Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest Park proposes Grapevine food terminal at former Rite Aid; board and URA staff discuss funding, leases and contracts
Summary
City of Forest Park staff on Tuesday outlined plans to convert the former Rite Aid on Forest Parkway into a mixed-use food terminal and business incubator called Grapevine and asked the Urban Redevelopment Agency board to consider using URA funds and an amendment to the URA boundary to help finish the renovation.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Forest Park staff on Tuesday outlined plans to convert the former Rite Aid on Forest Parkway into a mixed-use food terminal and business incubator called Grapevine and asked the Urban Redevelopment Agency board to consider using URA funds and an amendment to the URA boundary to help finish the renovation.
City Manager Daniel Clark told the board the interior renovation and site work have been bid and that the project ‘‘total cost is 2.8, million dollars’’ and that ‘‘100% of that work [to date] was funded by a CDBG grant, of which we still have funds remaining totaling close to $600,000.’’ Clark described Grapevine as a three-restaurant food terminal with flex office space, a conference room, a commissary ("ghost kitchen") to allow home cooks to operate legally, a drive-through coffee shop and a bakery.
Why it matters: city staff and the URA emphasized that the project is intended to activate Forest Parkway, address an area the city described as a ‘‘food desert,’’ remove blight and create lease revenue that could help repay public investment. Clark said construction documents are complete and construction has been bid; staff asked the URA to consider partnering to cover the remaining funding gap so work can start "ASAP." No URA vote to fund the project took place at this meeting.
Procurement and cost details: Procurement Manager Talisa Clark said the solicitation was publicly advertised for the required minimum 30 days, included a mandatory pre-bid site visit attended by about nine vendors, and opened in February. Three timely bids were received: Technique Concrete Construction, $2,888,183; Diversified Construction of Georgia, $3,746,251; and J R Bowman Construction, $4,624,836. Talisa Clark said the evaluation looks for the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, reference checks and debarment status; she described the procurement as complete and ‘‘we are right now’’ at the recommendation-for-award stage.
Ownership, financing and URA role: Clark said the city owns the Rite Aid building (he estimated the acquisition cost at ‘‘1.2 or 1.3 million dollars’’). He told the board that to use URA funds the redevelopment area would have to be amended: "we would draft a resolution for the mayor and city council to adopt to expand the redevelopment area, because they're the only ones that can actually set the area." He proposed that the URA and city be partners and discussed a possible pro rata share of lease revenue returning to the URA (he suggested a ballpark of 30–40 percent) while several board members expressed concern about protecting URA capital if businesses fail or rent revenues do not materialize.
Financial advice on structure and risk: Financial adviser Ed Walls cautioned the URA that Georgia law does not give URAs the power to make outright loans to private developers. He recommended using the URA's cash equity to leverage additional financing and said: "you don't have the power to loan money, but you would own a project" and that the board could structure ownership, leases and an option to buy so that public funds act like equity collateral for financing rather than a direct loan.
Board reaction and next steps: Board members asked for clarifications about tenant selection, operational management and protections for URA funds. Daniel Clark said city staff would work with legal counsel on an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and that the partners would return with documentation; he also said renderings exist and could be shown at a later meeting. Staff stated they will continue to pursue grants and other funding sources. No formal URA appropriation, boundary amendment or final contract award was voted on at this meeting.
Ending: Staff will bring draft agreements, boundary-amendment language and formal award recommendations to future URA meetings for consideration; Clark and procurement staff said they will provide the full bid tabulation and a recommended award when the item returns to the board.

