodology as opposed to just a list.
Begin to develop some kind of an inventory spreadsheet or grid or something that becomes
workable so you will know what you are trying to do and then begin to get price tags on it.
How about inventory and prioritize infrastructure needs in commercial areas.
Also what it cost for X number of feet of sidewalk or what does it cost to reconstruct a
boulevard. On 3-A, second bullet from bottom, provide special assistance for large impact
projects, i.e. Morningside Drive. Morningside Drive is … and you made the right decision
to help create ones like that, but maybe the bigger issue is how do you identify those
opportunities that exist and then promote those to potential development. That sort of
dovetails back into planning and know where parcels are identifies long-term use … an RFP
to create the opportunity, but creates reason to say here are places in our Small Area Plans or
in our corridor plans that this is what we want to see happen here.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 17
Flynn:
Carter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Foxx:
Yes, and try to identify people to implement that, not do an RFP process, but let them know
about opportunities.
Some of the problems are new and have not been addressed by any knowledge within our
area. Some have been addressed nationwide perhaps and I am wondering if there is a slot for
staff education involvement on cutting edge solutions to our problems. I am looking at
Eastland … goals somewhere that we don’t necessarily have for a solution. How do we get
educated to the point that we can address those problems?
I think there is a way to work into this. This best practice and its cutting edge of
program research.
Continued research on best practices and involvement with those organizations like ULI.
Yes we can work that in.
You commented on Customer Service, is that broad enough language to talk about
disruption, expedited, permitted demolition, approval for curb cut, or whatever it happens to
be? It seems to me that is an under utilized tool and in the business of redevelopment, time is
really money. There is a lot of design and engineering work that may not result in any return.
We can spell that out more, but that certainly is the intent of what we are trying to do by
stepping up on business customer service, so that small businesses, when they are going
through our permitting process, has somebody that they can say, hey, I’m caught here and
that person will be an advocate for them.
Wouldn’t the MWBD and BizHub be two of our main assets? I’m not sure they are
mentioned in here, but see if there is a point of generation.
We have small business here and that is an area where we really want to do more work with
the BizHub and with the Chamber’s small business efforts.
This will be coming back to us at our Retreat?
We wanted to get your feedback to improve this document as it goes to Retreat. I
don’t think we need any formal action. We will take the comments today, make some
alterations and it will go into the notebook that is prepared for the Council Retreat and I am
assuming there will be even more discussion and conversation at the Retreat.
The path forward from there, at the beginning of February, we will have a draft document to
begin working with the Committee on. We will meet with the Committee in February and if
they are comfortable with it, then we will bring it to this Committee at the end of February or
beginning of March for your review and recommendation onto City Council.
I know that we’ve got CMDC representatives on the stakeholders group, but have we sent it
back in any form to the CMDC Board for their review?
Actually, I am going to be presenting tomorrow at the CMDC Board meeting.
It might be helpful, if the agenda is not too full, to share with the Budget Committee as well.
It might also identify some opportunities.
We have been sharing this with them throughout.
I don’t know where … as you start working on this, but the red highlighted changes are
always helpful and we have made a lot of little tweaks here today. Every now and then when
you want to emphasize something that is helpful.
We can take today’s and modify it and say this was the Committee’s feedback.
Just one more point under 3-A. The last bullet point says partner with neighborhood liaisons
to identify neighborhood and business leaders in adjacent geographies. I am wondering
whether there is something more than just identifying those neighborhood and business
leaders that you want to deal with. I don’t know if involve is too vague of a word, but some
how or another capture that we are not just walking in people’s neighborhood and running
rough shod over them, but we are actually going to be collaboratively working with them to
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 18
Flynn:
get projects.
It is to identify, support, assist – those are the other verbs that we need in there.
III.
Subject:
Ed Focus Area Plans for 2008-2009.
Ron Kimble introduced the subject. This is not a live or die issue today for the Committee, it is your first
glimpse at this and we wanted to make sure that these were the kind of topical areas that you felt were
important. Last year, I believe the Economic Development Strategic Plan that was adopted prior year, we had
implementation of at least 50% of the steps in there and I think we can give you a status report on that. We
have dropped that and inserted in its place a Business Corridor Revitalization Strategy which becomes a very
important one to carry forward in 08 and 09. We’ve got Business Retention and Expansion on the list, we’ve
got Small Business Growth and Development on the list. We have substituted Corridor Revitalization in
place of what was formerly the ED Strategic Plan that was adopted about a year and a half ago. We still have
focusing on Infill Development and Redevelopment and also your focus on Hospitality and Tourism. Those
become the five major areass of focus for 08 and 09 that we carry forward to Retreat for Economic
Development. If you have major heartburn with that and if you want to see what was eliminated and another
one inserted, I think today would be the time to have that conversation. When it goes to Retreat, there will be
conversation there and then we will bring it back after the Retreat to the Committee at least one more time for
you to bless the measures that go along with those topical areas and then send it on to Council, probably in
March or April for full adoption by Council for 08 and 09.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Carter:
Are we still Economic Development and Planning?
Lassiter:
Yes.
Kimble:
This is really the Economic Development Focus Area, but this is the Economic
Development
And Planning Committee. For purposes of presentation to Council, this is the Economic
Development Focus Area.
Carter:
Where does Planning come in, where would the draft for planning such as this go? Where is
the direction for Planning? We used to discuss the area plans.
Kimble:
Again, that still comes to this Committee but in your five focus areas, environment,
transportation, planning really come through more so in the transportation focus area because
it is the integration of land use and transportation planning, but you get some of your land
use issues coming through this Committee, but it is purely not a part of the ED focus area.
Carter:
Given that, what I think we need to look at here has the possibility of the implementation of
the area plans. We don’t have a vehicle to push that forward and I think it is part of that
economic development area plan.
Lassiter:
For discussion, let’s talk about that, but Council selects focus areas. If we want Planning to
be a focus area, it is a stand alone issue. Planning in and of itself is not an economic
development generator. It is a consideration in economic development decisions. I think if
there is a sense that we don’t have enough focus on Planning, it ought to be in the same
analysis of other possible key focus areas for Council. It would still come back to this
Committee, but this is not a Committee work plan, it is simply providing quest to a focus
area that Council has identified.
Carter:
Then I would come back with all the plans that we have done which identified specific items
within those area plans that are economic development initiatives.
Mitchell:
Nancy brought a good point and let me give you an example and you all help me flesh this
out as to where we go. We are doing a North Lake Area Plan right now with citizen’s input
and it has true economic goals for the area. Where would that fall? Is that in our Committee
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 19
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Carter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
or is that something that would be a separate committee? It seems like we have gotten away
from the area plans and district plans and we find ourselves like it is in a space. Until it
comes before Council and we do try to tie what is transportation and housing. I can
remember when we had a strong emphasis on smart growth principles as a part of ED. I
agree, I don’t think it fits under ED and John I think you are right. We need emphasize
return on revenue, and let’s be clear with ED, but planning is so crucial to us that it is almost
like it keeps dropping by the wayside, then we pick it up and it becomes an emotional issue.
I want to get ahead of that so where does that planning aspect fit?
They all come back to this Committee. We haven’t had a great deal of plans in the last few
months, but we get all the District Plans, all the Small Area Plans, they all come through this
Committee and all the Planning issues relative to identified problems for the rewriting of the
Zoning Ordinance come here. I think it is important and I don’t want to discount the issue,
to make sure that it stays front and center.
The work of this Committee would be to approve and work through the area plans,
so the North Lake Area Plan will come here for discussion and hopefully a recommendation
to Council. As you look at your five focus areas, Environment, Transportation, Public
Safety, Housing and Neighborhoods, Economic Development, Planning permeates all of
those. It has an impact on the environment, it has an impact on public safety, it has impacts
on transportation, economic development and housing and neighborhood development. It is
a function that permeates all of those and I would think that some of the Councilmembers
may say I would want to work planning into this focus area or this focus area because it
really does bleed into and blend into all of those. However, the work plan of the Economic
Development and Development Committee picks up all the area plans. I just don’t know if it
is the appropriate place to put it into the measure in the Economic Development Focus Area.
Remember, we do measure it out through the Balanced Score Card. I can’t tell you exactly
which part of the Balanced Score Card it relates to, but there are measures that talk about
small area plans in the Balanced Score Card.
Implementation – We have the plans, we tailor service, we incorporate them in
conversations, but we do not implement and that is where I have a major problem.
I think you exercise that through the role of the Planning Commission and the
Zoning Board. It may be something that you want to raise with the full Council. It could be
great conversation at the Retreat as to where that might be …
Maybe this is a way as we kind of flesh out this expand tax base and revenue section, it talks
about planning issues, it talks about redevelopment in the Center City, business districts,
neighborhoods, transit stations, how you are generating new value. The effort we got on
corridor redevelopment and identification of better planning stimulates private job growth
and appreciation of real property. It falls into that and there may be a way as we flesh out
that language and come upon metrics that we can identify some methods that talk about the
integration of planning efforts resulting in new investment and increased property values in
distressed corridors as a way to target our efforts and that may by its very nature say there
needs to be a plan here because it doesn’t give direction for redevelopment.
What concerns me most is that all of the effort we have devoted to these plans with action …
implementation language identifies specific projects and these things have never allocated
funding, allocated …….. (inaudible). That is where I am.
They aren’t instantaneously turned on, but the transportation plans weave back in and
identify the road widening and the improvements of various intersections. They talk about
acquisition of park lands, school sighting. We had several rezonings that were affected by
the Rocky River Plan over the last couple of months where they talked about what the
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 20
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Carter:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
density ought to be. So they are in there and Debra would say that everyday we are doing
stuff that is implementation of plans. I think the question is can we find ways to integrate
our planning efforts to link up with ED efforts, especially in those places where it is lacking.
I am almost reluctant to say what I am about to say, but I have a difficult time conceptually
with economic development. I heard the Chamber Vice President out at Ballantyne Saturday
morning talk about $4.6 billion or $4.7 billion investment for Charlotte last year and the
20,000 jobs. To me that is economy, that is economic development and it comes about with
much broader things that we have about Charlotte at the moment, taxes, transportation,
airport, etc. and then I wonder what we do here. The percentage of job growth and targeted
business is 5%. That targeted business, they are the ones that we want to bring to Charlotte
I believe.
The ones that are already here.
I know the things that we do, but it is … with respect to the overall economic … I am
knocking that because it does create a foundation that hopefully someday will be expanded
upon. Number 2, Percentage of City contracting dollars awarded to Minority Women
Business Enterprises, I am confused. I thought the Small Business Program made no
reference to gender or race.
You are correct, but we still track those that come in. We have no program that is
mandatory in that respect, but we are simply tracking it.
It is a fine line and I could care less frankly, but if sensed in anyway shape or form by
tracking this was influencing policy, then I would say we are in violation of the very premise
upon which we embarked on.
It is very accurate and that is why we pick up the SBE as the first measure. That is
the mandatory, but the others….
Let me say this again because this is something that I strongly support, but it is the social
responsibility, it doesn’t represent duly in economic growth. Corridor revitalization, again
the best construction is going to have minimal impact on$4 million dollar investments in
Charlotte. Maybe it has to be this way and maybe what we can get our arms around is
nibbling around the edges in terms of real economic growth. Maybe that is just the way it is.
These could be the points that are met likely by the private enterprise. These are the shaving
points where government’s money is best and brings about a new element in addition to what
private investment would say this is where I want to spend my money.
That is a fair point. Finally with hospitality industry, how do we grow this other than give
them money? Is there other things that we typically do?
The investment that you have made … and I think Council would have to bless any
and all projects that came about.
Those are philosophical questions and I think from my standpoint it goes back to the
buckboard test that we used for public investment. If it generates positive private investment
and generates positive jobs and then reduces the need for people for subsidized housing or
reduces the need for those individuals to have public assistance, it is a net win. It is one less
that we’ve got to pay for, so the degree that we have facilitated that, not necessarily
subsidized it, but from ED standpoint, that has a positive return on investment.
We will develop the methods for this over time, but we won’t do that today. This will go to
Council unless somebody wants to take one of these items out. I think we may play a little
bit with language on the integration of reinvestment in areas that we’ve got concentration to
make that integrate into the plan.
There may be a way to take the corridor revitalization one and expand it to include
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 21
Dulin:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Lochman:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Flynn:
area plans.
Is this an appropriate time for us to talk about the building permits and process?
We plan on coming to you in one of your February Council meetings and give you
some results of some work that we have done to illustrate some of the issues or problems we
are having in the permitting process, and then talk to you about some of the things we are in
the process of doing and how long it is going to take us to implement some of the changes.
Are people in the building industry being asked what they think?
The other side of this, we are not going to do anything until we come to Council, but
we have taken a lot of the feedback that we have gotten in personal e-mails, in issues that
have come to the City Manager’s Office and we have used all of that, given it to the
consultant so they would have benefit of knowing what the industry is …
I think Mr. Dulin raises a good point and there has not been a home for that issue. I would
support adding that as a focus area initiative under opportunity as a to do and then it becomes
something where someone is actually expecting performance. Council may decide to do it
somewhere else and that is okay, but let’s get it formerly into a review so somebody can
begin to talk about those issues and no simply antidotally say I got another call about
somebody with another war story.
I think that is something if the Committee wants to hear we can draft something like
that. I think that is the value of coming to the Committee and getting some feedback from
you and offering that up at the Council Retreat.
Ron, can you actually do a flow chart for me of the process? I hear constituents complaining
and I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to get staff’s perspective what is actually
...
Show up at Hal Marshall and get frustrated.
There are several State and even local regulations that are causing a lot of this, but
some of the things we are doing is adding to that. We can improve the things that we are
doing, but still the regulations are pretty complex and involved. We are never going to solve
all of them, but we can find ways in which those regulations might be changed over time.
I have scheduling conflicts with February 7th when we are supposed to be working on
Scaleybark.
I won’t be here either.
I won’t be here either so that is three of us.
Then we should look an alternate time. Is that a problem week or is it just that day
that is a problem.
For me it is the week.
The 7th, 8th and 9th is a problem for me.
We have our Retreat Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, but we are done Friday mid-day. Is
there any chance we could have that meeting on Friday afternoon?
The Retreat will be done at 3:00.
I am actually leaving for the beach as soon as it is over.
The information has to go out to Council no later than Friday night, February 9th to
make your February 12th Council meeting.
Can we meet in advance of the Retreat on the 31st?
I’m not sure we will have answers back on the FTA issue and the housing issues by then.
Tom, do we absolutely have to have this Council decision on February 12th?
No, not absolutely have to. We are trying to move it along and we need to select a developer
so that Ron Tober can then decide how he is going to provide that parking space out there by
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 17, 2007
Page 22
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Lassiter:
the end of November.
All I know to do is try to come up with something on the 29th 30th or 31st.
Why don’t we try calendaring the 31st of January and let’s find out how far along we
can meet by that time.
We could potentially meet that morning, a breakfast meeting.
Let me also talk to Ron Tober because he is the one I think that feels the most pressure on
this.
Meet simply for this decision sometime on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, the last week of
January, 29th 30th or 31st. If we could do something that morning or the previous day late
afternoon or morning. We have no Council meeting on the 29th, so we could do something
late afternoon on the 29th to see if we could accommodate information you need.
I would suggest that you pre-select right now a time and date like the 29th at 3:30
p.m. and try and work with Ron Tober.
I don’t mind the 31st which would give two more days.
Why don’t we suggest 8:00 a.m. on the 31st?
I was at a meeting of the Regional Partnership last week and they handed out this report why
corporations move, what do they look for and it is some data that we have regularly talked
about and speculated on why things happen. (Mr. Lassiter gave the Committee and
attendees a handout from that meeting for informational purposes).
V.
Subject:
Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for January 31, 2007 at 8:00 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.