The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWS 2 - 21 S Linn Kickoff Presentation Item: WS.2 STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW : T CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240- 1826 (319) 3S6-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org 21 S . LINN ST REVIEW OF PREVIOUS PUBLIC - PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 1 � 1 cmp HISTORY OF SITE WHAT TO EXPECT REVIEW OF PAST RECOMMENDED DURING THE DEVELOPER PROJECT PROCESSES PROCESS TIMELINE SELECTION PROCESS 21 S . LINN STREET x Q 1 21 S. Linn I 4 = Iowa City 216 216 222 1 2 L nter- C 223 Y I E Washington St i R �+ S ti �� Is _ _ ■ ■ i —-_ v � �oo9ie �nTgeoe li v]l@ ®2lld Goode IInIRd Scalae T e Pmree/ Rryavefl pmhl� HISTORY OF 1> Former site of old City Hall building, Drive-through bank building and demolished in 1962 surface lot 1962-202 1 • [ . '� ' titi'� , rte_-..r��. .r Ln OCT * CA Ventures purchased property from US Bank. 2021 RECENT 40 FEB Existing building and surface lot demolished to prepare for development. No requests for City HISTORY 2022 financial incentives were anticipated. Staff approve site plan for mixed-use, 13-story SEPT building (266 student housing units and 2022 + ground level commercial space). MAY 4P CA Ventures abandons the project and seeks to sell the land + building plans. 2023 JULY City Council approves purchase agreement 2023 AUGi City closes on the property 2023 FUTURE OF 21 S . LINN ST. = tww6 wre Near-Term: Construction l_ staging _ •O 2 212 in 217216 223 ' 345 �� 2 for Dubuque St. — - Q a ein 211 213 zea z n a 221 Reconstruction & 6 6 o 3� 9 Senior Center Exterior ; °' 215 14 11 L Y '12' Improvement Projects # • _ a 3 p c to help mitigate 0 y traffic/parking impacts _ N 21 - p d . � Se®� 320 Long Term: _ s � M _� z1a 2�s xis 2221 Future Development TBD O VERVIEW OF Dec. 12, 2023 Review previous public/private redevelopment processes SELECTIONOF February - May 2024 PREFERRED Public engagement planning & execution PROPOSAL June - August 2024 Develop Request for Proposals (RFP) and determine review process, obtain City Council approval of RFP September - October 2024 Issue approved RFP TBD: Review RFP responses + additional public input on finalist proposals LEVEL OF DETAIL TO EXPECT RFP Response As the field of developer candidates narrows, Finalist proposals will become more detailed and refined Development Agreement NUJ � Al EXAMPLE ■ I p T 1 I Fi THE - N t r. DEVELOPER v - SELECTION PROCESS1 _ THE RISE : TIMELINE • May 2014 RFP Issued, responses due July 2014 • Sept 2014 Review committee selected 3 recommended proposals from 6 received • Oct-Nov 2014 City Council approved the 3 recommended proposals plus one additional. The 4 semi-finalists presented at a Council work session in Nov. 2014. • Dec 2014 City Council narrowed to 2 finalists and requested refined proposals. • Jan - Feb 2015 Staff provided feedback to the two finalists and asked to submit a revised proposal. The review committee reviewed the revised proposals and developed a preferred proposal recommendation for City Council. • March 2015 City Council approved the recommended preferred proposal and runner- up during a City Council meeting. • July 2015 City Council approved Development Agreement, including land transfer • Dec 2016 Building permits issued and site prep/construction begins THE RISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ( RFP ) • Project description and general project goals (p. 3-6) • Community background information & market analyses (p. 7-8) • Zoning parameters (p. 9- 10) • Potential sources of assistance for project financing gaps (p. 11 ) • Proposal submittal requirements (p. 12- 13) • Application review & scoring (p. 16- 17) THE RISE RFP : GENERAL COMMUNITY GOALS General community objectives for redevelopment projects: • Increasing the taxable valuation of property Achieving high quality architectural and site design Redevelopment of vacant ? blighted property Achieving energy-efficient development with sustainability features Creating high quality employment opportunities • Establishing land uses consistent with adopted redevelopment aLms Goals for this Project include: 1. An urban building generally consistent with the goals of the Downtown & Rtverfront Crossings Master Plan, which emphasizes an urban, walkable neighborhood and high quality architectural and site design_ The Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan can be found via this links http)www.icgov.orglriverkontcrossings. GENERAL 2. A variety of uses will be considered for the Project, inducing hotel, residential,office PROJECT and l or retail. GOALS3. An active first floor frontage to a depth of at least 30 feet is required. Parking is not allowed within the first 30 feet of lot depth along both street frontages. 4. An energy efficient building with notable sustainability features such as geothermal heatinglcooling, use of solar (passive andlor photovoltaic), andlor other innovative features_ 5. A minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. of office space oriented toward applied research, business acceleratorfincull type uses. The relationship this space would have with the City of Iowa City, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Area Development group would be subject to negotiation. 6. If residential uses are proposed, units oriented to permanent residents are encouraged. Units which are designed and marketed to households desiring to live in a high quality 1 high amenity urban building are encouraged. 7. If residential uses are proposed, a mix of units affordable to 'workforce housing' households (affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income) is encouraged_ If workforce housing units are proposed, the Cfly will require a negotiated percentage of the units he sold or rented to households eaming between 8D%and 120%of AMI at the Lime of sale or rental. S. If resklentlal uses are proposed,the City encourages that a percentage of residential units be affordable to households earning less than I of AMI. It is anticipated that these'affordable'housing units would be rental. 14 THE RISE RFP : ZONING PARAMETERS Permitted Uses: Permitted uses will be consistent with Central Business District Building Height: A maximum of 8 stories is the base height limit, with a facade step- Support Zane (13113-5), allowing for a wide variety of commercial and residential uses_ bark cf 11 feet after the 51' sto-Y Boars building height provisions r av be requested Allowed uses will include: fer p,r:,er_ts;tlh rh ncl.rde Class A office spat&, hotel space, affordable and'or ,;o,kforce • Generalofficermedical and dental office honsin0 urits. LEEEcaitification andfor other significant sustairable building -ea_ures. and otrer ;Du:)Ic henef'rW isee Form Based Code Secton 14-2G-7G fcr datails; 'A,tr • Retail sales uses bonus provisiors, a maximum of 15 stories is pcssible, or up to a height I mit De.'i itted • Personal service uses by the Federal Aviation Adminis_ratien, whichever is less. • Hespdality-oriented retail jhate'Sr convention center,event facilities) Parking: There is no parking requirement for commercial and other non-residential • Restaurants uses. For residential parking the anticipated parking requirements are: • Cammercial recreational uses,such as fitness centers and theatres • Efficiency and one-bedrooms_ 0.5 spaces per unit • General community service uses and child care facilities • Two-bedrooms: 1 space per unit • Educational Facilities • Three-bedrooms 2 spaces per unit • Residential apartments and condominiums Required parking for the project should be provided on site. Residential Uses: For residential uses, efficiency, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units are allowed. A maximum of 30% of the units may be 3-bedroom, with a maximum of 3 unrelated persons living in each unit. Efficiency and one bedroom units are encouraged. Building Placement- The minimum front setback is two feet The maximum front setback is eight feet,except that forecourts may be approved. 15 SECTION 7: APPL ICA TION REVIEW ANO SCORING Applications will be reviewed and scored by a committee consisting of City staff and two members of the City Council. This committee may invite proposers to make oral presentations of their proposals. This committee will make a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred' developer or may make a recommendation for a list of finalists to be considered by the full City Council following public presentations of finalist proposals. If there is a clear preferred developer the review committee may make a recommendation without public presentations, but proposers should be prepared for a public presentation of their proposal. Proposals will be scored and reviewed according to the fallowing criteria: THE RISE RFP : 1. Compliance with submittal requirements. 5 possible points. REVIEW 2. Developer experience and capabilities. 20 possible points. a. Quality of proposal b. Composition and experience of development team, particularly experience with RITERIA mixed-use projects d. Orgarizadon and management approach to the Project e. References, inclucing references within the construction industry f. Implementation =bility. Demonstrated ability of the developer to implement complex deve -•pn-ent projects. 3. Market and economic viability of the project. 25 possible points. a. Evidence of the financial strength of the developer b. Estimate of developer equity investment in the Project c. Marketing approach d. evidence of interest from financial institutions and investors e. Letters from prospective purchasers andlor tenants for commercial and/or office space T. Re '-l:ili`, cf _"e proposed financia c'-n g. Preliininar+; evaluation of need for any requested gap financing; level of request for gap financing; type of gap financing (upfront vs. rebate) 17 4. Long term fiscal benefit to the City. 20 possible points. a. Projected property tax revenues b. The Pr•ce offered for the City property, and any terms REVIEWc. Air req.I.red City services a ndfo r o ngoi ng pubIicfunding beyond the construction D--s:S PROCESS d. E nployment opportunities created e. A: lity of the Project to generate other revenue for the L& (such as hotel-motel RITERIA tax) T. Assessment of any negative impact of the Project on adjacent properties 5. How the Project furthers Iowa City's economic development and Riverfront Crossings goals. 25 possible points. a. A: Iry cf projec:'o dra+;: people 'n the R verf,cr- C,css'rgs Gist^ct b. Abll v of projec,to add to Rlverf•ani C•ossings Street life and ac:Ivity. c. Ability of project to create employment opportunities. d. If residential is oroposed, does the Project provide housing opportunities for a •carie-, c' mcc—ne evels. e. Qual t•: -•f a•c i te•cture T. Level cf ererc,.: e'ficiency and sustainability features G. Compliance with applicable state, federal and local laws, rules, requlations and policies including the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan policies and form-based code provisions; and all other factors deemed to be in the best interest of the City. 5 possible points. THE RISE RFP : SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS • Letter of interest & development entity information • Description of previous experience + financial capacity • Project construction and financing narrative including schedule for completion, proposed financing, tenant recruitment plan, and proposed purchase price • Public financing budget, pro forma, and justification • Concept drawing, square footage of each use, conceptual layout, and visualization of pedestrian-level facade • Description of sustainability features • References THE RISE RFP : PROPOSAL REVIEW TIMELINE RFP Issued • RFP issued May 30, 2014 01 • Responses due July 14, 2014 (-45 day response period) Review + • Review committee rec'd 3 semi-finalists from 6 received (Sept 2014) Selection • City Council approved the 3 rec'd semi-finalists plus one additional proposal (Oct 2014) • 4 semi-finalists presented during City Council Work Session (Nov 2014) Selection • City Council narrowed field to two finalists and requested refined Finalists proposals (Dec 2014) • Staff provided feedback to two finalists to develop refined proposal Selection • Review committee reviewed refined proposals and recommended Preferred preferred proposal (Feb 2015) Proposal • Council approved preferred proposal and a runner-up (March 2015) THE RISE RFP : INITIAL VS . REVISED PROPOSAL EXAMPLE INITIAL PROPOSAL CONSTRUCTION & FINANCING PLAN RISE AT RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - 9.A nanallve desadbing the nmposers plan for wrshection and financing of Be Project.This should include: land Size: 60,000 SF A.owideadbn and management approach to the Refect. Residential: 248,515$F Office: 251518 QSF As shown on l he orgarealim rhaal on page 6.CA ventures will oversee the development.linen..and momee nl of Hotel: 81,373 SF O Ill.project.This mail has code"interest from Pinto Third Bank,who Ions povi*d mall$92 million in final) Retail: 6,325 RSF on at ca projectsdeal bmkeone construction,the propmad General contract«, mn- Common: 53,155 SF mraotion of 532 CA units in three dineent markets retiomvide and nam corked on seven different projects in Ewa Parking: 133,860 SF since 2f)Ln.HPA M1m mMed with CA to the.dlneenl pr jects tensing 305 relies lesidennal units.A5 a result M Hai zembled teams'previous.,pence.[.,CA he more than confident that[his project could deliverer time at the highest Total SF: 558,746 SF , of quality 1' Apartments: 320 B.Second schedule Por cempteaen M Ee Pat—a— ooarr... Bedrooms: 557 mwememscom rete at colic HOTEL'S LETTER OF INTEREST Hotel Keys: 152 +r p Hoteldable Apartments. 32110%af IWaI units) Potential HvFel Flags: +rem cloamg. 0u2015 Parking Spaces: 326 Hilton Canopy l Curio Marriott AC Hotels +Permaauen : oz rzOld Starwood Aloft wra Land Cost: $6,500,000 +Con spachm stag= 0212015 HZT Hard Cost: $78,892,907 Potential Hotel Operators: .menPnncy. 021 M1e 7,,,,,.no_,o„ Soft Cost $17,192,619 Brieton Group Ajmbridge Hospitably First Hospitality Group C Deserughon of.general plan Ea moshna;n Total Cost: $102,585,526 partner Information: papectlw Parentage.an%bad,: Architect: Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture AaAaraa Unit Mike Developer: CA Ventures cA las already recelred mmtrple levers of Ione 1-Bedroom: 127 apartments General Contractor: Regional GC nes protect.CA will also rears:M1a Morelli hare,¢ore 2-Bedroom: 149 apartments Property Manager: CA Ventures 3-Bedroom: 44 apartments Equity Pror ideo Harrison Street Real Esdete Capital D.sexdplbn Nth.madmtlng afapmtdt loss 6lvardtion mbak Potential Leaders: Fifth Third l Private Rental RBS cavammra.u.c Betxctuhadr r asm Amenitles: Asarrenppneaabv+e,CA Venture.las received cnFaenn.snm FronModern Center Rooftop Pool Project Sche: lWel_These rerc Isbsrstmam M1ise hotel her lot domes done@bMllmb iravmt¢ovmn Modemped to Equipment Yoga Permits EntitlementsComplete. 022015 viable option Ervlsitoa than Me hotels mcetet Landscaped Courtyard Sun Deck Permits Complete: 832015 ae:pApa.m«y nmaw.-.awacay,rw CIUD Room Coffee Bar Construction Starts: 032015 Private 8 Group Study Lounges Wi-Fi Construction Completion: 03 2017 ocateradn 'come you ion yewmpwpmes name sped me more sled m mare city,taws.Grvm clic V t mmemer,wim. 21 THE RISE RFP : INITIAL VS . REVISED PROPOSAL EXAMPLE PROPOSALINITIAL SUSTAINAE3ILITY 12.A tliisthb ion at are ra elgy infra ay or tit bblldim g,including anticipated avec levo/466106 the Wire stein.. ..,:I a des ripdan M smtalnabl lily f datums proposed W be included. CA has also taken caadi l consideratlen Into Coaaslractlng an elaaronnaeredly fliendly prolera.The pro fit will utilize cer- Min LEED Poll Paul Energy Star appllannes alb energy saving fiXil .The use of hath suslalraahle and Inally "all m iumul mi Ilmwiauu Iwlyihd amwule6 wills Lne NuIm,Lwblle br aliiie lire Clly'a ewimury,LmLly,lie residential parNipg ratio meets the will requirements X 5 space per 1 d bJI unit and I space Per 2 bedrpum unit) with an additional 25 spaces designated ta-the hotel and retail.This low parking ratio count enonurages pedesbian mobil- ity rib public cvrpvrativn. CA has designed a project that will be suslalnable and target a LE ED Silver rating or higher. Below is list o1 sustainable 'A W . . featu res that will he pursued at RISE at Riverfronf Crossings. in SiEe planning tar Maximum Energy Efficiency Low-VOC Paints • High Efficiency Mechanicals • Bicycle and Scooter Parking • Low•E Glazing Electric Car Charging Stations • Recyclable Materials a Rainwater Harvesting For Landscape in Energy 5tar Appliances • Sustainable Material selections • Law-Flow Fixtures • Reclaimed&Repurposed Finish Material • List Coverage less than 50% Based on the below scorecard, RISE at Riverfront Crossings currently anticipates LEED Silver rating with 54 points. RISE at Rivefmnt Crossings has the potential to achieve a higher certification level if other Criteria becomes available.R draft LEEP scorecard is shown below: -LMD rlfw ll Wjer nenertlm Ilalret chvioo4 Pad.A lrns Ma rt AlrmhwdOre� dam: ll1i;RDle Y ! Y �+ nya..teem 1 ..�e,•irmmtrr.:.ud•, a >,-.o...�o�._.io-.-w�. lew.a rerraa vru waves. a ,.�r...............p......a •aa•+ W MNCNx f. eueuy�mw omen•-onrvmrnrmn THE RISE RFP : INITIAL VS . REVISED PROPOSAL EXAMPLE INITIAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL Aim Looking Southwest rA "Flt -71 THE RISE RFP : INITIAL VS . REVISED PROPOSAL EXAMPLE INITIAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL �1 4 THE RISE RFP : INITIAL PROPOSAL EXAMPLE slra Plen Typical FIJ Plan wHh Onit Sim, Typlrzl Parking Level Plan i®sr vi o.auror Im., W a y fVJIM NNa0FM0a <—•�� wm )� __ I�rpAiII6i'AS INRAPIM � � t a LL Im Mw is In 55 � R�aoeenx i�� nEaowlw +umwwn nvaoamn i � i s THE RISE RFP : REVISED PROPOSAL EXAMPLE SITE PLAN PARKING LEVEL P-03 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR Pule x9EK1 F � !I I T PICALHOTEVRESIOEN IAL pHML S ivm Y 3RP4TH FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN I I I u^ _ dRC4�NY�M Iry I RESP L o e a —.,' .I ,Itl RM •S' Ir l THE RISE RFP : INITIAL PROPOSAL • • • 1 EXAMPLE I -Public financial nadldpadgn Is vrntill a had y requested,a not rob t and I,nimatlan,angcyted PROJECT A5 prevlputly men timer,CA will nnl the seeking arcss ,doormat sklapce alone the city The balm ea nbir presents s SUMMARY preliminary omiRnl building cost,preliminary pp firma and wurces and uses o1 funds.41A can famous,addit ore items upon request. Hotel Rooms 117 rnerl raz veara tura rmr6 Units: 304 2M4T7 36Rd6 M141B i98a0 MAI1 oMta�o Rks•Ba Retail SFI 3,560 ReekWia Renal Rassh,u rural 0,&11,010 7AM,305 1,419,010 7.m.m0 Mix posan. 5104,150 5,4,t2W 5.50)964 5,74,143 5,947,367 Pdrkitt8 Spnes: 272 Rrlsil Rtramefifspa) 90,619 93544 96.359 99.241 1W,216 Tsea Operamavotel 11.ffi14M 14a16so1 1271,me 1sdal 1a46sra Peerr SF Per unit: 754 Tml RlpedmnY&Lester. BRAG] I W.U4 1~83 Carl 1.171.93 Opmelrn9E-per Yae9emnd Fea141M1t 45,]51 IPi,95 99444 523.5@7 sac'me Waprry luxes 1.;19341 1,575131 1.6224Ta 1.571.152 1,716295 CA is wi 111 ng to offer$1,000,CD0($84.33 per are dale Fact)for the Court ane Linn Street redevelopment.No mfiem- 6®pitalResare 269,366 267366 211736 267.566 M7,W Klee 5.7%re the total project cast.Whi le this may not he til a highest pure hale price offered,CA as 11 be f u no l ng the M.Opma9n0 Eem. 2,318,191 4,187,710 2,eg115 2,ler,ee3 2,716,wa ptoteel wllnollt any masa l asslsiarice Irom the City meaning Iw1a City will receive the full rear Inarelnent and Iodglr TM0lx,9i,Enpmus 011,1M 4,74,963 40A M 5.118.111 5.21 lax associated with the prol CA tax projections Mr thaytarona are displayed below: OAFmernss%ds"lFeerae 4661% 40% 4709% 4741% 4701% MNopBMllalex. Mile 6,54011 5.736.511 Mail Mesa sa.oaca ua.l ■ ll bony. C9mhinedleir Tax $0.00 $1,592341 $1,592341 to,rreo lr 35.016 30.604.511 Reslkn549F Lhnmadsl SF 3,53m,3W 32 Ruffner1 0091 portion Allocated In City $0.00 $fifi3,100 $663,108 - er:aoen es 0`6 6701 m,„mmA.SiF X676 Portion Allocated to Schools $0.00 $543,948 $543,948 Tata6wrcea 1Ma% 9,701.511 HaasF 4.300 Sales lar 19.09 $8,192 $8,192 Ratnrss lee,@aa Lodging Tax 10.00 $513,955 $573,955 l�aechaza 57% 5,amam Tma SF 477,115 Poll Allocated to Gl 10.00 $334,807 $334,807 Harr Costs 753% 64,00).40) W iGeae I9ua 16J_no Total: Will $2,111,458 $2,111,418 rural lana% rr,Tmyla Portion Allocated to City l Soheol $8.00 $1,541,854 $1,541,884 27 THE RISE RFP : REVISED PROPOSAL The belpw iii p ,,,its a preliminary pmj9ct building e99t,preliminary pm forma and murce5 and uses 9f funds.CA can provide additional items upon request. 09erseeg lawn, Faiienmiel Hemel neuenue 7,t973m 7,497,IM 7,929,936 7.859 216 8,093884 Nael Revalue a,owan 6.424.60 6"B ]t.M9 Tata me ARM a una9 Kmnr0 2I4,M 221.a4l =,997 2aa sc7 241472 Type GMT, MwW Rst5 Alli RM Re5149iw 247,780 C11'.9e•enae $10 am 525,671 541.441 561,6& 5!4415 Total 0go9n8R w9e 151 Ks71RL6 1;257M1 131 15,zi Isla 127 51,600 5686 c0ni Sr 63,&50 2696 149 $2,200 Ne Hotel as, 81,373 TWIWwamamel�pcnaee 14T5,9114 1,IS7,Bm IMIA14 143T451 ;,5115 3696 44 92.700 Na Perini 5r 133,a6a 320 $2031 5089 R6 l5F 6,365 SPwc1L.e E+..as Office 5F 25.516 Mars,;.nl Feef40%1 559,020 684.108 ali.9w e39,25( 8191, Glial ft" t,iw am 1.1m,aaa 1]2'7,741 1241,573 14M510 R•��tl•�' 70018E S98,TJ8 MaYa6g 29,520 M255 304.213 317,459 M89M 5laeluzna ors: 70-00% Incunn® lie am 12,197 1M.7w 127,536 131391 Inital BuitV R.I. $150.00 PrppY[y TAXM 1,924,&53 1.619.921 1,]ZJ,6lR 1.]]5,334 1,948,592 WISes 592,30 et9P99 925,392 M112M 66,661 bmi18 Meimenewe 278,'03 166,056 20,46, 3w,3m 313,4M Fri Fre 380,]80 381,553 4(11. 2 51410E 559.481 RAW NN N Bert($I5F) 525,0& Tumdnr ,,130 51,e31 53,183 61,778 5;433 ORMNNN Oen,AM $2040 CPlwne 2M ma 294559 291.551 2%.554 2 m,l Trtel GPer WF,rynnew S,E7B,69a 51 k;ii I1 Nn,,10 gwB,,e] W Fwpensa as%dTorillWranoe I7.63% 90.85% I;TI% 6730% 9i t9% NSlpexa11n5 fnwr, T,Mq,t T,T4;M5 46F41 ;51;111 ;12,221 Revised proposal included: • Refined square footage numbers `,.rNM " mn% 354,545 Proposed commercial lease rates/hotel rates &,.rNM d5 ou ea,6e6,m9 Tbal;men.. 104% 1p2,5a;sxc • Unit type/affordability mix lu,0901 631 9,111 1.87,626 2570,04 2maCUD.9m 0 Increased SF for non-residential uses Nattl Cass lee% 76,692,901 45,874,628 19470,884 2,1&,000 1.619.715 SMrCmn 16B% 17192619 �nxn me c ._ 1?7.1 a iri,m Tab.IM... ,5% ,M,Sc;525 47:MI;m 25.131422 .,551.11 2,IM,2M • Increased purchase offer from $5m to $6.5m 28 INITIAL SAL OR is willing to offer$5,000,000383.33 per square loot] . • - hies 5 7%of the total project cost.While this may not he the highest purchase prill o ered, LA will he Tun ng the project without any financial assistance from the City,meaning Iowa City will receive the full tax increment and lodglr tax associated with the project.CA tax projections for the year one aro displayed below: Tax Authority Existing Tax Yalue ProlectEd Tax Value Tax ImGremEnt THE RISE ComhinedPmperlyTax 40.00 11,592,341 41,592,341 Portion Allocated to City $0.00 5663,108 $663,108 Portiom R F P : I N I TIAL SalesTaxAllocatedta5cheols X0.00 5$8,1928 $$81928 Lodging Tex $0.00 $573,955 $573,955 portiV S . REVISED Total:on Allocated to CI $0.00 $231141488 $2.3111,8488 PROPOSALPortion Allocated to City&Schod 10.08 $1,541,864 11,541.004 EXAMPLE ' Tax Anptysie Pati City schools Est. Residential Assessed Value - - Est. Residential Property Tax $419,048 $343,662 Est. Co*nmecial Assessed Value - Fsl.Com hlercial Property Tax $285,399 0,34067 Total Est.Properly Tax $704,447 $5771719 Est Lodeing Ta. $403,894 - - Est. Sales To.(From Food&8eor4e) - Total Est.Tax(Par YaaO $1,108,341 $577,739 Total GAPIA-%mance Rdgwes*d None None Total Est.Tax(15 Yean1 $2(1,613439 $10,744,946 Less:GAPIAssistance -Net Tax bier 1$Years $2016131939 $10,744,946 Ret Tax Over 15 Years rrl Purchase Rice: $27,113,939 - 29 THE RISE RFP : PROPOSAL REVIEW TIMELINE RFP Issued • RFP issued May 30, 2014 01 • Responses due July 14, 2014 (-45 day response period) Review + • Review committee rec'd 3 semi-finalists from 6 received (Sept 2014) Selection • City Council approved the 3 rec'd semi-finalists plus one additional proposal (Oct 2014) • 4 semi-finalists presented during City Council Work Session (Nov 2014) Selection • City Council narrowed field to two finalists and requested refined Finalists proposals (Dec 2014) • Staff provided feedback to two finalists to develop refined proposal Selection • Review committee reviewed refined proposals and recommended Preferred preferred proposal (Feb 2015) Proposal • Council approved preferred proposal and a runner-up (March 2015) THE RISE : AFTER PROPOSAL SELECTION • No TIF requested • Development & approval of Development Agreement • Land Transfer • Building plans approved, density bonus approved • Construction Total time from RFP to Preferred Proposal Selection: �10 months Total time from RFP to Development Agreement: �14 months Total time from RFP to completed construction: �5 years lir y EXAMPLE # 2 THE CHAUNCEY: i � �M1r jJS.I DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESSmi �, 4., THE CHAUNCEY : TIMELINE • Aug 31 , 2012 RFP Issued, responses due by Sept. 28, 2012 (-30 day response period) • Oct 2012 Review committee selected 5 semi-finalist proposals from 10 received • Nov 2012 Semi-finalist presentations and Q&A at Council work session • Dec 2012 National Development Council (NDC) presented preliminary financial analysis of semi-finalist proposals. Council narrowed field to 3 finalists and directed staff to solicit additional information from the 3 finalist teams. • Jan 2013 Council evaluated the 3 finalists and selected a preferred proposal. • Jan 2013 - July 2014 Third-party financial analysis, negotiations & land transfer • July 2014 City Council Economic Development Committee forwarded recommendation for approval of TIF incentive • June 2015 City Council approved Development Agreement • Oct 2017 Building permits issued and site prep/construction begins THE CHAUNCEY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ( RFP ) • Community background information & market analyses (p. 6-9) • Project description and general project goals (p. 10) • Parking and zoning information (p. 10- 11 ) • Potential sources of assistance for project financing gaps (p. 13- 14) • Proposal submittal requirements (p. 15- 16) • General evaluation criteria (p. 19) THE CHAUNCEY RFP : GENERAL DOWNTOWN GOALS Plan. General downtown goals are described below; specific Project goals are described within this RFP. • Increasing the taxable valuation of property • Redevelopment of blighted property • Encouragement of projects such as downtown hotels, workforce housing, downtown grocery, arts and entertainment venues, and similar uses • Encouragement of projects which result in increasing downtown destination points to continue to draw people downtown • Providing a safe and inviting downtown for residents and visitors • Encouragement of housing opportunities for residents from a variety of age groups and income levels • Other project goals are further described within this RFP Proposals to this RFP should describe how they are meeting one or more of these Project goals. General Project goals include:) THE • An urban building, with commercial uses on the first floor. Upper floors may be commercial, office, hotel, residential or a combination of uses. C H A U N C E Y • Provision of Class A office space is encouraged for one or more floors. Office space may be contemplated for public as well as private tenants. Developers of office RF P : space are encouraged to explore potential office user options. GENERAL■ • As a corner lot on a highly visible, prominent property, quality of architecture is encouraged. PR O J E C T • Other unique uses for the Project will be considered. GOALS • If residential uses are proposed, a mix of efficiencies, one-bedroom and two bedroom units is encouraged. • If residential uses are proposed, workforce housing is encouraged at least for a portion of the Project. Workforce housing is defined as rental or owner-occupied units affordable to, and designed for working households between 60% and 150% of the Area Median Income. The Area Median Income effective as of February 2012 is: • Household of 1: $56,300 • Household of 2: $64,300 36 THE CHAUNCEY RFP : GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA Section 9: Evaluation Criteria A City review committee will evaluate each proposal individually and in the context of all other proposals. Proposals must be fully responsive to the requirements described in Section 7, and to any subsequent requests for clarification or additional information made by the City. Proposals must comply with and are subject to all provisions of applicable federal, state, and li building regulations. Proposals Once the selection review committee has determined it is at an appropriate stage in its those unresponsive to any part evaluation of proposals, finalist developers may be invited to make oral presentations to the committee. Finalist developers may be asked to make presentations at a public its sole discretion, elect to waiv meeting of the City Council. The City reserves the right to accept and/or reject proposal. proposals without oral presentations. The City will notify proposers of the acceptance andlor rejection of proposals upon the conclusion of the evaluation process. THE CHAUNCEY RFP : GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria against which each proposal will be considered may include the following, as well as otherfacto rs considered by the City as appropriate: 1 _ Compliance with Submittal Requirements, as specified above_ 2_ Developer experience and capabilities. 3_ An assessment of how the project furthers Iowa City's economic development and Downtown Iowa City goals. 4_ Market and economic viability of the proposal_ 5_ Lang-term fiscal benefit to the City. 6_ Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, and policies. THE CHAUNCEY RFP : SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS • Letter of interest & development entity information • Description of previous experience + financial capacity • Concept drawing, square footage of each use, schematic layout, and schematic of pedestrian-level facade • Project construction and financing narrative including schedule for completion, letters of intent, preliminary pro forma, proposed purchase price, and proposed gap financing • References THE CHAUNCEY RFP : INITIAL PROPOSAL EXAMPLE The cnaan�.r.�.�.c College St.I Gilbert St Northeast Lorner Project t!�! l_b crb maw onearrnm.aa�w �S .m wln tln4 lreml ane lam mPA wlN elmrb. e<,g�<k.n<m,rh&eesnr aN Ibe'rn<r.nm nra x..wum u e neiu.1h.xld.sn,me,aar..,min 1-rw.1.�am.,— 1 - I.Ixx me wuanp a Im.aoan Iwm rM�aaar axlna prlrlea. - olunm on mewmtwlrw vson reelomnenrenemrreeeu. - m<marl a ma Ixpa Ion wa noum anla Wlalrae a.x .p<mree,Immlarina mmxdmal xa.x.rle axlr coxal a rrex :Dose..Imvl<axle m wana wun Ire oauolrxr Iprer + ...r m�e¢Ilwlaerb menullelVmxoraral®Inwllnnxoxoramr lnw ll.rxem �- eaatlareloe ei wan[eMreatle velm eotoo le wilA pandaNew.Xael vtl IeelaenlialW etele al 4ea IOPHIer NmM1y by mlalmous IrHal velem wallewfike ales sepanID W ... wor. lra otre 1Mewarm wnrow xmbxw - Kmwra�wwrmnwnpeme:eelened:mpnnerw;ln.o�aafml7 mrldrnal<n<naermx erea<bwalmne mamdnawawxaemxd,r.r�mrrem emamr.rrsxxrwx Paw vam.na x me ma or rn.<ommxaal xr.la ens mxa.naal Be.Wl@n NB BIIPq COMBInppRry IIM6NtY6l'NrpW Wwer, are mvoftre awe Imnllxwa m aaxll a mml.aa orelre na. can penlmar mneommmm.. . yawrna..a,bere".ar 1.nn..o-d..e. aY¢f Ire aaMlMn Yd.xa Irer3rd aRe Im rw herAL emsof lows clb wlukaeebe Ixexn xa tenure ban.erblm. Pa ibr, me cn.anarxulvw.w.szanaxpxxlrloarxaarrnwnmee Irbreela<ml.Ireawrebvnrune.mmaPmv®olrmma.melnnbauon - olrva.al.amrn.�xrsw.aremreramp. broke ewe _ neeoaunw Waal.mnlrema wla aeualroalwluam pgea. he lne BeiMIxY rWYlr[ no Gxvnwylaplalma W maumlm No Nlekrwmrne.clal,akw nomm,roar.rwal ana mxemfr...m.me a<rbemem rmm keb awlgy rmr a ounpmpaf be nx gapaaep u rle cen use m We I and fo'IM p xenl artl au W le n eetle tl brva Llry aM rrpmentt .m.n 8ia'an. m.."y "I Igmr<iM mallei Ir beiax heel r�oe aaia.rea W max n.aaxae pan rrebl axe�m�ruan vxxxxa.pwarxrr.w.axxxynamn weavxax Vlevlbm Me NaMweel 40 Lnn.l 3t INN Ell i 6�1 6�1 L-�—j 0 IN I I I - N;dfm"00did lllll�millml now Fm 2012 PROPOSAL 2016 BUILDING SCHEMATIC PLANS mm - - -- i �. pn i U ,7i a T W 46 Ti I i 42 Conceptual Square Footages The conceptual building areas are as follows: Basement Floor-Panting 24,086 SF THE First Floor-Retail 24,140 SF CHAUNCEY Second Floor/Mezzanine-Relail 19,406 SF Floors Three thru Five- R . INITIAL Commercial Class ACffice Space 59,400 SF PROPOSAL R • P • / Three Floors 3 @ 18,000 NSF Floors Six thru Eight—Hotel Units 33,750 SF EXAMPLE Hotel Suites 3 V 1,100 NSF Hotel Studios 32 @ 550 NSF Floors Nine thru Twenty—Residential Units 122,550 SF One Bedroom 12 @ 550 NSF One Bedroom 35 (g 1,100 NSF One Bedroom 18 @ 1,650 NSF Two Bedroom with Loft 1 1,500 NSF Two Bedrooms with Loft 2 @ 2,050 NSF Two Bedrooms with Loft 1 2,600 NSF Total Building Gross Square Feet 283,332 SF 43 THE CHAUNCEY RFP : INITIAL PROPOSAL EXAMPLE actlrity tkbnths 1 2 9 4 518 7 1 B 19 110 1 11 112 1311411511 B17 I 18 10123 211 22 23 24 25 28 27 ffi 29 30131132133134135138137 381A01 46 PmPeey Acquisition Design GMP Prkin Consfructlon Docs Package 1-Site PmplFou ndations Package 2•StructuWShell Package 3•Finish Mid Amwlca Relocat Construction Bullring Demcl Rion SitelFou ndations S8 mctum ShsilResldenial Floor Finish Mrstiklexsanine Floor Finish THE CHAUNCEY RFP : INITIAL PROPOSAL EXAMPLE THE CHAUNCEY 20 Story mixed use development THE CHAUNCEY YRCLIMI NARY PRD-FORMA 20 Story mixed use development Tncoa! COIMIERCIAL RII 51,1.4 c,'ina Cost&Source of fu rids R6IDENTTAL RENTS 51.992.000 Ste acquisition T0TAL MOSS RENT 0.749,scs Construction Cost leunan rv•muo a(NINN w Mc.0 mu unrn Wriewelm) $50,040,000 ArcNte ctura I and consultant Peas Survey l7iP[n8! V NAINTENANCE, nANCE,S. printing ❑II IES,I FIW 1H. soiltesting $100,000 SERVICE OP"'"L'i s, rxc rat passedthreuph eecemr.0 con structiontestirg thrv�eh tol .M.) essential appliance;windowtreatments andfurnishing5 $1,107,000 insurance during construction $711,000 PROPEIRTYTMES[net paasee Co nstruction interest $2,563,350 thrvu qh to feraMa] "SLIOO TOTAL $53,830,350 TOTAL nen-paEe tErrevph SOURCE OF FUNDS expms�s y961r5]L e quiry and borrowed funds 540,380,350 ROI $2,761,956 a Tax Increment Funding requested) $13450000 THE CHAUNCEY RFP : PROPOSAL REVIEW TIMELINE • Aug 31 , 2012 RFP Issued, responses due by Sept. 28, 2012 (-30 day response period) • Oct 2012 Review committee selected 5 semi-finalist proposals from 10 received • Nov 2012 Semi-finalist presentations and Q&A at Council work session • Dec 2012 National Development Council (NDC) presented preliminary financial analysis of semi-finalist proposals. Council narrowed field to 3 finalists and directed staff to solicit additional information from the 3 finalist teams. Additional public input sought. • Jan 2013 Council evaluated the 3 finalists and selected a preferred proposal. THE CHAUNCEY : PREFERRED PROPOSAL SELECTION TIMELINE Nov 19, 2012: Finalist proposals included in Information Packet Nov 26, 2012: Finalist presentations at special Work Session Dec 6, 2012: Verbal public input scheduled during regular formal Dec 18, 2012: Council narrowed to 3 finalists during regular formal Jan 8, 2013: Council selected The Chauncey as preferred proposal THE CHAUNCEY FINALIST PROPOSALS : PUBLIC INPUT • Proposals available online for public review • Comments encouraged through e-mail and mail • All correspondence forwarded to City Council through Info Packets • Nov 2012 Work Session : • 20-minute presentation + 15-minute Q&A/discussion each • Dec 2012 City Council Meeting - verbal public input scheduled PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF FINALISTS • City hired National Development Council to conduct independent, third-party financial analysis of the 5 finalist applications • NDC advised comparison of economic impact and need for TIF not possible at this conceptual phase • Provided guiding questions for next phase of development team interviews THE CHAUNCEY : AFTER PROPOSAL SELECTION Following City Council selection of preferred proposal, 2 years of: • Third-party financial analyses ( National Development Council ) • City/developer negotiations • Development & approval of Development Agreement • Land Transfer Total time from RFP to Preferred Proposal Selection: �6 months Total time from RFP to Development Agreement: �3 years Total time from RFP to completed construction: �8 years RFP to Preferred RFP to Development RFP to Construction Proposal Selection Agreement Completed W ANTICIPATED TIMELINE V • 2 The Chauncey • • • a yearsx v W x The ■ i months 2 years • years ~ N W J 6 a x W Ln RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCESS 21 S. LINN STREET 52 21 S LINN ST : PROCESS OBJECTIVES 8 I 0 0 ESTABLISH A INCORPORATE OBTAIN A TRANSPARENT, MEANINGFUL PUBLIC - PRIVATE PREDICTABLE STAKEHOLDER & PARTNERSHIP PROCESS PUBLIC INCORPORATING INVOLVEMENT SIGNIFICANT THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS BENEFITS 21 S LINN ST : RECOMMENDED PROCESS Targeted Timeline Phase Feb - June 2024 Public Engagement Planning & Execution 1 . Staff develop public engagement plan for City Council approval 2. Execute public engagement plan with public/stakeholders 3. Present public engagement/input results to City Council June - Aug 2024 RFP Development 1 . Staff + City Council develop high-level goals and review process in public Work Session 2. Staff draft RFP based on City Council direction 3. RFP finalized and approved by City Council in public Work Session Sept - Oct 2024 Issue RFP 1 . Issue RFP (anticipate 45-60 days for response) TBD RFP Review based on previously established process Additional Public Input will be solicited on finalist proposals 21 S LINN ST : CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEMS Targeted Timeline Feb - June 2024 Public Engagement Planning & Execution 1 . Staff develop public engagement plan for City Council approval 2. Execute public engagement plan with public/stakeholders 3. Present public engagement/input results to City Council June - Aug 2024 RFP Development 1 . Staff + City Council develop high-level goals and review process in public Work Session 2. Staff draft RFP based on City Council direction 3. RFP finalized and approved by City Council in public Work Session Sept - Oct 2024 Determine RFP Review Process + Issue RFP 1 . Issue RFP (anticipate 4S-60 days for response) TBD RFP Review based on previously established process Additional Public Input will be solicited on finalist proposals 21 S LINN ST : PUBLIC INPUT OPPORTUNITIES Targeted Timeline Feb - June 2024 Public Engagement Planning & Execution 1 . Staff develop public engagement plan for City Council approval 2. Execute public engagement plan with public/stakeholders 3. Present public engagement/input results to City Council June - Aug 2024 RFP Development 1 . Staff + City Council develop high-level goals and review process in public Work Session 2. Staff draft RFP based on City Council direction 3. RFP finalized and approved by City Council in public Work Session Sept - Oct 2024 Determine RFP Review Process + Issue RFP 1 . Issue RFP (anticipate 4S-60 days for response) TBD RFP Review based on previously established process Additional Public Input will be solicited on finalist proposals CITY COUNCIL CONSENSUS STAFF PREPARE PUBLIC COUNCILTO APPROVE OF ON 21 S LINN PROCESS ENGAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN + EXECUTE STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org