Council PKT 10-28-2003 SpecialAGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Mt Baker Conference Room/2ua Floor - City Hall
October 28, 2003 - 6:00 p.m.
(www. ci.federal-way, wa. us)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/CITY CENTER
REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
III. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
Via:
From:
Subject:
October 24, 2003
City Councilmembers ~ t'- ~
David H. Mosel/e.-~City Manag~.~ v
Patrick Dohe~~y Director, Community Development Services
City Center ~tIeVeloffrnent Strategies
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan lays out the following over-arching principals for
the Federal Way City Center:
Create an identifiable downtown that is the social and economic focus of the City;
· Strengthen the City as a whole by providing for long-term growth in employment
and housing;
· Promote housing opportunities close to employment;
· Support development of an extensive regional transportation system;
· Reduce dependency on automobiles;
· Consume less land with urban development;
· Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services;
· Reduce costs of and time required for permitting;
· Provide a central gathering place for the community; and
· Improve the quality of urban design for all developments.
Contrasting with these principals, however, the current state of the Federal Way City
Center is dominated by one-story retail and service shopping center and strip centers with
expanses of surface parking lots. A few significant exceptions to this pattern should be
mentioned, especially as they represent the denser, more multi-use type of development
contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan: the Courtyard by Marriott hotel; the Federal
Way Center office building; the La Quinta Inn; and the John L. Scott office building.
Nevertheless, the majority of the City Center is developed in a manner more consistent
with suburban shopping areas, with even the most recent developments reinforcing this
pattern.
Therefore, notwithstanding the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and accompanying.
land use regulations that would promote denser, more multi-use development, the City
Council has recognized that more regulatory and/or financial incentives may be necessary
to accomplish these objectives and has demonstrated its interest in stepping up efforts to
foster this type of development.
· Continued investment in the City Center ROW improvements has occurred.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 2 of 7
· The City Council has adopted Building Code provisions that allow five stories of
wood-frame construction over concrete to accommodate the most recent mixed-
use development types.
· Earlier this year the City Council adopted a 1 O-year property tax exemption for
residential developments in the City Center.
· The City is currently in the process of carrying out a SEPA Planned Action to
encourage and accommodate City Center development.
· Substantial progress in improving the permitting system has been made, and the
triggers for ROW improvement associated with property redevelopment have
been adjusted so as not to encumber smaller remodeling projects.
In addition, over approximately the past year City Council has expressed interest in
exploring even more proactive strategies for fostering desired City Center redevelopment.
On October 15, 2002 City Council directed staff to continue to study potential ways the
City could financially participate in right-of-way (ROW) improvements and/or public
parking facilities in the City Center as incentives to desired redevelopment.
Since that time FEDRAC members have continued to discuss these strategies, although
funding discussions were somewhat clouded by the status of the impending City Hall and
community center/pool decisions. Once the decisions regarding both of those issues were
resolved, staff began exploring these issues and their associated financing strategies this
past Spring and continued through the Summer, reintroducing the topic to FEDRAC at its
September meeting.
As a preface to some preliminary recommendations for continued work on these issues,
staff has been asked to provide a brief description of other nearby cities' redevelopment
efforts.
CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FROM OTHER CITIES
To help illustrate the possibilities with respect to City Center redevelopment strategies,
here are brief summaries of the redevelopment efforts of five local cities:
Kent
Kent Station is a $130 million, 530,000 square-foot retail, education, entertainment and
residential project, slated to create a community's focal point and identity, set for
groundbreaking in 2004, with a 2005 opening. The project is located adjacent to Sound
Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail Station and parking garage, Kent's existing downtown
and the King County Regional Justice Center. This project will be developed by Langly
Properties and Tarragon Development on 19.9 acres of property that the City purchased
in 2001.
The City has contributed financially in the following ways:
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 3 of 7
· $4 million contribution to Sound Transit's parking facility for the Sounder train
station to ensure that a parking structure - not parking lot - be built.
· $14 million to purchase the 19.9-acre site.
· Approximately $2 million in right-of-way and infrastructure improvemems,
which leveraged additional State and federal gram monies.
Kent accessed up to $10 million from King County through its Community Developmem
Interim Loan (aka "float loan") funds to help purchase the property initially. These funds
needed to be paid back within 30 months, which was just completed this past Summer.
An RFP was issued and the above-cited developers were awarded the project, based on
their experience, expertise and ability to perform. The developers will be buying back
the property in phases at current market appraised value(s). It is likely that Kent will not
recoup the emirety of its purchase price due to the slump in commercial property values
since they purchased the property, the public components of the project that will benefit
the city and residems, and the specific program tied to the site that affects the free-market
appraisal of the property.
Burien
Burien Town Square is the mixed-use redevelopment of a 1 O-acre site in downtown
Buden, slated for new civic facilities, retail space, housing, offices, hotel uses, parking -
all bordering a major public square/open space.
Burien already owned a 1.5-acre portion of this site where its existing City Hall is sited.
Approximately 6.5 acres adjacent to City Hall (containing an abandoned Gottschalk's
department store and other buildings) was purchased by the City for approximately $5.1
million. The City has issued a letter of iment to purchase the remaining 2-acre parcel,
although as the developers are soon to be selected for this project, it is likely the City will
simply step aside and let the developers purchase this remaining piece. The City has
budgeted at total of $9 million from its CIP budget (funded largely by real estate excise
tax revenues) and $1 from its Parks budget for the property acquisitions and other
improvements/contributions, although current estimates are that the total City expenditure
will be substantially less than that total amount. The City expects to break even or make
a profit in turning over the project to the selected developers, as well as anticipates a
substantial increase in property tax and sales tax revenues over the next ten years.
Burien issued an RFP and garnered several respondents, just recently having chosen Los
Angeles developer Urban Partners LLC as the winning firm. Urban Partners is working
with the City of Pasadena and the LA Metro Transit Authority on a $100 million mixed-
use and transit project in that city, as well as developing mixed-use projects in LA's
Koreatown and the suburban community of Oxnard.
Memo to FEDRAC
CiO; Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 4 o£ 7
Tukwila
Tukwila Village is a 12-acre mixed-use development along the east side of International
Boulevard (Highway 99) between S. 140th and 144th Streets. The $50 to 100 million
project would contain office, retail and residential buildings in a "village square" format -
with a public plaza, ground-floor storefronts, and office and residential space above. The
City had two principal objectives with this project: 1) to reinvigorate a "blighted" stretch
of International Boulevard (crime; drugs, disinvestments, etc.), and 2) to create a city
center for a city that has no "Main Street" and no community focal point. The City
employed the recently updated Community Renewal Act provisions to designate a
community renewal area and project, thus freeing itself for less constrained use of public
funds. One of the difficulties associated with this site was its multiple property
ownerships. The City created a redevelopment plan, updated its Comprehensive Plan,
created design guidelines and issued and RFP. The winning respondent to their RFP was
the Sabey Corporation.
The City bought the properties without using condenmation (and therefore may have paid
slightly higher prices), for a total of approximately $9 million. In addition, the City will
contribute approximately $2 million for frontage improvements along the subject portion
of International Boulevard. The City used general fund revenues and has issued bonds
against those revenues. The City anticipates that it will sell the property at a minor
discount from its total acquisition price - again because outright purchase o fall
properties (to avoid condemnations) may have led to somewhat inflated purchase prices.
Lynnwood
Private-sector and public-sector interests have united to create a new City Center Plan at
a cost of over $500,000, split evenly between the sectors. The plan is targeting greater
densities and heights of commercial and residential development, as well as civic uses
and open space, to try to create a "Downtown Lynnwood." Alderwood Mall, at the edge
of the "downtown," is making a $50 million, 400,000-square-foot expansion with more
retail shops, restaurants, a cinema complex and three parking structures. No City money
is involved. A $32 million, 60,000-square-foot convention center is being planned and is
due to open in 2005. It is financed by the South Snohomish County Public Facilities
District, funded with lodging tax revenues and a portion of the sales tax revenues that is
credited back by the State for such projecB (not available in King County).
University Place
This City is pursuing redevelopment of an 8-acre parcel as a mixed use Town Center
consisting of 300-500 housing units (condos, townhouse, leased units) and 325,000
square feet of "lifestyle" type retail (i.e., U-Village with housing on top). The retail will
be located above a 1778-stall parking garage and the housing will be located above the
retail.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 5 of 7
The City obtained a line of credit (currently 2% interest rate) with the Bank of America.
The line of credit is for 3 years with a possible extension if needed. In the Spring of
2003, the City spent $8.6 million to purchase 8 acres of land within their Town Center
Zone. The City also entered into an agreement to purchase 4 acres owned by the library
for $4 million and to move the existing library to a smaller site within the project area.
The City has spent an additional $500k in various consulting fees, for a total expenditure
of $13.1 million.
Before purchasing the.land, the City invested approximately $200k of the $500k in
research activities, such as hiring an architectural firm to establish new design guidelines,
a planning consultant to deal with zoning issues, retail and housing consultants to conduct
market studies, and an economist to work out the project finances.
The City sent out requests for qualifications earlier this month. The City received
responses from three qualified developers and will select its preferred developer in
November, with a final development agreement to be executed next Spring.
The City expects that cleating of the site will begin next April and construction to be
completed in 2006.
The City views its primary contribution to be the consolidation of the land and the
removal of the tenants. The City expects full cost recovery with respect to the land
purchases (i.e., $13.1 million) and expects that the developer will pay for construction of
the garage. Remaining items, such as road and sidewalk construction, on-street parking,
and other infrastructure improvements remain subject to negotiation.
The City views the likelihood of construction beginning next year as extremely good in
significant part due to the rapid progression of the project (There has not been a lot of
time for the market to change from the time City began land purchases to time when final
development agreement is signed -- RFQ out 2 months after land purchases completed;
preferred developer selected 1 month after RFQ due; final developer agreement signed 5
months later.)
The City expects that the site, which currently yields approximately $45,000 per year in
combined property and sales tax revenues, will yield up to $1.2 million per year in tax
revenues once the project is completed.
POTENTIAL CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR
FEDERAL WAY
Pursuant to previous FEDRAC and City Council direction, three general strategies will
be discussed further below:
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 6 of 7
· City participation in project-related ROW improvements,
· City participation in parking facilities, and
· City purchase of City Center land.
As a reminder, in previous FEDRAC discussions it was noted that two readily
identifiable barriers to more intensive redevelopment of City Center property are
potentially costly grid-street ROW improvements and/or the provision of costly
structured parking necessary to meet the needs of denser development.
Key to the City's participation in such improvements has been the desire to keep such
participation associated with public improvements. With ROW improvements, this is
naturally easy to maintain, but with parking facilities, it will be imperative to maintain
clarity with any prospective private-sector partners that City participation must be
restricted to parking facilities (or portions thereof) that can be accessible to the general
public, as well as serve a site's commercial or other uses, or which can be bought back by
the private interest for use as private parking facilities.
CITY PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT-RELATED ROW IMPROVEMENTS
The City's Comprehensive Plan lays out several important additional rights-of-way ("grid
streets"), or continuation of such grid streets, that major redevelopment projects would be
required to provide land for and/or improve. At current estimates, private development
of grid streets would cost approximately $1500/lineal foot for a private developer who
dedicates the required land for improvement. For a typical 500-foot segment of grid
street that would yield a cost of approximately $750,000.00, with two-thirds of that cost
($500,000) required of a developer/owner of property adjacent on one side.
In order to help soften the brunt of this additional redevelopment cost for desired
development types, one of the concepts under consideration is for the City to partner with
developers of selected projects to share the burden of these ROW improvement costs.
As with the other strategies to be discUssed in more detail below, the most likely
mechanism for entering into such partnerships would be to use the RFP approach. An
RFP could be formulated that would advertise the availability of City funds to partner
with private developers to share the costs of ROW improvements. Multiple projects
could be possible, depending on the nmnber of respondents, level of partnership
financing needed, types of proposed projects, etc. A more detailed discussion of the RFP
approach will be presented below.
Financing options related to this strategy and others will be discussed later in this memo.
PARKING FACILITIES
We have repeatedly heard from property owners and developers that denser development
of our City Center will require the inclusion of parking structures that would both free up
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 7 of 7
land currently in use as surface parking to allow for more buildings, as well as simply
accommodate the parking needs of greater development densities on the existing sites.
While there may be less costly solutions for structures containing relatively small
amounts of parking (daylight basements that fit into a site's slope, portions of parking
within the foundation of a taller building, small areas where buildings can cantilever out
over parking areas, etc.), most sizable parking structures (200 spaces or greater) average
approximately $15,000/space for above-ground structures and $20-25,000/space for
below-ground structures.
Assuming that for the most part only above-grade parking structures would be built, here
are some potential approximate costs of various sizes of parking facilities:
200 spaces $ 3,000,000
300 spaces $ 4,500,000
500 spaces $ 6,000,000
750 spaces $11,250,000
1000 spaces $15,000,000
It must be recognized, however, that freeing up land currently encumbered by surface
parking brings more income-producing land to the property owner/developer, which
helps to defray the differential cost of the parking structure. It is hoped that eventually,
as a newly developed project is fully occupied and generates increasing revenue, the
additional income would actually outweigh the increased construction costs for a parking
structure. However, that additional income may not be realized during the initial
financing period, leaving a financial gap at that time that under conventional
circumstances would not warrant construction of a parking structure. This situation
illustrates again the notion of a financial gap that the City could help to fill in order to
realize desired redevelopment. This gap could also be a temporal gap that future
projected revenues would likely fill, but that conventional financing may not account for,
in which case City participation could be viewed as "bridging" the gap rather than filling
it.
As with the ROW improvement option discussed above, financing options will be
discussed more fully below.
PURCHASE OF CITY CENTER LAND
As seen in the several examples cited earlier, a common practice on the part of cities
throughout our region and around the nation is to buy strategic properties for resale to
developers of desired redevelopment proposals, usually after response to a Request for
Proposals (RFP).
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 8 of 7
Advantages
The principal advantage to this approach is that it can place the city in the driver's seat
with respect to attracting the specific type(s) of redevelopment it desires. By controlling
the property, the city can predetermine the high-priority uses for that site and market the
site accordingly. Whether the objectives be to increase tax base, reduce crime, provide
more in-city housing, spur economic activity, etc., the city's control of the property
makes the city a decisive force within the market dynamics of its local economy, not
simply a bystander.
In addition, by owning or otherwise controlling key properties, the city can be directly
involved in discussions and negotiations about potential Project occupants, such as
retailers, service providers, housing developers, etc., to the extent it desires to do so, in
order to ensure fulfillment of its objectives. In that way, a city can achieve compliance
with its objectives through means other than simply regulation; for example, negotiating
more sensitive design solutions with such traditionally tough clients as national retailers
who often have cookie-cutter site and building plans.
Disadvantages
The principal disadvantage with this approach is that the city takes on the risk of owning
and selling property, not just private market developers. It is imperative, therefore, that
the city have a strong understanding of the real estate market, the housing market, and the
retail/service market, etc., before purchasing such properties. With a strong
understanding of these markets and clear up-side potential to the investment, the risk can
be substantially minimized and the advantages can clearly outweigh the remaining
minimal risks.
Another disadvantage is that, with properties currently occupied, the city has to take on
the role of commercial landlord - at least temporarily - which some cities are not
comfortable with. In many instances it's easier for the city to vacate remaining tenant
spaces or buildings to minimize this factor.
Land Values in Federal Way City Center
The cost of land in a commercial environment is the result of a complicated appraisal of a
particular property's market performance (sales per square foot, rental rates), comparable
properties' sales prices, a site's location, etc. However, discussions with property owners
and developers in the City Center, as well as a review of recent property sales and King
County Assessor's Office valuation data, yielded the following generalized observations
about land values in Federal Way's City Center:
Vacant land:
Land w/vacant bldgs
Land w/occupied bldgs - average tenants
Land w/occupied bldgs - above-average tenants
$8-10/sq. ft.
$15-20/sq. ft.
$25-30/sq. fi.
$30-35/sq. ft.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 9 of 7
Illustrative potential purchase prices for City Center land would be:
Vacant land
25,000 sq. ft.
50,000 sq. ft.
Land w/vacant bldgs
150,000 sq. ft.
300,000 sq. ft.
Land w/occupied bldgs - average tenants
150,000 sq. ft.
300,000 sq. ft.
Land w/occupied bldgs - above-average tenants
150,000 sq. ft.
300,000 sq. ft.
$200,000-250,000
$400,000-500,000
$2,250,000-3,000,000
$4,500,000-6,000,000
$3,750,000-4,500,000
$7,500,000-9,000,000
$4,500,000-5,250,000
$9,000,000-10,500,000
PARTNERSHIP METHODS
"Responsive" Approach
One approach for partnering with private-sector developers would be for the City Council
to develop criteria defining desirable City Center redevelopment projects, identify and/or
designate potential funding sources and strategies, and establish policies and procedures
that would allow the City to respond quickly and strategically to opportunities for public-
private partnership that might arise from the private sector.
A private developer who approaches the City with redevelopment ideas could be
informed of the City's policies with regard to City Center redevelopment and potential
financial partnership to achieve these goals. If such a developer proposed a specific
partnership concept (ROW improvements or parking facilities), the City could then set
into motion a pre-approved procedure for consideration of such a proposal in a timely
fashion.
RFP Approach
On the more proactive side, the City could develop an RFP that would be published in
trade journals and sent to developers along the West Coast (or beyond), indicating the
City's willingness and ability to partner with private-sector developers for desired City
Center redevelopment schemes. The notion of floating an RFP to invite prospective
developers works generally the same for the three redevelopment strategies discussed
above. The City offers up either financial contribution or City Center land as the
incentive, describes its desired redevelopment typology, develops predetermined
evaluation criteria, and advertises the RFP to the widest audience feasible.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 10 of 7
Regarding potential RFP criteria, the following are some initial ideas around which
specific criteria could be developed:
· Description of desired development (mixed-use, multi-story, "village" or "life
style center" site and building design, storefronts, efficient use of land, potential
for public uses, etc.),
· Location and scope of project and its ability to induce additional, spin-off
development,
· Track record with similar development,
· Financial impact analysis (estimated property and sales tax increments),
· Job creation,
· Financial "gap" analysis, including development costs, projected revenue,
disclosure of developer's desired capitalization rate, internal rate of return (based
on other portfolio projects), etc. (to determine financially necessary level of
contribution)
POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
Funding Sources
The following are potential sources of funding that could be considered to finance the
redevelopment strategies discussed above:
The 1/2% utility tax dedicated to the Public Safety facility bond is projected to
generate $600-625,000 a year. That is $180-200,000 in excess of the current debt
service on the bond, which will be fully retired in 2012. The total revenue could
be used to float a bond valued at approximately $6 million, while the debt
repayment could be structured so as to use the above-cited "excess" revenue to
make interest payments on the new bond note, reverting to a more complete
amortization schedule after the Public Safety facility bond is retired in 2012 and
the full revenue stream is available.
With the move of the City Hall into the Paragon Building, the current City Hall
would be available for sale or for rent. This could potentially generate lump sum
proceeds or potential net rental income, which in either case would have a net
present value of approximately $3 million - either in cash proceeds or a bondable
rental income stream.
Especially with regard to ROW improvements and/or partnerships with private
developers on ROW improvements, the City Council could begin earmarking a
portion of yearly carry-forward funds to create a growing pool of funds for future
ROW improvements. Given the length of time necessary to accumulate sufficient
funds for more than small improvement projects, perhaps this source of funding
could be used to supplement other funding sources and/or to be combined with
other sources to create a revolving pool of funds (see below).
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 11 of 7
King County currently has $7 million available in Community Development
Interim Loan (aka "float loan") funds available for property acquisition or project
development for redevelopment projects that create additional jobs.
Requirements for use of these funds are as follows:
The HUD-imposed requirement for the use of these funds is that the
redevelopment projects to be generated create 1 new job for every $35,000 of
funds loaned, with a minimum of 51% of the jobs occupied by persons from
low- to moderate-income households. Examples of the levels of job growth
associated with loan amounts are:
$2.5 million loan
$5 million loan
$8 million loan
71 jobs
143 jobs
228 jobs
The low- to moderate-income job-creation reqUirement would likely be
readily achievable within the Federal Way City Center, where the majority of
new jobs would likely be within the retail and service sectors -jobs typically
well within the low- to moderate-income parameters. HUD requires reporting
on such projects until such time as the approximate number of jobs created
reaches the estimate associated with the loan amount.
· Traditionally the funds have been available at 2% less than the lending rate
regularly available to municipalities. Given that current lending rates are at
approximately only 2%, it is no longer possible to achieve that 2 percentage-
point discount, so the County has stated that it will negotiate with
municipalities for a mutually agreeable interest rate.
· The City would have to issue a letter of credit against'the loaned amount at a
typical rate of.75 point (or percent) of the loan amount. (For example: a $5
million loan would require a letter of credit fee of $37,500.)
· Lastly, these funds must be repaid by the municipality within 30 months of
disbursal. The timeline for approval of a loan application is approximately
three to four months, which includes County Council review and approval and
HUD oversight. The County has indicated that this source of funding is
particularly well suited to property acquisition projects by local
municipalities.
Lastly, especially for short-term use of funds, such as in association with a quick
purchase and "flip" of property through an RFP process, the City could simply
borrow funds. The current lending rate to the City is approximately 2%.
Therefore, a $5 million loan for one year would result in interest payments of
$100,000.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 12 of 7
Revolving Funding Pool
As mentioned previously in this memo and discussed previously in FEDRAC meetings,
one notion that should be considered would be to create a revolving pool of City Center
redevelopment funds to finance these redevelopment strategies. This may be particularly
appropriate for the ROW improvement and parking facility partnership strategies,
although is not precluded from the property-acquisition strategy as well. Three general
sources of funding are apparent as generators of such a revolving fund:
As mentioned earlier, any one of the partnership strategies discussed above could
be structured so as to require full to partial repayment of the City funds over time.
This determination may not be able to be made until detailed financial analysis of
a specific development's pro forma is conducted and case-specific City Council
participation decisions are made. One thing to keep in mind is that this approach
could reduce the level of perceived incentive to private developers. A variation on
this option is to consider repayment requirements in the context of the required
financial "gap" analysis in analyzing developers' responses to the RFP. Greater
f'mancial gaps for desired development may require greater City contributions
(which may eliminate the possibility of pay-back), while smaller gaps may be
more amenable for an amortized repayment.
2. The City could earmark property and sales tax revenue increments from project
sites to help replenish the redevelopment fund.
As mentioned above, a portion of yearly carry-forward funds could be allocated to
this fund, especially for such Capital improvements as ROW improvements and/or
parking facilities.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
In addition to achieving greater compliance with the City Center vision embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan, several important benefits could result from City participation in
public-private partnerships within the City Center, including the following:
Increased sales and property tax revenues. Regarding property taxes, it should be
noted that, although increases in overall property tax revenues, of course, are
capped by State law, increased property tax revenue from City Center properties
would help to shift the burden away from the residential property sector and
towards the commercial property sector.
2. Increased jobs for Federal Way residents and the economic multiplier effects that
arise from those jobs.
3. Increased housing opportunities within City Center and the economic multiplier
effects that arise from those residents.
Memo to FEDRAC
City Center Redevelopment Strategies
Page 13 of 7
Additional development and redevelopment that is induced by large
redevelopment projects and a revitalizing City Center, as well as enhanced image
and profile of Federal Way within region as new investments and development
projects occur.
5. Greater financial and development return on massive public investment in City
Center infrastructure to date.
6. Achievement of Comprehensive Plan goals and Growth Management mandates.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to explore and develop selected strategies and methods discussed
above, potential land acquisition sites, etc., and report back to FEDRAC, again in study
session and/or executive session, Pursuant to City Council direction at the October 28,
2003 study session.
Attached you will find a matrix worksheet that you may find helpful in summarizing your
thoughts, comments or questions regarding each of the strategies and related methods
discussed in this memo. Similarly, the worksheet may help you focus in on combinations
of strategies-methods you are particularly interested in pursuing further or, conversely,
would prefer to pursue no further.
CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND METHODS
COMMENT WORKSHEET
RESPONSIVE RFP APPROACH UTILITY TAX CITY HALL PORTION OF COUNTY FLOAT BORROW MONEY
APPROACH BOND PROCEEDS OR YEARLY CARRY- LOAN
REVENUE FORWARD
STRATEGY
ROW
IMPROVEMENTS
PARKING
FACILITIES
LAND
ACQUISITION