Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant tells Fredericksburg the right mix and a $5M plaza could make redevelopment feasible
Summary
A consultant presentation to city stakeholders examined five redevelopment scenarios for a high‑value shopping‑center site and concluded mixed‑use, higher‑density options could be feasible if the city helps subsidize structured parking or invests in a destination plaza; TIF looked viable, tax abatement less so.
A consultant presenting redevelopment scenarios told attendees the study used an assessed land value of $34,000,000 as a baseline and tested five program options ranging from low‑density townhomes to high‑density mixed‑use with a sports anchor or a corporate headquarters.
The mixed‑use scenarios assumed a 1,100‑space structured parking garage and either a 150,000‑square‑foot sports anchor (plus hotels and retail) or a 60,000‑square‑foot headquarters office anchor. "With the sports anchor scenario we get 510 mixed‑use apartments, about 51,000 square feet of commercial on the ground floor, 48 townhomes and two 150‑room hotels," the presenter said when summarizing the sports‑anchor model.
The analysis compared supportable land values across scenarios and found townhouse (surface‑parked) options produced higher land values per unit because they avoid the cost of structured parking; conversely, scenarios with heavy structured parking produced strong tax generation but lower supportable land value. The presenter said the study ran a destination‑plaza option and modeled a 5 percent uplift in nearby land values (the report also ran a 3 percent sensitivity). "We used 5%, but we also ran a scenario at 3%," the presenter said.
Key implementation options presented to the city were do nothing; support private development by funding part of structured parking; fund stormwater infrastructure (the analysis used a $500,000 stormwater cost); or fund a destination plaza (estimated at $5,000,000). On finance tools, the presenter said tax increment financing (TIF) appeared viable in this high‑value case and that tax abatement was insufficient because it does not supply the capital infusion needed to pay for parking and acquisition.
The presenter recommended the city consider subsidizing structured parking as a portion of a redevelopment subsidy and emphasized the importance of shared‑use parking ratios and flexible parking requirements to reduce developer costs. Commissioners asked about parcel assemblage and whether publicizing incentives would hinder negotiations with owners; the presenter advised a cautious, targeted economic development outreach and suggested an economic development authority as an entrée for private developers.
The presentation concluded with an offer to answer detailed questions and the presenter indicated staff and the development community would continue discussions if the city elected to pursue subsidy options.
