AG 2009 09 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

These estimates provide a snapshot of the job-creation opportunity at The Old Creamery. 1 believe that by investing in this property, the owners and the county are creating a lasting source of value for taxpayers and the corntnunity. This value is realized not only by businesses employing people on the site, but also by local firms helping to construct and maintain the property. II. WHY THIS PROJECT AND NOT OTHERS? The Old Creamery has had several previous owners, after the Cabarrus Creamery and Coca-Cola businesses shuttered their operations. These out-of--town owners recognized the potential for creating amixed-use development, but they abandoned these plans after realizing that the project would not deliver adequate financial returns. Consequently, the property has stood vacant for nearly 10 years. It has suffered broken windows, graffiti, looting, loitering, skateboard traffic, and other petty crimes. According to one neighbor, "It has been the orphan property of the neighborhood." My family and I purchased this properly iu 2007 as a long-term investment. We believe in its potential as an office/retail development, yet we see the same financial obstacles as the previous owners in delivering sufficient returns in the short-tet•m. However, given our local market knowledge and experience in real-estate development, my family is confident that The Old Creamery will succeed with the help of tax grants. This project is quite different from Gibson Mill and Locke Mill, both of which you referenced daring the meeting. Gibson Mill is comprised largely of warehouse space. This type of space requites less trp-fit expense than retail or office space. It is faster to lease and faster to start producing income. The owners were able to generate income while redeveloping other parts of the mill into office and retail. The Old Creamery, by contrast, does not have any warehouse space and cannot receive income immediately. Nor is warehouse the appropriate use for the Church Street corridor. Rather, the building requires a tremendous capital outlay to make the property available for ]ease. We cannot redevelop and receive income simultaneously, as the owners of Gibson Mill did. The Old Cteamety is also very different from Locke Mill. Locke Mill was, and still is, designated an historic site. Thet•efote, it qualified for historic tax credits, a source of income that helped snake the redevelopment possible. The Old Creamery does not have an historic designation nor does it qualify for an historic designation; therefore, it is not eligible for this type of tax credit. • Gibson Mill and Locke Mill are indeed fabulous projects, and I applaud the developers for their work. The difference between them and The Old Creamery is that these properties -especially Gibson Mill -had the ability to generate income quickly. Comparing Gibson Mill to The Old Creamery is like compat•ing a running long jumper to a standing broad jumper. The one with momentum (rental revenue) is going to jump farther. Tax grants would give The Old Creamery some much-needed momentum, as they would enable The Old Creamery to make rental rates appealing to businesses. By getting the building leased-up faster, the project will become viable in terms of offering an acceptable financial return to the owner. WHAT PRECEDENT ARE WE CREATING FOR FUTURE ADAPTIVE RE-USE PROJECTS? I believe that investing iu The Old Creamery by way of tax grants would set a uniquely wise and forward-looking precedent. It is clear that brown-field developments ate harder and more costly than their green-field counterparts. The plethora of conunercial and residential projects on green- fields demonstrates that this type of development offers relatively higher returns. However, in the 2 267 Corhan Avenue SW, Concord, NC 2802S P.O. Box 145, Concord, NC 2802~ttachmentnumber2 704.262.6314 Direct 704.792.2255 fax harris®~i~companies.coiri www.harrismorrisonc~mna°ny com