Audio: https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/pvj7x14hdfp8/
>> Your conference will begin momenta rily. Please continue to hold.
>> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Value Capture Strategies Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be given at that time. If you should require assistance during the call, please press star-o. I will now like to turn the conference over to Pepper Santalucia. Please go ahead.
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Thank you. Hi, everyone. On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, I'd like to welcome you to today's virtual webinar on Value Capture Strategies as Economic Development Tools. My name is Pepper Santalucia. I'm with the U.S. DOT Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And I'll be facilitating today's webinar. As you can see on the screen, we've got a great set of presenters for you today. And I'll be introducing you to them in more detail before each of their presentations. Our webinar will run until approximately 3:00 p.m. eastern today. We are recording the event, and that recording, as well as the slides used today, will be posted on the website. The speakers' presentations will also be available for download towards the end of the webinar. If you are interested in applying for a professional development hours or credits for your attendance today, we will also provide information towards the end of the webinar about how to obtain confirmation of your attendance today. I'm now just going to give you a quick orientation to our webinar room. In the top left corner of the screen, you'll find audio call-in information. A dial-in number, and the passcode. If you prefer to listen to the webinar by phone, instead of through your computer screen. That will also enable you to ask questions by phone if you want to do that. In the lower left corner is a chat window. We have both audience chat, that's where you can submit questions or comments during the course of the webinar. We will be fielding questions at the end of each presentation. And we'll also have time for additional Q&A at the end of the webinar. If we don't have time to address all the questions submitted, we will post written responses, along with the webinar recording and slides on the Value Capture website. If you do decide to use the phone to listen to today's events, you will have a chance to ask questions by phone, and we'll remind you about how to do that at the appropriate time. If you're interested in seeing closed captioning, during today's event, you should see a CC button, or icon, at the top of the webinar room. And if you click on that, you'll have an option -- it says show captions in that drop-down menu. And then you'll see live closed captioning. Before we get started, I invite you to participate in a short poll that I've got up on the screen now. This will just give us a chance to see who's attending today's webinar and the level of knowledge of value capture. And while you're answering questions, I will introduce our first presenters. Thay Bishop is a senior program advisor for the Federal Highway Center for Innovative Finance Support. For nearly 20 years at FHWA she has provided technical assistance and led capacity building efforts in the area of innovative finance. Prior to joining FHWA she was the Director of Corporate Finance and Treasurer for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. So, before we get Thay started, let's just take a look. It looks like we have heavy representation from state and local governments. Which is great to see. Also, a decent air of MPO representatives, MPO/RPO. And the other questions indicate that people have some familiarity with the topic. So, we're here to increase that level of knowledge for you today. So, stay tuned. At this point, Thay, I turn things over to you.
>> THAY BISHOP: All right. Good morning, and good afternoon to everyone. Welcome to the Value Capture Key Economic Development Strategies. The purpose of my briefing today is to provide you information on how to use Value Capture to leveraging Federal Funds and attract private investments. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides significant funding to modernizing roads, bridges, transit, and range of things but require matching share. Value Capture provide opportunity to meet matching requirements, so you don't leave Federal fund on the table. I will focus on key Strategies can generate substantial revenue sources to supplement Federal Fund for replacement or rehabilitation of our aging highway and attracting private investment, spur economic growth for local and regional communities. I also, provide you a brief on federal innovative finance tools can be use with tax increment revenues, that's where we focus on today, and as well provide you projects examples.
We group value capture strategies into seven broad categories. The three green logo is demonstrated, they are often work in conjunction together finance for major projects as well as infrastructure improvement support economic development. The first one is developer contribution. Can be a voluntary contribution, or compulsory contribution. Such as impact free, mobility free, multimodal impact fees, and negotiate exemption. It can be used for capital expenditures, but not operating and maintenance. The next one is the special assessments. Those are the surcharge imposed to the property owners, within the district, from either local government, or from the property owners self-imposed to fund infrastructure improving. And it can be used for operating, as well as capital expenditure. The next category is the transportation utility fees. The fees are based on usages of the transportation system. And it can be used for street maintenance, preservation, complete streets, pedestrian improving, safety improving, and the funds can actually be for operating and maintenance. Used in 36 cities, and 26 of them in Oregon, a couple in Texas, Utah, and Florida. The next category is increment growth. We are focused on tax increment finance. Basically, it is using a future increment tax revenue that generates from a new development, and economic activities. And it can be used to fund capital expenditures. The next category is joint development. This is a case where a public and the private partner together to develop a piece of property or the land that is near, above, or below the facility. And it's very popular in transit. And it can generate a moderate amount of funding to fund for capital, as well as operating and maintenance. The last category is concessions. We focus on asset recycling. Basically, you recycle the value of the infrastructure asset, by enter into the sale or enter into a long-term lease with the private sector to receive up-front money. And use those upfront moneys to fund for unfunded projects. The last one is advertising, naming rights, and sponsorships. The naming right is often use in transit, popular in sport arenas, but not allowed on highways. On highways you do see an Adopt a Highway, sponsor a highway, or you see an insurance company sponsor the maintenance or patrol vehicle fleet. We have discussed it individually, but actually in many cases they can be used together. For example, special assessment and tax increment finance often are used as a layered financing technique.
Those four value capture strategies are best suitable for economic development are Tax Increment Financing, Special Assessment District, Development Impact Fees, and Development Agreement. Tax increment finance. I just mentioned is used the future incremental tax revenues from a new development and economic activities within the district. And to financing a public improving projects needed for attract private investment. But you do need a city, county, & public-school or the local jurisdiction commitments of existing ad valorem tax base. Encourage to use "But For" test. There're about 27 states in this country requires to do the tax analysis. The next one is special assessment districts. Those are the surcharge that I mentioned earlier, that is imposed by the local government, or by self-imposed by property owner. And those property owners are the keys beneficiaries. They are the main benefits to receive those improvements. There is a proportionality between the cost and the benefits requirement. And the next one is a development impact fee. This is an upfront, one-time fee that is required of the developer to pay, to help fund additional public services, infrastructure or transportation improving that requires due to the new development. And it's required to meet a rationale nexus. The improvement projects must include in the capital improvement plan element in order for you to spend the money. The last one is the development agreement. This is voluntary but legally binding, a legally binding contract between a public sector, and a private developer. It really is a win-win negotiation technique. Because it protects a developer from the future law change, but it also protects the public sector that hold the developer accountable for what we agreed to. And we do have a separate webinar for developer agreements that dive deep into that. Tax increment finance can come in many different names. However, they do have a common objective, that is used future increment revenue to fund the infrastructure improvements -- the infrastructural projects. There are two types of tax increment finance approaches. Project specific. single project or single piece of property, funds typically used for public improvements that are necessary to support the project. It is easy to implement, and simple to manage. But, more inherent risk, because they depend on specific project development effect of just one project, which creates more difficulty in securing bond financing. Districtwide tax increment finance is typical a large land areas or entire neighborhood or multiple neighborhoods that target for redevelopment. That have multiple users, multiple businesses, multiple projects. It's typically used to fund major infrastructure improving projects. They're more complex to implement and manage. Because each individual investment requires a significant due diligence, and typical use to eliminate the blinded area and deterioration in the larger area or city or the town. So, what is the tax increment finance? It's a revenue strategy to help local governments to restore the rundown areas or jump-start the economically sluggish part of the city or town. Attracting private investments and retain businesses. And make improvements that are needed, such as new and improving roads and bridges sewer and water systems. It's viable in 49 states and the District of Columbia. It is a public and private partnership because it requires a cooperation between a government, and a private sector to stimulate the economic growth. It is also a public and a public partnership because it requires all the local jurisdictions to working together to promote the economic development. The key is that you need to keep in mind that there is no new tax requested, and no existing taxes are used to pay for the public improving project. Only the future increment revenue is used to fund for those projects. Tax increment finance is not a tax increase. But a strategy for preservation of the existing tax base. Tax increment finance does not reduce the property tax revenue available for other taxing bodies that currently received. Only the future incremental tax revenue is using for eligible expenditures within the tax increment district. Here is how the tax increment financing works. The life of the TIF district depends on the state law. As most in general about 20 to 30 years. I saw some 40. But I also see between 5 and 10 years, as well. The dark green area is representing a base tax revenue that currently is received by a local jurisdiction. This is the amount of property tax available before the Tax Increment Financing District is created. And the local jurisdiction agrees to receive the same amount for the duration of the TIF district. The light green area, those are increment future revenue that generates from new development, as well as economic activities. Those revenues going to deposit into the TIF fund, and it is going to be used to pay the debt service. As well as all the improving projects. At the end of the TIF district, the increments, and the base tax become a new tax base for all the local jurisdictions, which is much higher than they would have received without tax increment districts.
The incremental revenue can be captured by tax incremental financing typically comes from three local sources. Property taxes, sales taxes; special assessments. And that depends on your state law. You must follow your state law. Some states allow other types of incremental revenues such as Sales Tax used and/or Special Assessment in tandem with TIF. And I list on the slide is the list of the states that allow to use a combination of those incremental revenues. When we talk about the leveraging the tax incremental revenue, we talk about the dollars spent on public investment on the infrastructure relative to a private investment. And if you're looking at the tax increment finance, it's about 60 to 1. I like to do this type of quick calculation to tell how reasonable of public investment relative to private investment. Actually, the ratio between return on what the public sector invests. And its good information, when you do the analysis. And you can do that to demonstrate to the public, as well.
Tax increment finance opportunities - can generate significant gap funding to make the priority project feasible. It's a local controlled revenue, by the way. It's flexible, and really will pair with many other development financing techniques and foster the high quality of the redevelopment as well as development. It's self-financing with no new taxes. So less political resistance. And it used and accepted it in 49 states and District of Columbia, and it is really leveraging the private investment would lead to a job creation, increase tax revenue, eliminate blighted areas, and also achieve the local objective by connecting or reconnecting communities. But it also comes with challenges. Tax increment finance projects can be very complex. It requires a robust land cadaster, land assessment, and tax application capacity at the local level. It's complex. So, you have to depend on an expert advisor. So typically, you would need a consultant to do a TIF feasibility analysis. But it also is vulnerable to national and local economy. So, if you enter into a negotiation with the local jurisdictions, keep that in mind. And make sure that the agreement allows you to reforecast the revenue, and renegotiation, as well. I see some projects that survive through an economic downturn, and still meet completion schedule, because they really did an awesome job in terms of negotiations with the local jurisdiction. There are also concern or overextended use or inflated revenue projections. TIF project require a long-term view.
Increment revenue financing tools. You can pay as you go. Expenditure undertaken as increment is realized. But really is not practical. Because you have to be able to invest in the public infrastructure. And then, development happens. So, it can generate incremental revenue. Or you can have a developer finance. The developer taking on all the risks of the borrowing the money and debt issuance costs, and then the public sector just reimburses the developer for eligible costs when the increment revenue become available. And another option is the municipal finance with developer participation. This is a case where the local authority issues bonds. And the developer simultaneously plans to purchase most or a portion of the bonds. And that's really helpful in the case of the capital market issues. The last is municipality issue revenue bonds, and pledge future tax increment revenue as source of repayment. And also, then take advantage of the federal low interest rate loan, the TIFIA, state infrastructure bonds, or section 129 loans.
Let looking at the TIF bond, how it works. Because the development must occur before the tax revenue can be collected, bond issuance is commonly incurred. So, the first is the TIF district is formed, and the development occurs in the TIF district. A new property tax base collected in the same manner as the base property tax. The base revenue, tax revenue, go to the local jurisdictions that currently receives the tax revenue. And the increment revenue is deposited into a tax increment fund account. And managing by a TIF district for the permissible use such as debt service payment or surface transportation improving projects. The TIF bond proceed is for specific improving, and the bond proceeds typically go to a trustee, and the TIF district draw down the proceeds as the project expenditure occurs. When the bond is repaid, tax increment revenue reverts back to the local jurisdictions. A part of their regular tax base. And if there is any surplus, when the TIF district terminates, it can stay in a tax increment account for improving projects within the TIF district. Or return it back to the local jurisdictions.
State infrastructure bank can also be, provide a low interest rate loan, or a subordinate debt, as well. So, in typical, 80% of federal aid and 20% of state funds will be used for capitalizes of SIB, and the SIB will loan out to the different projects. And the SIB can be structured either a leverage SIB or unleveraged SIB. The leveraging SIB is where the state infrastructure bank issues bonds, pledge future loans repayment for debt payment, and loan out for additional projects. And keep in mind now, the federal fund can be used to repay a SIB payment.
Section 129 loans. This is similar to the state infrastructure bank lending but on the project specific, it can loan up to 80% of the project cost. And focus on the project specific, rather than a program base. It is advanced loan federal aid rather than using a project to capitalize the SIB. State is lending of federal aid apportionment to the project sponsor, rater than using apportionments to capitalize the state infrastructure bank. The credit terms can be flexible. The state uses its own procedures to select the loan recipients and federal highways retain the oversight for underlying project. Typically, using a section 129 loan for the project that do not meet the threshold required by TIFIA projects, or do not fit with the profile of TIFIA projects, section 129 remains a good alternative. Because both TIFIA and section 129 require that you have to have dedicated sources to repay the loan. There are only two states that are using section 129, in earlier days are Michigan and Texas.
There's another way of the minimize the cost of borrowing is that you can use tax increment finance and other funding sources to issue the senior debt. And then pay back with the tax increment revenues, and at the same time, you also have access to TIFIA low interest rate loan at the subordinate lien. That will help the senior debt significantly, and then repay the TIFIA with tax increment finance, tax increment revenue, as well. The TIFIA basically allows or the USDOT to provide direct credit assistance up to 49% of the eligible project cost, to sponsor a major transportation project. Credit assistance can take on the form of direct loan, loan guarantee, line of credit. The chart provides you the flow of the TIFIA funds. All right, keep in mind, you must have a dedicated funding source to repay a TIFIA. You cannot use a federal fund to repay a TIFIA loan.
This slide provides you a list of examples of highway transformation projects. They all have common in use multiple funding techniques. They used multiple financing options. They also either capped a portion highway for park or for development or removing the highway to a boulevard. And there's a link embedded into the project. You can click in it, and it takes you to the project details or case studies. There are much more project examples available on our website that we developed for you.
All right, here is the process of implementing tax increment finance or value capture, really depends on the state allow. But typically, this are key steps that you should take into consideration, such as you should engage the developer, cities, counties to gauge their interest, and work towards their commitments. Because you do need the local commitment. Assess value capture feasibility that will become the value capture implementation road map. Develop specific plan, and capital improvement plan element for value capital opportunity areas. Conduct special rational nexus study and code developer fee into a city ordinance. And also, that you need to do a but-for test analysis for the tax increment revenue. And also, that you need to review at inside of your district, and to make sure that there are any areas that have identified as part of the opportunity zones and set up the qualified opportunity investment zones investment funds dedicated to the value capture opportunity area, as well. So always keep in mind, that evaluate each deal as need each TIF should carefully evaluated while working with other the local taxing agencies and participating developer, structured to meet the needs. But protect the public interests. With that, I conclude with my presentation, and I'm going to turn it over to Pepper. Pepper?
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Thank you, Thay. Yes, we did get some questions in the chat. And our colleague Rick, who authored a tax increment finance primer for us that is available on the FHWA website has been helping us out and answering some questions. In the interest of time, I'm going to hold those questions that were posed, and hope that we have time at the end of the webinar to get to them. So, instead what I'd like to do is bring up our next set of -- next two presenters. And while the slides are coming up, I'll introduce them. We have Erik Frisch, and Anne DaSilva Tella from the city of Rochester. And Erik is -- Erik Frisch is the Deputy Commissioner for Neighborhood and Business Development for the City of Rochester, New York. He oversees the city's Bureau of Business and Housing Development, which is responsible for affordable, market rate mixed-use housing, economic development, and real estate programs and initiatives. Mr. Frisch has been with the city of Rochester since 2007. Also serving as manager of special projects in the department of environmental services, overseeing coordination of the ROC, the riverway initiative, which is a bold plan for Rochester's urban waterfront along the Genesee river, and the Inner North Loop transformation that you'll be hearing about today. Erik has also served as the City of Rochester as a transportation specialist, managing the city's transportation planning, traffic calming, and traffic control functions. He has played a key role in many major city initiatives, including the Inner Loop east transformation, bicycle master plan implementation, midtown rising and downtown two-way traffic convergence. Prior to working for the City of Rochester, Erik served as a program manager with the Genesee Transportation Council for nearly six years. Anne DaSilva Tella is currently the Director of Project Development in the Bureau of Business and Housing Development for Rochester. She very recently assumed this role, and before that she was Assistant Commissioner of Neighborhood and Business Development for three years. She has served the residents of the City of Rochester for close to 18 years, and in that time has transitioned through several roles including Management of Departmental Operations, work involving senior development, housing development, and general economic development. She has a master's degree in urban planning and enjoys her work in urban development. Anne is particularly interested in the push and pull between a developer's bottom line as the larger community's benefits that grow from a collaborative project. Erik and Anne, I'll turn it over to you.
>> ANNE DaSILVA TELLA: Thank you.
>> ERIK FRISCH: Thank you very much, Pepper. We are honored to be with you all today to tell Rochester's story regarding our Inner Loop Expressway. This isn't the first time that we've spoken on a webinar of this manner. So, if you've heard us before, don't worry, there's new things mixed in here. So don't just leave just yet. We're happy that you're here with us. We'll be speaking to you about the history of the Inner Loop highway, its partial removal, and subsequent redevelopment. And our plan for the complete removal of the expressway in the coming years. Before we get into that, though, I know this is a national webinar, with a broad reach, so I want to make sure that we do some ground-setting here, that we're all on the same page about Rochester. So, we are a city of 200,000 in a metropolitan area of 1.2 million. It is upstate New York. Our famed corporate trio is Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch & Lomb. And our primary historic figures are Frederick Douglass, and Susan B. Anthony. Both eternal resting places. We're known for fresh water, abundant fresh water, Lake Ontario, the Erie canal passes through our area, the Finger Lakes, and the wine region we have there. You may be surprised to know we are closer to Toronto than we are to New York City. We are Bills fans. Although it's a rough year. Had to accept that. Good season but disappointing end. And most importantly, we're not Minnesota. Although I'm sure it is a fine city, Rochester, New York. This slide has a timeline that summarizes the history of the Inner Loop. Planning for the Inner Loop was a ring road or ring highway around the center core of our city began really in the 1920s. But took on greater emphasis in the post-war period of the 1940s as a population of the city and region, exploded. But even more importantly, the number of private automobiles skyrocketed. Leading to traffic and safety concerns in the thriving downtown core, and questions about how that would negatively impact or threaten the future of downtown Rochester. So, what did they do as the style of the time? The idea was to segregate out traffic from our city streets, putting them onto limited access highways. In order to do that you need to have quite a bit of land, right? And so, design and construction of the highway -- do we still have the slides here? There we go. Design and of course construction of the highway led to the demolition of hundreds of structures around the downtown periphery. Established social networks, communities, businesses, that were segmented or relocated. It's a common story, if you're from any major city in the United States, you know this tale. Led the way to development of this sunken highway. Again, the idea being you take traffic off of the city streets, collect that traffic and distribute it around the city. It certainly did that. It helped to get cars moving and moving fast, right? What that did, of course, is facilitate the suburbanization, and of course racial and economic segregation, that persists to this day. Maybe a better way to look at that would be to simply look at aerial photography from the past. And okay, the 1930 population, or the 1930 slide on the left you can see prior to any urban renewal, or highway development, a very dense, typical older northeastern city. Almost a medieval street pattern, rather than a massive planned grid-like pattern. And if you look on the right, an image from 1960 showing us in the throes of urban renewal, you can see portions of that inner loop highway taking shape. And other urban renewal projects, the incredible amount of construction and demolition taking place at that time. In the middle between those two photos, you can see some population figures. The goal there is to demonstrate how, in 1930, the city was by far the dominant municipality in our region, accounting for more than three quarters of all residents of Monroe county, and more than half of all residents of the metropolitan area. If you go fast forward three decades, that population had begun to decline. And our share of the county and metropolitan area population had significantly been reduced as the region grew. Then move ahead another five decades to 2015. This is what the city looked like at about the time that the Inner Loop East highway removal project was beginning construction. And you can, of course, see the considerable amount of change that had taken place in this community over that time. And on the right-hand side, using census 2010 figures you can see where our population bottomed out here in the city at 210,000, while the region, county, and metropolitan area both continued to grow. And therefore, the city's share of that population further reduced, representing, of course, the hollowing out and suburbanization of the region. Now you can't tell a tale about highways in America without this conversation, and that is the love aware between redlining and highway building at the time. On the left-hand side, if you're familiar with Adam Paul DeSantis you know this conversation. It's not a surprise that the highways, highways, and redline neighborhoods seem to have gone hand in hand. That was certainly the case in our community, as well. And on the right-hand side, it also demonstrates the not so sensitive manner in which these facilities were designed to communities. In this case kind of hard to see but on the left-hand side would be the core downtown area. On the right-hand side you have our grand train station and post office. And in the middle, the highway being woven through that urban fabric, and in the green polygon there, that is a designed public square that was literally cut in half by construction of the highway. So, there's sensitively thought-out effort there. And of course, these decisions have consequences. Right? It should not be a surprise that as this neighborhood or neighborhoods north of the downtown area were being cleared for the highway, and other urban renewal efforts at that time, conflicts grew, and hostilities openly erupting in the July 1964 uprising in Rochester that left four dead. 350 injured. And over 1,000 arrested. These decisions do have consequences, and they had long-lasting consequences, at that. But the highway itself. So, this is our summarizing this facility. As I said, you know, you build a facility like this, you're going to have to demolish everything in your path. Hundreds of homes and businesses established social networks that were disrupted, people were relocated around the city. Suburbanization and segregation, as the facilities, the highways hollowed out urban communities. This particular facility, walling off downtown. People would say it created a moat, right? A sunken highway. Created a moat around downtown separating adjacent neighborhoods from the city center. Obviously along the path of the expressway, depressing property values and discouraging economic development. As it's woven into a dense, urban setting, you have safety issues, noise, and other quality of life impacts as a result. Two other things to note is that this facility was did it with a much higher traffic volume in mind than was ultimately ever realized. In fact, the section that I'll be talking about first carried traffic volumes no more than just over 10,000 cars per day in the first section that we removed. And that same section, as you can see in that picture on the lower right, was deteriorating rapidly, and required either a significant repair cost, or, as we determined, a different path. So, the planning process for this highway removal effort actually began in 1990. So, we're talking less than three decades before the facility was actually -- actually completed, we were already talking about removing a portion of it. You would say we were ahead of our time. So that vision 2000 plan comes out, and recommends bringing the facility up to grade, including land for development. 2001, we advanced that further through a federal funded transportation study indicating feasibility of the portion of the highway removal effort. It was featured in every official planning document that the city produced from 1990 on. And ultimately, the formal scoping and design process began in 2009. Probably don't need to say too much about this -- this question. But, why? Well looking at equitable outcomes for our residents is a highway that is the highest and best use for downtown land, especially considering the impact that it caused. But also, right-sizing overbuilt infrastructure. As I said, this particular section was not carrying anywhere near the traffic volume that it was built to serve. And it was costing, of course, the state of New York and the city and county significant dollars. Goals of reconnecting the neighborhood and the restoring of historic street grid, leading to hope for increases in walk act and bankability around the city center. The goal of getting people out of the cars and out on our city streets. First generating investment, and economic development. So, the Inner Loop East project was completed in 2017, and the Inner Loop North project became more about getting ready to begin the process. The timeline for Inner Loop East in detail. As I mentioned the planning study completed in 2001. Scoping and design between 2009 and 2013. Ultimately, we secured a grant through the Obama administration in 2013. And that then led to us accelerating final design quicker than we could have imagined and getting this and under construction in late 2014 and completed in 2017. Infill development, you can see the numbers here, $24 million roughly cost from soup to nuts to do this highway removal effort. It's not a massive project in terms of cost. But a very transformational effort in terms of impact. Where is it? Pay attention to this blue circle on your screen here. That is the Inner Loop East area. Project area. If you look closely as I flip ahead, you'll see in 2021 the completed, this is a year older or so at this point, but the kleetded highway removal and the development of the land that were created along this path. Maybe a better way is through our friends at Google, their feature where we can look back and forth. This is an image in 2012. One of the intersections, Charlotte Street, that was segmented for more than half a century. And fast forward and the street is reconnected, and buildings are under construction as of 2021. Union and Broad. This is where Broad Street went over the sunken highway. Note the lack of ADA accommodations on the bridge. This truly was a barrier between neighborhoods and downtown. Fast forward, and the highway is removed, and we have mixed-use development, that is a much more welcoming environment that replaced that highway. Lastly, union street and a street that didn't exist in 2012, Adventure Place showing the existence between the neighborhoods and the downtown core. And in 2022 here, infill development taking place, and a much more fine grain urbanism. I will turn it over to my colleague Anne for the next part.
>> ANNE DaSILVA TELLA: Thank you, Erik. These next two slides pertain particularly to the development of the land that was realized as a result of the transportation project. I'll quickly walk us through the disposition process and the projects that have been produced so far. And also, very quickly such on the resulting value that has realized. Just reiterating once again that there were seven development parcels resulting from the six acres of surplus land when the Inner Loop East transportation project was done. These were formed naturally by the existing street grade. So, we didn't have to do anything extra to just naturally realize these parcels in varying sizes. And so, our development efforts began in earnest in 2014, when we turned our minds to trying to envision what that area could look like by doing our land use and design guideline study. The information was used to solicit public input in a series of public meetings that resulted after the land use and design studies were done. And the information from the studies, and the public's meeting went to help us track the RFPs that we began to issue in 2016. And that RFP process ran in parallel with our efforts to acquire the land from New York State DOT. And so, we actually did start to RFP before we owned the land. But we had a level agreement on how we were proceeding with the state at that point in time. So also, developing from our land use study, public input, we were able to articulate some goals that we wanted to see as a result of any development that would occur. And these goals in the RFP, and these goals would also be used as crucial evaluation criteria as we go through the proposals that came in as part of the RFP process. It was also important for us to articulate community benefit goals so that, again, we're talking about equity here, and trying to bring more people on board to benefit from the removal of the highway, and the resulting development. And some of these community benefit goals included the requirement for affordable housing units. Generally speaking, but if it was a market rate project, we were also requiring 20% of the units to be affordable for households earning 60% or less of the area median income. We also, at the time, were requiring some publicly accessible privately owned green and open space. I can say that we didn't do too well on that. It's still a goal. But this is aspirational. We were looking for income diversity in every building. So even if it was an affordable housing project, we were trying to match the developers to include just a handful of higher income. We just didn't want to have the concentration of high end, or low-income housing in, you know, every single building. Also, we instituted some MWBE and workforce goals so that as part of the construction we could realize some equity and diversity, and also as part of the boots on the ground, we could have some of the workforce on the ground, to the community around Rochester. So, to focus a little bit more a land acquisition and the sale value. We were lucky enough to find out in 2014, between 2014, 2016, we found out that back in the late '60s when the land was being acquire ed by the state for the Inner Loop project, they acquired the land at 50% of the value. I don't know why. But it also meant that fast forward to 2016, when we're discussing with the state the basis on which we would acquire the land back from them, they agreed that we could also pay 50% of the prevailing value for the land in order to take it back for development. So, this was a really nice piece of information to have unearthed that could have easily gone -- you know, gotten lost in the mix. The other point of conversation with the state was how they would value the land. How they would appraise it, rather in order to begin this conversation on what we were acquiring for. Would they appraise it as surplus land? As in it's of less value to them as a transportation entity? Or did they want to view it as what's the highest and best use for it? And so, you know, there was some conversation back and forth. And ultimately, they decided to value it as surplus land, which obviously yields a much lower value to them. And therefore, an even lower value for us, because we were going to pay 50% of that value. Now, the city would appraise the land for sale for future development, and we would ultimately use the highest and best use value to appraise the land for sale to developers. So, as we prepared for the RFP, and to facilitate future development, actually it was us, as the transportation project, going through the SEQR, I cannot claim even credit for this foresight but the folks at the table at the time actually had the forethinking to do a SEQR that would include some assumption from future build-out volume. And if future development fell under that assumption, it would actually make the development process today a lot easier. Because the SEQR had taken those into consideration at the time. I know that our developers develop found this very useful, as they went through their site plan review process, as each site was sold, and designed for development. We also put together a mix of shelter rent, and other PILOT to be available for affordable housing and mixed-use market rate projects, respectively. The city was also going to be able to provide some low interest goens for gap financing. Nothing major. Not being a big part of the -- of the stack there. But just if there was a resulting gap and we were able to help, we would be able to come in here with some very low-interest rate loans. And also put together an Opportunity Zone prospectus, just for some, you know, support for the project. Now as the RFPs came in and projects were being selected, these are some of the sources that we found that developers, both market rate and affordable were bringing to the project. Lots of projects. I think three of the major projects are actually affordable housing projects that are funded by the state. Housing and community renewal, as well as some home funds from the city. The cash capital from the city, and just all of these sources that came in. To each of the projects. So, looking at the overall statistics of what we have today, five of the seven parcels have been fully developed. And we do have numbers here for six and seven sites that have not yet been developed. But this is what's proposed at this point in time. You know, these statistics represent those fully, and the proposed projects, as I've said. We've realized over 500 new housing units downtown, with 150,000 square feet of commercial space coming online. 65% of these housing units have just naturally occurred as affordable housing projects. Much to our pleasant surprise. Affordable housing developers really showed up and computed well in the RFP process. So, we've been able to realize a very nice mix of incomes across this inner loop site. So, a quick look back at what was proposed in our land use design guideline vision document in 2014 is the image on the right here. And the image on the left is a picture taken from Google as of 2022. And it's good to see that, in this particular case, we're not too far off the mark. I've seen many a planning study that doesn't look anything like the reality after everything is said and done. And I think we can honestly say that this is a very nice representation of what our consultants had in mind for this area, in terms of density, and bringing new residents to the downtown area. And breathing new life into downtown area, beyond your 6:00 p.m. typical work time. So, in overall summary of the value to it, is that this was a $22 million public investment in a transportation project that yielded six acres of land that was deaf identified into seven parcels. Those parcels themselves had actually leveraged $200 million in private investment from the construction funds that went into it. Which realized over 150,000 square foot of commercial space, 500-plus housing units, 170 permanent jobs, construction jobs, and I think most significantly, and staying with us going into the future, is the property values, and the assessment before, and after the project. And so, you can see, as I said earlier, how the state had appraised the land as surplus, and to them the value was just half a million. Just over half a million dollars here. The city was able to pay 50%, because that's what we were paid for it back in the '50s. And each of those parcels, being appraised for RFP back in 2016, 2017, jointly came out at about $2.7, $2.8 million. And today, when you look at the assessed value on our tax rolls, we have a $24 million-plus value here. Now, not saying this is yielding, you know, tax payments commensurate at all. You know, we have a lot of affordable housing. And as you know, those have shelter rent PILOTs. But if you just look at the sheer value this is the actual story that it tells. And so, finally, it wouldn't be wise to go into our Inner Loop North, the second segment of the project, without looking back to some of the lessons learned from our Inner Loop East process. I'm sure those will continue to unfold. But we can articulate three of them right now. I think going forward we've learned that we should start to gather data a lot earlier in the process so that when we try to look back, maybe another ten years from now, we have enough data to compare where we were, and where we would be ten years, or, you know, ten years after the development has happened. We'll keep diversity and inclusion up front and prominent in our decision from early on. And also, we learn to balance our expectations. I think our RFP, in mind sight, were very aspirational. We thought we would have a lot more commercial development than we actually realized. And this is us being aspirational, which is what the actual market reality would bear. So, we would pay a little bit more attention to that going forward. And having said all that I'll hand it back to Erik, who will close us out with the Inner Loop North. >> ERIK FRISCH: Thank you again. I know that we are running a bit long, so I'm going to go through these very quickly so that we get to the next speaker. So, as Anne alluded to, when we removed the Inner Loop East that was one segment that we have a lot more highways to remove. Mainly the section to the north. There are many reasons why that happened. Why that segment was left in play. What matters is that upon completion of Inner Loop East, recants and community leaders to the north said, why not us? And it wasn't long at all, actually, after completion of Inner Loop East that the state assembly member who represented those neighborhoods started that process which became known as Inner Loop North. This is the existing condition. And this is the area that is now proposed for removal. Our planning process began right before the start of the pandemic. So that was an interesting wrinkle in things. But we persevered, pushed through, learned Zoom like everybody else, and ultimately resulted in the completion of the planning studies last year. And the selection of a preferred consultant, or a preferred concept. There were six concepts ultimately that were presented to the public and decisionmakers. Ranging from less transformative and keeping most of the highway in place. To complete removal and restoration of the grid. This is one of the ways to look at how those different concepts fit on all the different things we were looking at. Just a summary. There's a lot more circles filled in on concept 6, which is the grid restoration. Which is the concept that was chosen. Also, important to note, we have a lot of time on our hands for Inner Loop North. The public engagement effort for the planning study was thorough and intense. We had two committees, technical and a community advisory committee as well as a racial equity subcommittee offshoot of the community advisory committee to evaluate the concept and recommendations from an equity lens. Again, that's the existing conditions, and this is the preferred concept, the grid restoration that we are now pursuing. It will create more than 20 acres of land for development. And open space and all kinds of things, in the corridor, and we actually have an RFP on the street right now, I can't say anything more about that except it is fully funded by Governor Hochul and New York City and we're ready to get moving with the certainty this will take place. These are just some concepts showing what will be. Other parts of the corridor. It's, as I said, $100 million project currently estimated. But with the way costs are going, it may end up being higher. That's the timeline we are looking at. So, thank you very much. Apologize for going long and appreciate your attention.
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Thank you very much, Erik and Anne for that. There were some questions. We're going to hold those. Anne was kind enough to answer one of them about whether parking was provided for the Roche Rochester redevelopment parcels. And if so, how far away was it. Anne responded individual developments incorporated parking within their sites to varying degrees. Thank you, Anne, for reading that, and for the benefit of others who may not be able to see the chat window right now. The -- okay, again, there are some other questions and comments that we will get back to, time permitting, toward the end of the webinar. At this point I want to introduce our last presenter. Mr. Peter J. Park. Mr. Park is a city planner and educator who has led innovative transportation and land use planning practice for over 25 years. He is the Director of Peter J. Park LLC, a community planning and design firm based in Denver, Colorado. His work focuses on creating walkable urban places of lasting value through the replacement of in-city highways that enrich street networks, place-oriented development, and form-based code. As a former planning Director of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Denver, Colorado, he oversaw the removal of an elevated highway in downtown Milwaukee. Numerous TOD planning developments in Denver, and comprehensive citywide zoning code updates in both cities. He's currently working on comprehensive planning and code reform projects in Austin, Columbus, Missoula, and several other U.S. cities. Peter, I'll toss over to you now.
>> PETER PARK: Thanks, Pepper. I'm going to share a few perspectives and lessons learned, building upon what Thay laid out as a really fantastic tool. And what our friends from Rochester described in some of the details of it super exciting and successful project. And I'm going to start with a few perspectives. Right? Choice. As Americans we like choice. We like the idea of choice. And I think one of the things in this work that we're all involved in is thinking about, well what does public improvement mean? All right. What is the definition of public improvement? You know, for example, did the folks in this neighborhood, would they choose to have this structure running in front of their homes? In front of their porches? Would these families choose to have this kind of infrastructure between their neighborhood, and their school? And this is the walk for their kids going to school. So, this question of public improvement becomes really important. Excellent cartoon that my friend Ian Lockwood who is a genius about understanding cities. It makes a really important point about, well, what do we mean by public improvement? So, I looked it up. I think this is the way that a lot of folks think about public improvement, right? Construction work. Construction under control of the government and paid for. I think as I researched a little bit further, I found this one from Tulsa, I think, this kind of beneficial, valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, intended to enhance value. And adapt to new future purposes. I like this because it really supports the theme of what our webinar is about today. It's about how do we create value? How do we capture value? And we sit right now in a significant time of opportunity. We have aging infrastructure. We still have people returning to cities. And we have successful examples of freeway decisions from around the world. The good news is our public aspects are aging. The highway trust fund revenue does not keep pace with projected spending. And purchasing power of our federal gas tax continues to fall. That's actually good news. And the ASCE, right, has for many years given us not the greatest report card in our infrastructure across the country. But you know, passenger travel has changed. The form of our cities has changed. The social demographic trends have changed. And so, it's creating significant opportunities to continue to provide opportunities for how we rethink transportation, and our investment, and our public improvement that we make into it. And there's a lot of examples of successful highway replacements. From around the country. And we have great resources. As it comes to new urbanism, highways, and boulevards initiative, which chronicles successes in freeway replacements, and identifies freeways without futures. Opportunities where organizations within cities are promoting the idea and advocating for the idea of rethinking these highways. I think one of the fundamental things to point out, especially among this body, is the recognition of the fundamental design flaw of a highway in a city. It's a limited access design, versus one that supports an urban street network. And ultimately, cities are for people. So limited access makes plenty of sense on the interstate highway crossing the country. And, in fact, the original thinkers about creating the interstate highway in the U.S. knew this. They would be a high speed, highway that you would exit off, and then distribute into the existing street network in a system of city boulevards. And Jane Jacobs, not an expert in city planning or an engineer, knew this very, very well. The importance of streets and short walks. But in many cities, as we know, what happened is the highways were cut right through neighborhoods, right through the cities, and it fundamentally is a flaw in the design. Right? Even Eisenhower who signed the Highway Act was against the idea of having these highways cut through the cities. Because the fundamental flaw is this. For example, this is the streetway in Milwaukee. In nearly a mile, in nearly one mile, there was three ways on and three ways off. Which meant all the traffic at different loading periods was kind of trying to circumnavigate through a few downtown streets to get on and off the freeway. By removing the freeway, we enhanced access. Remove the freeway, increase access to downtown, so that traffic could actually distribute throughout the grid in a more efficient way. And, you know, I mean, if we have six lanes going north/south, and four lanes going east/west, if we distribute those into a street grid, right, we have much greater capacity. Greater access, greater walkability, more development options, and it functions in a better way than having concentrated, multiple lanes on few facilities. Not unlike nature, right? If you think about it, you have a natural channel. You have a rich environment for fish, and wildlife, and for habitat of plant materials. But when we make these manmade channels, with the thought of expediting the transfer of water, we actually do not have a healthy environment. It actually kills the natural environment, and life and vitality. And that's the difference with regard to putting facilities in a city that are only for primarily the accommodation of traffic moving. Right? That robs the city of its fundamental purpose as we see getting restored in Rochester, which is. It provides access, and it provides opportunities for exchange. Social and economic exchange. And investment in people. Fundamentally, right, we make cities for people. So, this raises the question about how we make investments in our infrastructure in ways that increases capacity, that adds choices and creates places, versus our goal being simply resolving for congestion. Here's another cartoon by Ian. If you think about what is the capacity of a street? If you think of accommodating vehicles, that's all we ever get. But if you think about in terms of the capacity of streets for people, for land use, for amenities, for services, for a change of mobility choices, then we get better cities. And it's a simple kind of math problem of how much space does it take if we're trying to move this many people. If we think of different configurations of mobility options. And so, the capacity of the street, as we think about an inner city, is really benefited when we think about the multiple stage. We make investments in our infrastructure that accommodate both possible modes. Fundamentally this is what we're about in this webinar is return on investment. So, some lessons learned. From work that I've been involved in, is you need to prioritize this idea of return on investment for the local community, and think about how we design, and how we invest, not spend public money, but invest public money, in ways that add value, and allows opportunities for value capture. I love this drawing from 1909 in Milwaukee. And the city was swelling. And what I love about it is it shows accommodations for transit, accommodations for cars, accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. And this beautiful tree-lined street, a street, not a road, but a street designed so beautifully that one would want to have their address on it. That private investors would want to invest on that beautiful street and be on that address. Right? Those in real estate, location, location, location. Right? So, thinking about how we invest in infrastructure that creates value this way. Versus thinking of traffic as a problem. And this failed idea. Of just simply leaving the city. So, this idea of return on investment, this idea of value capture, creating value, certainly has played out, right? Every time a freeway comes out of a city, the neighborhood got better. Things got better. There's no case where a freeway was in that it helped the neighborhood or that value in lands or opportunity increased. So, you're all familiar with TOD or Transit Oriented Development. I think about it more like DOT. Maybe we can repackage the acronym of DOT. I think about it in terms of development Oriented Transportation. That is to say how do we think about transportation choices in support of the kind of development, and the kind of places that we want to make. Denver union station is a great example of a multi-modal effort that incorporates light rail, single rail, and track bus, regional bus, and restores a historic station in downtown Denver. And the thing that's critical is that by design raerks than just making a station, a central station, the idea of this design really was based on the value capture perspective of how we design in a way that creates actually a regional transit initiative and distributes the transit element in ways that are convenient to passengers, and users of transit, but also provides high access and connectivity, and opportunities for new development. This project was one of the first -- was the first project that combined TIFIA and RIF loans. And it was about $500 million total in terms of cost that is leveraged over $3.5 billion worth of new development in and around union station. Right? And it exceeded revenue projections in ways that allowed regional transit districts to refinance at a lower interest and save around $134 million in the project. So, the key here, I believe, is that we focus on making a place for people. That provides enormous transportation benefit, as well as, not an either/or situation, as well as creating places for people. So, I'm from Colorado. So, I think the lesson from this is POT. Not the kind that you're thinking about, what I'm talking about place Oriented Transportation. That we think about our transportation investment, as contributing and creating new places. Just as in Seoul, Korea, for example, the revitalization of a river, after the removal of a tax and a freeway tax in Seoul, Korea. So, a significant lesson here, I think, especially from Milwaukee, and I think what happened in Rochester, is that there's no -- you can't plan too early. Right? Especially local government. Should be planning, thinking about, well, what is the future of our downtown? What is the future of our city? And it needs to be an urban vision, and one that's based on broad community input. In 1999 when we did the first downtown Milwaukee plan, we identified a whole number of initiatives from the downtown public market, to converting one-way back to two-way. As well as thinking about removing the Park East Freeway. We had no idea how much it would cost. We had no idea when it would happen. But our vision for the next 20 years of downtown Milwaukee did not include rebuilding the freeway. And so, it was obvious what a terrible value killing piece of infrastructure this was. And so, we created different images of what could replace that elevated freeway. And the critical thing was removing the freeway, but actually increasing the capacity by adding more street network. And so, we were prepared, we had a plan, we had a vision. So, when Harley-Davidson wanted to build, we call the Harley experience, which is the Harley museum, and a whole bunch of other facilities for hosting concerts and other entertainment, and conclaves of Harley riders from around the world, they originally looked at this site that we had envisioned in the downtown plan. And there were very excited about this idea. And so, because of their interest, right, a private company's interest in building this major piece of entertainment, destination draw, that actually fit within the downtown plan vision. And the site that they wanted is actually where, and we went to the governor and the county executives and conslinsed them that removing the highway would make sense because it would create the opportunity for other economic development opportunities. And take that nearly mile length of elevated highway of the books for the state. So, you know, again, that's a value proposition perspective. It's a, how do you -- how do you fit land in a city that had been ruined from a highway? Today, there's a conversation going on in Milwaukee, and a really fantastic group of people rethinking another community. There are two -- there's one remaining elevated downtown freeway in Milwaukee. The 794. And this group is promoting the idea and the discussion about, well what if we move to continue to reconnect the grid in downtown Milwaukee, what might it provide? And so, here right now, at this moment, the city is working on a downtown sign-up space. The state of Wisconsin is looking at this corridor. And we have a federal government that has identified explicitly identified the opportunity for rethinking these sorts of conditions. So, seems to me that the stars are aligning for cities like Milwaukee and Rochester, and all of our emerging cities, in rethinking what can be done. And we have lots of proof, in the case of Milwaukee, on the other side of downtown, to show what could happen. And again, in the case of Milwaukee, you know, that was about $25 million of TIFIA money that the state and the county and the city had not been able to come to agreement around, but, with the Harley-Davidson's interest in that land, we were able to get that money committed to removing the freeway, a tax increment district was created. And the land has continued to excel, and it's average assessed value, rising. And nearly a billion dollars of new development has happened in downtown Milwaukee. Another piece of this, and this is very much for the local audience is, you know, not only plan early, but also code. Have very clear and traditional regulations. In Milwaukee we made a very simple form-based code. Simple regulating plan. That focused on the basics of ground stories and creating a very predictable process for development, review, and permitting. And so that led to a significant amount of investment in and around the corridor. Including new entertainment, and the Milwaukee Bucks arena, and a whole new district focused on not just entertainment, but also housing. And created a great opportunity for partnership between the Medical College of Wisconsin, Greater Hospital, and the Bucks in providing health services and sports training in the area. I think this is maybe a really important piece in thinking about, you know, when these freeway replacements can happen. Is the focus on the local community, owning the land? And to provide and prioritize the swift transfer of land, of unencumbered land, and control of that land. In the case of Milwaukee, you know, here's the area, there was quite a lot of land, about 25 acres. The land that's in kind of the yellowish orange would go to Milwaukee county. Not the city, but Milwaukee county. Because the county was the entity that acquired the land when the freeway was built. And we were, you know, in negotiating with the state, and federal government, what I think was really critical here is we didn't have to reimburse for the land. The land just basically transferred back to the county. And I think that, you know, this is a really important topic, because in terms of remaking cities, in terms of creating value, the opportunity to do more public good has a lot to do with, well what's the basis in the land? And starting point. So, in this case in Milwaukee, that land, the county was not required to reimburse. And I will tell you that what happened after removing the freeway, when the confirmation the freeway was coming out is a lot of land got developed outside of this corridor. And honestly, some of the land that was publicly controlled, critics were saying, you know, that the land was languishing, this is a bad idea, so and so forth. But politics aside, the reality of it was that, you know, in the demolition, there was some subsurface positions that weren't removed, which were obviously pretty significant for the freeway. So, these obviously affected the value of the land. And ultimately, Milwaukee county sold the land, and saw significant new investment. But, you know, that's kind of the -- that's kind of the thing is that, you know, be very cautious, and be very aware of what is going to happen in terms of the land that we're receiving. I think that's where it's critical, if the basis in the land was zero, or very low, what happened in Milwaukee is that there's a community benefit agreement, so the local public entities have more ability to provide for affordable housing requirements or green space and green design or prevailing lakes. Whatever those public goods might be could be significantly enhanced through the land. So, this fundamental is ending about leadership. What we all know is politics is local. And so, in the last decade or so, right, we've been seeing some really great movement towards rethinking these highways. But ultimately, I think, so much of this relies on Mayors. And their dedication to this idea that investment in public infrastructure can leverage greater good. Benefits, land value, and greater taxes, tax base and opportunities for jobs and housing. Just in conclusion, land. They're not making it anymore. So, when we think of the freeway corridors that cut through our cities, and split our neighborhoods, there's quite a lot of land there, that planned well with high connectivity street networks creates significant opportunity for new investment. And while the original freeway movement was about solving for congestion, the reality is that well, you know what? People coming together is what makes great places. And we need to think about how we make our cities, and how do we make our investments in our infrastructure supportive of people. So, a few last parting thoughts. Success requires strong community support with extraordinary leadership and political will. Local leadership is important. I don't think that any of these highways are ever going to be replaced with street networks and new developments, if it's only, you know, reliant on federal or state or metropolitan government. Local is what matters. What's also necessary is the urban vision for the city. Not dominated by the automobile, that prioritizes the short trip versus the long trip. Decision processes driven by long-term community investments, versus spending federal allocations on projects within given time frames. A right-of-way -- sorry, a return-on-investment priority for the local community. Local land control is critical. Recognizing, finally, that it's not technical, it's political. Right. I mean that's the reality of it. And as I said, on, you know, left to the normal process, our ability to change how we think about these kinds of expenditures actually being about partnerships, and investment for the future, is only going to happen if, at the local level, there's a lot of drive and there's a lot of advocacies. So, thanks. I look forward to our discussion.
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Thank you, Peter. One quick thought that I had before we get to everyone else's questions was, to what extent does Milwaukee need to or decide to use value capture techniques like tax increment finance or special assessment to generate revenue for -- from that development that occurred there once the highway was slated for removal?
>> PETER PARK: Yeah, sure. So, the money that was available from the state was about $25 million, as I mentioned, which was kind of just remaining money from, I don't know. And that mostly went to removing the highway. Which I think for the state seemed like a deal because it would cost $100 million to replace it, when the time came for it to be replaced. So, $25 million was for the removal. But the reconnection of the street grid, the fixes of the sea wall along the Milwaukee river, building a new bridge across the Milwaukee river, and underwriting some of the environmental challenges, for some of the private developments, was the primary purpose of the city putting together a tax incremental district.
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Okay. And technically financing was also an element of that then for the project that you also referenced?
>> PETER PARK: I think -- not in the same way. The -- yeah, I mean, the composition of our funding sources, as I mentioned, primarily were about $300 million in TIFIA and RIF loans and the remaining part were from grants, a variety of grants and contributions of RTD and some other statement of funds. But again, I think there's one story about Denver is that the majority of the funding was in the form of loans. Right. Which means that, the proposition is that the resultant development that would happen would be relied upon to repay those loans. Which means that you have to think strategically. Right? And smart about how to design the development and the land use and the public spaces and the public infrastructure in a way that creates that lasting value. And as I mentioned, I think the fact that so much focus was on the quality of the design, and just the market strength of Denver, allowed us to actually exceed projections and refinance to a lower interest rate, and save money.
>> PEPPER SANTALUCIA: Great, great. Before we engage our other presenters, there was one question specifically for you, Peter, about how do you think MCOs can support municipalities with regard to development oriented or place-oriented transportation?
>> PETER PARK: I think particularly, A, promote the perspective of it, right? And support local communities in their planning. Promote the ideas of value capture.
