ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
FY2010/FY2011 FOCUS AREA PLAN
Committee review and recommendation to City Council.
II.
Subject:
Action:
NORTH TRYON REDEVELOPMENT REQUEST for PROPOSAL
Review and discussion of draft request for proposal for redevelopment
projects on North Tryon Street.
III.
Subject:
APPROVE 2009 MEETING SCHEDULE
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at Noon,
Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Council members: John Lassiter, James Mitchell, Nancy Carter, Anthony Foxx,
and Patsy Kinsey
3:30p.m. – 4:40 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
ED Strategic Focus Area Plan
Business Advisory Committee Feedback on ED Focus Area Plan
PowerPoint Presentation – North Tryon RFP
ED & Planning Committee 2009 Schedule
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Subject: FY2010/FY2011 Focus Area Plan
John Lassiter, Chair:
We have a relatively short agenda, and since everybody is here why don’t we
go ahead and have an initial discussion on the Focus Area Plan and put that
into the next phase of the review. Then we are going to take a little time on
North Tryon Street. You have in the material distributed to you the revised
draft. I think everyone also received a couple of pieces of correspondence.
One I had asked our staff to give a copy of the draft and met briefly with the
Business Advisory Committee about two weeks ago and asked for their input.
You also got a copy of comments relative to their concerns; particularly as it
relates to one of the items on Focus Area. With that, the first thing to do is to
let staff walk us through the changes that are here from our last conversation.
And then open it for discussion comments and see if we can get the last
remaining pieces for a final draft recommendation to Council next week.
Kimble:
Tom and I will partner on that. There are some of the minor tweaks one of
them is in the area of the Business Facilitation, Business Process Improvement
the language we talked about last time. Which I think we got consensus on,
so we reflected that here. Tom, we also had some in terms of green industry
and major employers.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Kimble:
Yes, and you will see that up under Focus Area Initiative 1., where we talked
about retention efforts with intention to be the Charlotte areas largest
employers we added that language with Councilman Foxx’s suggestion.
I think we have finalized the numbers in the tourism measure and target. We
had some conversations with the PRDA and we settled on 3% increase in all
hospitality tax revenues which could be ambitious this next time around. 5%
increase in amateur sports room nights.
We also provided you with some more targets under ED.4 under Business
Corridor Revitalization. We added some more target dates for things to
happen under the Business Corridors.
I think there is some provision in the overall cover page that replaces some of
the conversation that we had.
Yes.
As a Committee, I don’t think I would spend much time on the cover page.
Comments or thoughts. I will start off. I was here for the initial conversation
on ED1. Particularly, the BusinessFirst program, it was interesting there were
several folks on that Committee who are volunteers within the business focus.
They had gone through the process to interview these companies, and they
had horror stories. The biggest one is that it took several calls in order to get a
meeting scheduled and then the length of the questionnaire was inordinately
long. They felt that they were consuming, wasting somebody’s time that was
already busy, and then they had to go back and write it up. That explains
why, I think it’s been difficult to get through the numbers that we have
targeted in there. They made a couple of suggestions, one was to shorten the
questionnaire. Another one was to do it electronically and have information
gathered in advance so that the business would be more focused on what
could happen, as opposed to information gathering. Try to get a way for the
volunteers to be able to get that information back in a much more meaningful
way. Our staff is very consumptive of time, especially if you have to travel
somewhere. It’s an hour there and back, at least an hour and a half or more.
Sometimes a whole morning or afternoon to accomplish this, so that’s the
number one. They made some suggestions on metric, particularly the metrics
on how we determine our SBE utilization and the methodology that list the
number of bids that qualify as opposed to the number that were actually
selected. It gives a better prospective in the terms of how many came in and
how many were selected. The last one related to the time factor on number 6,
there could be some ways to actually gage how long it was taking for views to
go through and that matches up with a suggestion from ---- Can we actually
get an inventory, there are so many things out there would it be good to figure
out how many things you have to go through in projects. We would be
shocked if we saw what was required. I think that is what is front of us.
I found these comments to be very thoughtful. I do think we should take the
Business Advisory Committee feedback and roll some of it into our Focus Area
Plan, particularly in ED 1. in the BusinessFirst program area find a way to
reflect it in the Focus Area Plan. I also noted in ED1 that they mentioned
encouraging the inclusion of free industry and renewable energy in the list of
targeted sectors and wondered why they did that in light of what I see in ED1
Focus Area Initiative verbiage. Was there something more to it, do they think
we should do more than what we said?
I think they are reaffirming your priority on that in several of these comments.
Some of the things I think, they have commented on are very good and they
are more tactical in how you can carry out a program rather than necessarily
changing the measure. That means that we can use what they have given us
as a new method in order to visit more businesses in the BusinessFirst and to
capture more meaningful data when we make those visits. I think we have to
figure out which ones are tactical and which ones need to actual go in and do a
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Lassiter:
rewrite of your Focus Area Plan.
It makes a difference to change it to 5. A broader issue than just ED I think
it’s great that they brought it to our attention I would suggest that maybe, we
have very little time in our retreat, we might have some portion devoted to
talking about that bailout and the impact to the Federal Infrastructure.
If nothing else we could put a place holder there, by the time we get to this
discussion at Council we should know a lot more about what is on the table. If
they are giving it away where is our share? Let me suggest this from a
language standpoint maybe what we can do on the BusinessFirst is to add a
sentence as an expectation we will work with the Chamber to refine the
instrument. We have some good suggestions and that may be a good time to
do that and we could certainly accomplish that in a short time.
(Reference to ED 3)
They like what we are doing; the kids that need services tend to be intercity.
There is a positive supporting the Council’s direction.
We all saw the plot map, there were kids from all over the City. They were
consecrated in what we know in certain areas.
ED 2 is there some way we can incorporate because staff has all reviewed
what we have, I thought we had captured SBE but they make more of a
reference identifying gaps in the biding and awarding process. Anyway we can
incorporate that or Ron do you see your part of that more of a task?
I think they want an additional measure which would be how many qualified
SBE firms submitted on all bids so that it’s not a percentage of contracting
dollar it’s also the number of qualified firms that actually bid. And that would
help you identify if that number is growing each year or shrinking and help
identify that there must be something either great with the program or a
problem with the program. Is that what you surmised?
Yes, that is what I surmised.
So you could put in an additional measure.
We can get a calculation of what we had last year and then may even come up
with it. Look at what is, with the last couple of years numbers. We could see
if is flat, is declining is it increasing. What would be a reasonable expectation
going forward?
We will add a measure that says number of SBE’s submitting bids on informal
contracts.
I think we could do that in a way similar to hospitality. You would just put it all
in the same measure with two individual targets on it and expand it a little bit.
I just had an interesting conversation. I ran into an individual that was with
BizHub and this individual was saying what got him at the library was people
coming through talking about starting up new businesses. In this economy,
this will be a real challenge. I don’t see us doing anything at all, supporting
new businesses that are just starting. I am wondering if there is a place for
one person to take calls concerning starting up a new business. A professional
in line to talk the business owners through.
I think what we would do is to put together, and we already have it on our
website; here is the place you can go to get that information. Such as out at
the University or the Chamber has some resources or the Center for
Entrepreneurship at CPCC. We on our staff really do not have any quote
expertise in helping someone develop a business plan. So we are more of a
referral agency to the right place.
On-line services, simple conversation.
Maybe the way to think about something is to have staff come back to us with
a little bit of a survey on what is out there. We tried to do with the BizHub,
which had a whole bunch of issues see what is there and what is reasonable.
For example, we have folks that work in our corridors who, with the right
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Campbell:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
II. Subject:
Flynn:
Warshauer:
tools, can be a great resource. But we don’t want them tied to what comes
through on 311. I don’t know but have staff come back at our next meeting
with this quick survey with what we know. There may be opportunities that
we can integrate or recommend to Council that we just look at that as far as
overall business potential. It would fit within ED1, it’s just a question of what
we want to do.
I think there is an issue in our community about coordination of all those
resources. We have SCORE which is retired executives, we have the SBA, we
have the Small Business Technology Development Center at the University.
We have programs at Central Piedmont Community College for small
businesses. The Chamber takes calls and intake for small businesses. We get
contacts and there is referrals made. There is a whole host of agencies and
organizations out there. The goal of the BizHub was never achieved which was
to find the one portal of entry on a physical face basis. We need to find the
one portal of entry on a internet web based product as well. There is more
work that our community can do to funnel that small business need whether
you are a start-up or you want to sustain yourself. We have to find a better
way to coordinate all that.
Councilman Foxx and I saw one of those models up in New York City when we
were up visiting a program up in Brooklyn.
We had a great time up there. Let me ask a question that we asked last time,
just to reaffirm. There is a lot of stuff here that is going to require a lot of
time and staff attention. Can we do it with the resources we have, because I
don’t think we will be getting more to help us.
Yes, we can. The ones that are responsible to Economic Development, yes I
can.
Yes, we can.
My response would be if we can do it as long as we maintain the existing
resources that we have. I think the issue will be freezing of vacant positions,
and if there are positions that are vacated when people leave the organization
and we cannot fill those, that’s going to put a resource impact to our ability to
deliver. If our resources stay as they are, I think we could deliver.
Some of these measures were set and we were achieving goals in a much
better economic time. I think you will see a reflection of that in the front page
when we say it is going to be harder to find private investors to help invest in
the corridors or to hire someone to do the job. So those types of measures we
will be stretching.
I would like to make a motion Mr. Chairman, or do we need one.
We talked this morning as a staff and I think some of the other Committees
are not as far along as maybe this Committee is.
We might want to remind them of that.
Our conversation was that maybe you should make sure after the retreat you
have an opportunity to talk to your fellow Council members and before you
take just one final vote, just put it out there as a consensus document, and do
your final vote after the retreat.
Let’s get a final revision in our next meeting, we can certainly clear
Committee with that. We could still modify, we have the right people here, by
the early meeting in January.
The second item on our agenda is the
topography on North Tryon. Part of our planning efforts and work there.
North Tryon Redevelopment Request for Proposal
Tom Warshauer is going to do this presentation. He is assisted by John Short,
he is our Business Liaison for the North Tryon Corridor.
I would like to introduce John, he does the RFP’s on the North Tryon Corridor.
I will just give you a little bit of background on our first slide. We started this
in about 2006. We went through the contracts with Frank Warren and
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Short:
Lassiter:
Associates for a study of the North Tryon Corridor. We began with Segment
One which includes the area that runs from the Brookshire to Sugar Creek. A
component for the study was to identify Catalyst sites to bring forward to work
with the private sector to see what kind of development we could have happen
on North Tryon. John has been working on developing an RFP. We have given
you a copy of it, its double sided. A lot of these questions were to look at
private sector partnering in them, and to develop projects to implement into
the North Tryon Plan. We looked at the economic plan and the nature of North
Tryon. We may be looking at multiple projects and not just trying to do just
one large project. We are trying to see who is out there. We have been
hearing for years, as we have been working on this plan, that there are a
number of developers that have purchased properties and are just waiting to
do projects on North Tryon. We are interested in people coming forward to do
those projects now. Or for other people make investments on North Tryon
and bring projects forward. So we are not necessarily looking for one large
Scaleybark kind of project. It could be a number of smaller projects or medium
sized or one large project. We just want to be out there and find out what is
going on in that area. So the RFP will organize and establish the area, the
business requirements, erection criteria, planning towards a timeline. The
question that will be asked toward the end, did we include all the sites we
have been looking at in our study? Or just the first three, the four we initially
looked at in because we knew there was an issue with Craighead, there was
an issue with Philmon. There was a development opportunity that was already
present that we wanted it included as a study from a perspective of
connectivity and planning. What should the level of public investment be for
the catalyst site area and what should the source of funding be for our
investment? We want to make sure when we go out that we have some
concept from you all about what you are wanting to spend to have the project
happen on North Tryon. We think it would help orient developers to not waste
their time and submitting proposals that are too grand. And it would help to
keep everyone on target about what is our budget for this year. The last one,
given the state of our economy, to move forward at this time we need priority.
We think we need to check back in something we began over one year ago,
changes in the economy, and we want to check back in on those priorities that
you have for the expenditures of funds to make sure we are still on target with
you. John will walk you through some of the catalyst sites that we have been
looking at.
Catalyst Site One is the area between Brookshire Freeway and 16th Street. It
surrounds the industrial area and is about 40 acres and as Tom mentioned, we
are trying to emphasize we are not resigned to one particular area of this
catalyst site. We welcome projects in this entire area as long as it was flex
use, light industrial as laid out for land use in the plan. This particular
configuration was part of the plan, in actuality, with a joint venture with the
State there is going to be a railroad closing and Wadsworth will come up and
meet at right angles with a signal at North Tryon. In the RFP there is a map
that specifies that, so that anyone receiving this will understand that there is
not an actual street there. Catalyst Area Two moves further down North Tryon
from Sylvania to 24th Street. This area has been identified as a great area for
office use with a proximity to downtown. It will be attractive, it works well
with the existing office space with City North Business Center, WSOC and as
well as a great compliment to strong impetus. Lots with neighborhoods, Tryon
Hills Neighborhood that is enjoying its own revitalization, multi- use office
would be a great compliment there.
One thing we talked about was the rail yard immediately adjacent to this and
the fact that that is where Norfolk Southern’s current intermodal facility is
located. The current expectation is at some point that they will relocate out of
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Short:
Lassiter:
Short:
that area to the area south of the airport. The idea of taking of advantage of
that land in one point or fashion for a variety of uses, because of the proximity
to the city and the extension of the boulevard. And the proximity to what’s
going on both North Davidson Street, Graham Street and North Tryon Street
and NODA just around the corner. Is there a reason we don’t highlight that or
at least have those things seen collectively as comparable use site?
We could highlight what is happening on the proposals for the intermodal
facility. Intermodal facility is on the other side of the tracks from North Tryon
so we have not included that as a buffer catalyst site. The access would be
from Brevard rather than North Tryon. So we did not include as part of the
catalyst site but it certainly would influence it, so it is worth mentioning it.
So they could all be connected by the nature of what is even though they
would be separated. Ultimately, when you build out the extension of the Blue
Line, it would not be a problematic to get back and forth across that rail line as
it is today. Today you take your life in your hands. There may be some sale
ability to access there because of the way the parking structures. I just think
that dual area has a broader scale it begins to create something that
approaches, something less than one hundred acres when it all gets laid in. I
think it’s worth at least that we talk about that and identify the potential of
more scale within that particular area based upon the time of the relocation of
the intermodal.
We certainly proved in the background on the RFP.
That’s why there needs to be a red dotted line that shows where that land is
as it related to where this land is because it would affect potentially future
redevelopment that might be of a different scale.
Do we not access that train station from Tryon?
Yes, you access the train station, the Amtrak station, from North Tryon. The
intermodal facility is a trucking facility that you would access from Brevard.
Actually both are planned, eventually, to be moved.
Catalyst Three is further down near where 30th Street crosses North Tryon.
The main part of this Catalyst is centered at 30th Street and North Tryon.
While there will be more development on that side, we were hoping to get
projects on any of those four corners. We see that as the real hub of this area
we think it would be great for retail, office mixed with residential. It’s a really
great area because it sits in between two large neighborhood areas, Tryon
Hills and access to NODA. There is not a lot of retail in this area it would really
serve both communities in an advantageous position there. Eventually, I think
Council curbed a rezoning request for this area down here to become
residential use. There is a hearing for rezoning for residential use, it sits right
along the Little Sugar Creek Greenway area. Catalyst area four that Tom had
mentioning earlier, regarding as to whether or not it was included. North
Tryon, Craighead, North Davidson and the rail line the reason it was included
originally was the connectivity issues. We thought it was an opportunity for
revitalization all of this is fairly close to the proposed 36th Street Light Rail
Station. Because it is not on North Tryon specifically it is a great issue, of
whether or not we should include this at all. Our recommendation is that we
include it.
A major thought is we developed transit station plans along the Blue Line this
would be a logical way to deal with that as a transit station plan, you already
have some ideas where you want it staged. When you get to that point, it’s
only going to develop with transit, it’s not going to develop unless transit is
eminent or started. I think that is an easier way to do that, the Transportation
Committee has been comfortable working through this.
Our initial requirements cover design, site plans, demonstration of
coordination, experience of planning information, development schedule,
economic plan including the amount of cultural investment requested.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Carter:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Selecting criteria, how long does the project need the City’s land use and
urban design goal. How well the project achieves the goal for revitalizing the
North Tryon area, stimulating that area. What is the ratio of public and
private investment in the project? Projects with a higher amount of private
investment will be much more favorable. What degree of site control will the
developer have?
Seeing this is our first extended revitalization plan of a business corridor.
Have we thought about a description that answers the question, this is what a
project would have, it masters what written materials and the drawings and
would also talk about the nature of the kinds of uses, the kinds of natures of
the partnership. Begin to layout, so it’s not just a blank RFP, it puts some
dimensional criteria and financial criteria. That would cause somebody to say
O.K. if the private investment is to be no less than thirty million dollars, the
public investment ratio would be in a range of X to Y. Come up with some
parameters and test them a little bit so we can test them to see if we are in
the ballpark for what might potentially be attractive.
Based on what you are saying, I think we need to have very distinct ideas or
coverage of what the surrounding area is or whatever area we are trying to
develop. In other words I would not recommend comparable or at least any
significant prospective, because you do not want to re-duplicate anything in
that area. You want to compliment the retail that is needed, understand the
area the quality of life and not necessarily duplicate it.
Is it your intention that a single developer develop each of these three catalyst
sites or do you anticipate RFP’s coming in for each of the catalyst sites
separately?
Separately.
O.K. getting to the question about the market. It strikes me that the biggest
problem, that the developers are having right now is actually the capital. Have
you given thoughts as to how we might understand in the course of reviewing
these RFP’s the capacity of the developer to do something. Is there a metric
or number we use for the financial information we get that will tell us, not so
much whether they can actually get the cash to do what they say they are
going to do.
Right, that’s what we are asking in part of our criteria, what is the developers
financial strength, what is their ability to actually move forth and make the
project happen? What is axis of having the public sector, in terms of
supporting that. That is one reason we wanted site control, as opposed to
when we worked through Scaleybark. When we have site control we want
developers to develop the site, we are approaching this as having trust fund
on the project. We have a plan for North Tryon, we have identified the type of
land uses and the type of attitude, what we want to see happen on North
Tryon. So if you have site control you can develop a project that meets these
criteria which we have laid out from the beginning, here is our plan, here is
the kind of project we are looking for, here is the kind of project we are
looking for in each area. One area more focused on retail, one area more
focused on office. You bring up four or five projects that make sense, we want
to consider it. Regardless of whether it’s a small project, couple million dollar
project or a thirty million dollar project, we want to take a look at the best
project that you can put together, that are out there and have you bring those
forward. What the model suggests is that we take a look at the housing trust
fund and the process they use. The information they would like to see when
they are evaluating their project, the criteria they use, and model this after
that. If you really decide that you only want retail, then we would want to be
focused on Catalyst Site Three. We think we should be looking more broadly at
North Tryon so there would be more competition. Developers and property
owners could feel that we don’t have to fund a single project going forward.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Short:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Flynn:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
That answers the question, the variable in all this is that retail is moving in a
southward direction and some of these neighborhoods that is exactly what
they need. The retailer who is skittish the best of times is going to be doubly
skittish now in the worst of times. My sense is that we need to do some work
to make the case available to these developers so they can make the case
available to the retailer to give it a shot. What plan do we have to do that?
We are right now on hold for the Urban Market Study, pending the mid-year
budget review. If that was to go forward after the mid-year budget , we would
have that information in time to get out to these developers before they have
to submit. A lot of time the developers would submit then they would start
looking at tenants, so they would definitely have that in that time period. We
would expect to have that by May of 2009.
If you don’t have that in that time period, do you think that would be fatal to
this project?
No I don’t.
So what is the City’s role in terms of investment? There are two ways it can
impact the project. One would be through infrastructure improvement, general
street improvement whatever that project area may be. The second would be
gap financing partner with the private sector investor on up to 25% of the
project costs. That’s a figure that sounds reasonable and again we wanted to
put out there upfront so that any proposal would know what the City’s
investment was upfront and not put something out there outlandish. The
three ways that we can fund that percentage is through, Economic
Development grants, self loans, or synthetic TIF, just to give you an idea for
the sources of those.
When you lay that kind of thing out there do you lay out what kind of callback
provisions there are and what describes or details what kind of structure there
is to it? It’s not just free money, if they get 25% on day one and they decide
they want to pull the project down, it won’t work for us.
We would not have that in this document, but I expect that anyone responding
to this commitment would come talk to us some more about this and have a
better understanding. Or go to our website where there is a lot of that
information on there they can actually understand how we structure projects.
So we have a posture that we are following to do that?.
Under TIF, yes.
Even under a E.D. grant or loan we certainly have certain policies?
We have done them in the past and we can show this is what Council has
approved in the past so they would have an idea in that regard.
We are not going to be the first money out that has never been our policy. We
are not going to be the first money that goes out of the door. We are going to
partner with people and we would be working with them to get the project
done. Our money out the door and nothing gets built, that’s not going to
happen.
Based on past history, this the largest percentage we have invested. Is 25% in
the ballpark? I am a little concerned about the percentage. I understand that
this is an area where we need development, I compare it to Wilkinson. What
did we do there?
We put 15 all total, public money we put about 12 million into Wilkinson, and
we got about 30 million in private sector investment.
We are hoping we can be competitive, we need to be able to give people some
idea. You are not going to give a 50/50 split, you are not going to give money
at 75/25. You will be more competitive, because we will be evaluating you on
the basis on the ratio the public is buying. So if you are at 10% and someone
else is at 25% public investment.
In this market, I would have to imagine 25% or less money that you know
exists is real.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Short:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Warshauer:
Getting a 60% loan to value right now is great, and that’s what we thought of
when we came up with the 25% in this market, and then they would have to
put in some equity and that would get them there. That was one of our
reasons for getting to 25%. We are not asking for the Committee to say yes
to this at this time, this is just an introduction to this.
In this environment, we need to give some thought to how we can work with
our other sector partners to promote this and other corridors when we are
doing work. There are a lot of loan requests that are going to review
Committees right now and they are not getting approved. If there is a way for
us to play a constructive role in pushing a project over the hump, we need to
be thinking about a way that is in our mutual interest with the private sector
interest to be able to provide that help.
That’s a very good point.
I think this approach fits with the philosophy that the City of Charlotte has
advocated most often which is you create incentives to development in areas
where you are trying to stimulate the economy. You don’t necessarily go back
and put hammers and nooses around people’s necks for the normal market
conditions. You are incenting where you want it go. That is the purpose of
walking through this and testing where your comfort level is with it.
Have we gotten with large scale master/mixed use kinds of developers to get
their sense of what we are talking about.
We have a lot of input from the business community when we did this but we
have not taken this draft document and done this. That’s a very good idea.
As Mr. Foxx pointed out, there are folks that are trying to get hard money and
I hear the same horror stories the capital funds to do a deal. Getting some
sense of what they are going to have to show. Maybe even having a couple of
credit type of bankers been taking to folks within the new market world of
Bank of America and Wachovia they likely are players in some of the deals.
See whether these are the kinds of things they will want to back. That may tell
you if we are going through the parameters. The worst that will happen is,
put it out and that nobody will respond. What you want to do is have it in a
responsible way.
I think we want to be real careful that we are not out in front of you. Because
this is a first, and I appreciate the response on thinking, when are you going
to test it. That’s what we want to hear from you because we want to be in
partnership with you and in lock step with the Council not out in front of you
too far.
I think there is real investment with this for a while. I think there is real
commitment in Council to see what we can do. We are in a corner, we want to
get things on the street so it frees us up to look at similar kinds of issues on
other corridors. So quickly discounting the current economy climate, let’s
agree when we can help generate real jobs and provide real value to these
parts of the city.
I think with these kinds of philosophies and statements, we are going to be
checking in with you quite often to be sure we are on a good track here. We
don’t want to get 2/3 of the way down path and find out that is not something
that been blessed at that point.
These are the funding sources, Ed Corridor Funds, 20 million DARF funds with
400,000 Facade Grant, Security Grant, district organization. ED Revolving
Loan Fund has 2.7 million in it, Smart Growth Fund with 2.8 million and
Synthetic TIF has 36% still remaining.
What does that translate into?
We will get you that number and we will get the year that that taxes.
Are these total numbers?
These are total numbers.
The question for you all is, what do you want to allocate for?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
That includes special funds already allocated?
We want to make sure going out taking a look at 10%, 20%, 30 or 10 million,
if that’s possible. If it’s a 30 million project if someone puts in 10 or 20 so
what are the latitudes of resources that would help people have some
understanding that they are not wasting their time with a 30 or 40 million
dollar project if they are not in the ball park. So we want to find out from you,
what is your commitment?
Around 14 million. What about the other corridors? I am not just talking
about Eastland Mall.
This is funding for all the corridors as of today.
Yes, we are not proposing to spend it all on this corridor.
Synthetic TIF number needs to be defined so that we know we have a cap on
it.
Yes, we know what that is.
Look at the other corridors so we can look at the priorities. It’s an outstanding
plan I am very impressed, it does address how long this has been under
discussion and I do appreciate the length of the discussion. It is up to us to
look at all the corridors and see what is possible and what is needed. I cannot
decide on one project without knowing what the universe is.
You are not going to have that option. What you are going to know is because
we are down this road, literally, faster than every other corridor but the ones
we are currently working on allocated funds for. We know what we spent on
Wilkinson Blvd. We know what we have allocated for Eastland Mall. We know
what that is, the rest is unknown. We will have to make policy calls as the
projects come forward as to whether this is an appropriate allocation of funds.
Staff is not going to commit one nickel until they come back and say we have
a project we think it makes sense and this is what is will cost. This is how
much money it will take from your allocated funds, are you all interested in
doing it? We can stay, yes we think it’s great or no we think it will take too
much of available dollars, it’s our problem.
When you look at the five corridors, as Mr. Chairman pointed out, Wilkinson a
lot has gone in there, Rozzelles Ferry has a Greenway Business Park, that is
broken down. On Beatties Ford Road, we don’t have the green projects at the
moment. We know crime is a big deterrent in the economic health. We have
a Metro Station coming into Beatties Ford. We have got this study going on for
North Tryon and then we have Eastland Mall business corridor. There are
actually things going on in each of the corridors. We will just make these
judgments as we go along. It’s actually good that we do have that much
going on, there is a lot more coordination then we have had in the past.
And even a larger collection for the Council as a whole. Randy, we have 16
million in potential infrastructure for Eastland Mall, as I recall? And then there
is another 20 million for strategic Economic Development project? Part of the
CIP of the bonds, the question for you all as you go through your budget cycle,
the next time around, is are you going to be able to preserve all of those
moneys both in the CIP and in the budget because you are going to have
some hard discussions and decisions about can you respect that level. In fact,
if we had put any of those dollars up here as well, so those will be additional
questions for you to consider.
Can I give a little segment on Bryant Park? We had about 1 million in the
three projects, and about 5 million in Synthetic TIF between the three projects
that were happening in Bryant Park. We are trying to get some sense of
magnitude so that when we are out there working with people, we can give
them some sense of the order of magnitude of these relationships.
What is the status of our investment in Frank Martin’s property?
Warshauer:
We have not done anything with our investment in Frank Martin’s, 300,000 for
Carter:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Kimble:
Warshauer:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Short:
Carter:
Short:
Flynn:
Foxx:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Warshauer:
Kimble:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
roads and that would come at the very end. Everything is on hold on Frank
Martin.
The Preliminary Schedule we worked out, we would take your
recommendations today, January, recommendation to Council. If approved,
we would release it in late February. We wanted to give people a lot of time
to get finances in order really think of a good project. We gave them four
months submission period, after which in July the review would be with staff.
We would then come back in August and make our recommendations to ED &
Planning. Then we would go to Council for decision in September.
I do like the timing of the proposal. I agree with the study.
That brings us back to the discussion questions as our final part.
My sense is that you were o.k. with excluding Catalyst Area Four? We will
come back with you with more information on what our other public
investments have been in corridor projects. We will show that by corridor
what they have been, so that you can see how that was laid out. I have some
thoughts about, Harris’ Group they have been active on North Tryon, Pressley
has been active out there also. We can talk to some folks that have bought
Tryon Hills and get them to look over this. My sense is that is on the last one
is that you would like us to move forward given the timeframe we laid out.
Hopefully, by September or October, there will be a lot more certainty around
the economy and credit crisis may have passed by that time as well.
Let me ask some questions about the timeline, I understand the logic about
the timeline. There is another logic, you might say, trying to get yourself to a
point where Council can make their decisions, before the budget cycle not
after. You know we have the availability today, after June that capacity may or
may not be there. People may have different opinions about whether to invest
in something like this versus some other things involved in the budget. I think
when we plan it forward to September we are putting it into a vacuum. We
just don’t know where we are going to be at that point in time. The way the
timeline works, you have a lot of work on the RFP’s. You have people out
there, theoretically, working on commissions. You may find at the end of the
day, what we thought we could do, we can’t do. So how do you deal with that?
I think you have to look at where the market is now. It’s a very challenging
market out there as we all know, so it going to take long time for us to find,
and really recruit, companies or developers that show us the potential for
market out there and put together a project or something. That’s why we
think it’s going to take us, all of those three or four months to get folks lined
up to really give us good responses. We all are feeling constraints financially,
from the City, that’s the reason we pushed it out so we would have more
certainty on the resources that would be available, once we get past July and
August.
Tom what would be the probability of a March to May submission period so
that the RFP responses could be in hand prior to the Council finalizing the
budget in June?
We can give it a shot and see what we get out there.
I don’t think we can do it any faster than that?
No, we can’t. It’s going to be tough for people to get projects together, so the
longer we can give them the better projects we may be able to get and the
more we can gear up the people that may be interested. We are hoping you
all would help us to find the resources that were available and you were hold
on to those resources to the budget. Do you want to set aside funds for this
project? What are you willing to commit to and that we would move forward
with some certainty around those numbers. We were hoping you give us
some guidance about the resources.
You pick a date and hold the processes open an additional month. You will
know relatively quickly if their people have an interest. You have people
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for December 17, 2008
Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
calling in to see what the temperature of the market is and if the sense is that
you have interested parties and some sense of working. It’s going to take at
least a month for people to secure their financing and trying to make sure that
they can pull it off. You will have some idea, even though you are not fully
closed out on where we are you can indicate to us that we think that you are
going to need “X” amount of dollars. We’d ask in the process that you
preserve that and then we can move within the constraints.
Flynn:
There be some activity that would begin to kill off, if you will, simply by talking
to folks about a draft. Or RFP’s getting their input on how it works and get
them interested before February.
Lassiter:
It might tell us March 15th that we have no takers.
Warshauer:
Entirely possible.
Lassiter:
I think they will build decent building plans, in a equity commanding
environment the fact that you have got public investment to help make things
more skill limited. Any further comments on the discussion questions? I think
we have walked through them in one form or another. This will come back to
us for formal recommendation to Council on the first meeting of January?
Flynn:
First of February we want make sure we have conversations with a couple of
folks.
III. Subject: Approve 2009 Meeting Schedule
Lassiter:
Carter:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Kinsey:
Foxx:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
IV.
You have at the back of your material the meeting schedule for 2009. It is
customary schedule for us to move this around. Generally the first Wednesday
at Noon and the third Wednesday at 3:30. We will probably run into a few
conflicts.
April 15th, Budget runs from 3:00 to 6:00. May 20th Budget is at 3:00pm.
I will raise my annual issue of meeting at 3:30, it’s a little easier for me to
make a Noon meeting.
The 3:30 meeting is been an accommodation for Ms. Carter for several years.
O.K.
We tend to run for about 1-1/2 hours, it finishes about 5:00 we could start at
4:00 and end at 5:30, for working people that is easier. In the middle of the
work day is more complicated for those that have a day job. For those of staff
it puts them to stay later, and we appreciate that.
3:30 or 4:00
It’s probably 3:30 two thirds of the time.
It’s going to be moved because of the Budget for sure.
Is there a motion?
Motion to approve the 2009 schedule as is:
Seconded.
Accepting the schedule all say I
I.
I.
I.
(Mitchell, was absent for the vote)
Our next meeting is January 7, 2009 at Noon, we will be giving closure on the
First Ward Park and Deck.
We are getting closer.
But we will not have closure.
Thank you all ~ Adjourned.
Next Meeting
The next meeting date is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 12:00 Noon
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.