Rust Belt Resurgence: The Queen City Skyway Technical Proposal - James Jacobik by James Jacobik

Rust Belt Resurgence: The Queen City Skyway

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1

Page

1.0 - Project Overview 02 1.1 - Project Goals 06 1.2 - Precedent [Projects & Attributes] 11 1.3 - Scenario Planning 16

Section 2

2.1 Development - Precedent 21 2.2 Development - Existing Conditions 28 2.3 Development - Proposed Design 38

Section 3

3.0 Transit- Overview 75 3.1.1 Transit - Precedent 78 3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions 80 3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design 90 3.2.1 Transit - Railway - Precedent 3.2.2 Transit - Railway - Existing Conditions 3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design 3.2.4 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design Alternates

103 105 107 114

3.3.1 Transit - Public Metro / Bus - Precedent 3.3.2 Transit - Public Metro / Bus - Existing 3.3.3 Transit - Public Metro / Bus - Proposed Design

117 119 121

3.4.1 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Precedent 3.4.1 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Existing Conditions 3.4.3 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Proposed Design

126 128 131

Section 4

4.1 Funding - Local Capital Funding 135 4.2 Funding - State Funding 136 4.3 Funding - Federal Funding 141 4.3 Funding - Other Funding Sources 144

Section 5

5 Sources 145

SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2

1 Project Overview - Project Narrative The Buffalo Skyway Corridor is presented with a prospective complete revitalization of previously uninhabited industrial brownfield sites. The main objective of this design proposal is to connect the inner and outer harbor regions without the need for individualized transportation, while comfortably providing all aspects of the inhabitantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s everyday needs. This vision promotes active mobility and transit-oriented development to secure economic resilience, the health and longevity of the local population, and environmentally sustainable urban growth practices. The proposed design promotes economic growth for the City of Buffalo and the City of Lackawanna by capitalizing on unused industrial parcels, prioritizing taxable properties while creating new employment opportunities. The new vision for the Buffalo Skyway Corridor is one without the need of a replacement skyway bridge once the 1953 bridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lifespan has run its course in 2040. The research conducted for this design was formed from community engaged design scenarios, previous publicly supported proposals, the Water Revitalization Program, Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program, various traffic and bridge removal studies, and successfully implemented sustainable Urban Growth Models from cities around the globe. The automobile accounts for one-fifth of the average household monthly income. The majority of households in the City of Buffalo earn $4,888 less than the median household income in the United States, making a dependency on automobiles impractical as 23% of the local population lives at or below the poverty line. Additionally, the dependence on automobiles severely impacts Buffaloâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy. From maintenance costs to lost tax revenue from underdeveloped areas that are hindered by roadways. The heavy use of individualized automobiles costs millions of dollars for the City of Buffalo alone. The solution for the City of Buffalo is a dense, multi-use development strategy supported by a series of rail systems that utilize the existing rail infrastructure to accommodate recreational, medical, and daily needs of residents.

1 Project Overview - Design Narrative The design is strategically phased over time to attract tourists, new residents, and former sprawlers throughout the development process all while decreasing the dependency on automobiles and thus, decreasing the costs the City would spend for roadway upkeep, allowing the City to use such funds for a more meaningful application. Phase I will consist of the implementation of a light rail system on existing rail infrastructure adjacent to Ganson Street, forming a connection to the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western (DL&W) Terminal, providing public transit from the Outer Harbor to the Inner Harbor and to the University at Buffalo South Campus. Phase I will also accommodate those commuting from the Southtowns, a Rapid Transit System will utilize existing CSX rail lines that will connect to a new transit station, joining the Furman Boulevard Bus route Ganson Street public rail lines. Phase I will also provide accessibility through the newly designed outer harbor, an autonomous driveless public bus system will be implemented on Furhmann Boulevard, passing through various mixeduse buildings in the new outer harbor neighborhood. The new street rail will provide access into the City from the former Bethlehem Steel Complex, Tifft Nature Preserve, Buffalo Harbor State Park, the planned First Buffalo River Marina, and the Queen City Bike Ferry.

Proposed Design Elements with key context buildings

Phase III will provide an iconic aerial tramway that will link the inner and outer harbors together using the existing piers after removal of the skyway deck . This new and affordable public rail system promotes the Urban Growth Model of Transit-Oriented Development by optimizing accessibility for residents while simultaneously increasing the surrounding land value, providing an increase in tax revenue for the City of Buffalo and the City of Lackawanna.

Rust Belt Museum Canalside Segment

1 Project Overview - Design Narrative To provide more attraction to the City of Buffalo while capitalizing on the iconic 1953 Skywayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing structural members, a Rust Belt Museum Series will be developed along the demolished 1953 Skyway Corridor, connected by an aerial tramway. The aerial tramway represents a symbolic gesture to the iconic Buffalo Skyway while providing a captivating and interactive connection to both the inner and outer harbors. The Rust Belt Museum Series will be segmented into four sections. The first segment will be constructed where the I-190 and Skyway Corridor connect, providing a buffer from the I-190 to the future development of Canalside. The second segment will be constructed adjacent to the Buffalo River overlooking Lake Erie and Canalside, featuring an observation area to experience one of the tallest structures in Buffalo. The third segment of the museum will be constructed across the water from Canalside on the inner harbor, just south of illuminated grain silos. The Fourth and final segment will be located at the start of the earth berm of the Route 5 corridor.

Rust Belt Museum North (First) Segment

The Rust Belt Museum Series will provide patrons with an educational, cultural and perceptual adventure while experiencing the beauty of Buffaloâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural waterfront. Project Statistics: Transit Rapid Transit System from hamburg to DL&W and Bike Ferry: $99,825,000 Personal vehicular street improvements: $24,914,000 Driveless Bus (Ai) Fleet and stations along Furhmann Blvd: $4,000,000 Active Mobility (Walk, bike, etc..) Pathway Improvements: $610,000 Total: $129,349,000

Development:

Combine Phases Residential 729 Housing Units (706,000 SF) Commercial 59,500SF 52,000SF of Retail 29,000SF of Restaurant Total SF: 849,798 SF Jobs: 174 Jobs Total Costs: $140M Total Revenue $16,773,379 / Year

Rust Belt Museum Third Segment and observation deck

SECTION 1.1 PROJECT GOALS

1.1 Overview - Overall Design Goals - EcoDesign INHABITANT NEEDS

•Quality and fulfilling living

EcoDesign

ENVIRONMENT NEEDS •Retain Integrity

Embrace and Manage Complexity

Draw on many Design Methods

Respect The Natural and The Built Context

6 Axioms OF EcoDesign

Sustainable Population Growth and Economic Growth

Inter-disciplinary Design Strategies

Require Public Involvement 7

1.1 Overview - Overall Design Goals - EcoDesign (Continued)

EcoDesign

AXIOM 2 Sustainable Population Growth and Economic Growth

AXIOM 3 Inter-disciplinary Design Strategies

•Accommodate growth without trading off the ability of people’s needs in the future and secure wealth of the future without dangerously destabilizing natural systems. •Make intelligent compromises among factors of place, people, and setting that are necessary to maximize freedoms and flexibilities while preserving or creating resilient, complete, healthy, and wholesome places. •Facilitate and manage growth in the places where there is high market demand but also constrain or deny growth in some other places which have reached their natural carrying capacity or are oversubscribed and / or unsuitable fordevelopment. •Look back at places that are already urbanized but have been left behind by changing market forces. These places have an infrastructure of services and facilities in place that can accommodate growth that should be reused rather than wasted.

•Integration of the artificial and natural environments needs to include specifics of the immediate situation and the totality of the context within which the design must be created. •Configure a multi-disciplinary or interdisciplinary design process by acknowledging special expertise (Data). •Design based on all relevant factors can often go in an unanticipated direction, finding opportunities to create valuable innovations.

AXIOM 4 Require Public Involvement.

AXIOM 5 Respect The Natural and The Built Context.

AXIOM 6 Draw on many design methods.

•The city design and development process should involve wide public engagement from the very first tentative conceptual thoughts to the complete project. •Public involvement is one of the ways that the design process accommodates diversity and keeps us from channeling everything in a single direction. • A successful public process will secure genuine public contributions to shape designs and widespread public support to implement designs. This kind of process is already widely accepted for master plans. •Inclusivity and participation should always be valued, because they draw on the dynamic variety of human action, human culture, human transactions. Unique local knowledge is tapped and hidden implications are discovered. •Peer review can provide the kind of inquiry and critique that identifies weaknesses and unanticipated consequences.

•There is integrity to the natural and built settings in which we design, and there are emotional values and embedded resources and energy in what already exists. •Begin with a clear, conceptual, and technical understanding of the environmental and social systems to improve them. •In all design situations, the first consideration should be to conserve, reuse, and recycle before destroying and disposing. Heritage is a resource waste is a resource, everything in the existing situation is a potential resource. •Design for the specific situation. Stewardship of the built and natural assets can offer solutions using less energy and fewer resources and avoiding unexpected side effects. •Mindful of the relations, networks, politics, and personal needs of society. Build with acommitment to civility, equity, fair treatment, and mutual help and respect. •Have a clear picture of the economy, how designs affect financial feasibility, how the design fits into the larger economic position of a region, and how their work can help create new opportunities for individuals and for society as a whole.

•Explore and use many promising concepts of modern city building without feeling hindered by a commitment to a single idea. There should not be one constraining ideology but rather an approach that provides reconciliation and combination of different design ideas. •Modern technology gives us fascinating new structural material and technological possibilities to reshape buildings and places. Advances in systems thinking can help us understand and manage that complexity that’s so important. •Employ the principles of traditional city design to reestablish the human scale and coherence of our cities, especially as we learn how to tame the car. •Always integrate the fundamental principles of environmental protection. •Participate in the emerging movements of architectural expression and apply contemporary themes of fine art.

AXIOM 1 Embrace and Manage Complexity •In cities as in nature, diversity is both spontaneous and structured into logical systems and organic interrelationships. •People don’t just build cities, they constantly change them. •Accepting and dealing with wide variations in human expression is vital because it yields balances, benefits, and possibilities that create a fascinating, robust, and satisfying place. •People have basic functional, Spiritual, and perception requirements. •Social and commercial networks and patterns confer meaningful. associations to their physical setting. the imperatives of nature to manage the human options. •The natural landscape offers a cue for urban design development within the carrying capacity of the landscape, understanding and working with local climate effects, and using natural systems as part of the infrastructure.

1.1 Overview - Overall Design Issues

EcoDesign

Adapting to Climate Change while Limiting Global Warming

Making Cities More Liveable, Economically Susained, and Environmentally Compatible

Balancing Cars and Other Transportation

4 Issues EcoDesign Solves

Designing and Managing The Public Realm

1.1 Goals - Overall Project Design Observations Economically Resilience:

Health and Longevity of Local Population:

Environmentally Sustainable Local Economy

•

The public realm has to inform us of our culture, where we’ve come from and what kind of people we are. Design future communities for a hopeful present.

• •

Do not accesorize sustainability.

•

The dwelling place of our civilization and civic life is the Physical manifestation of the common good.

• •

Define spaces with quality of character.

•

Protect farm land, parks and natural areas. Urban Rail yard, are not being used due to function being used in outlying areas. Waterfront areas have declined due to alter native transportation methods / routes. Warehouse districts have declined due to moved major ports. These leave major brownfield sites to adaptively re-used / rezoned to hinder a new development’s carbon footprint.

•

Overcome the costly suburban sprawl and attract empty nesters, recent graduates, and the unemployed while using existing infrastructure.

•

Raise personal equity and reduce automotive dependability, the automobile is 1/5 of the monthly income of the average American.

•

Create a Demand for Multi-use Urban Environments. A single use neighborhood used only 8 hours a day cannot sustain a rising Buffalo economy, a dense living, working, and recreational environments to grow communal wealth that is able to sustain, circulate, and grow the local economy.

•

Shared use spaces co-live / co-work.

•

Invest in people; Support Innovative public services job opportunities

•

Plan for future trends in technology to enhance Urban Infrastructure.

•

Repair, renew and redesign housing for a changing population

•

Transit Oriented Development to correct sprawl, the more access and connectivity will allow adjacent land uses to generate revenue.

•

Population growth, ecological threats, and climate change all make it more critical to efficiently manage and protect limited freshwater resources. By 2030, it is estimated that fresh water demand could outpace supply by 40%. Currently, the average water loss due to leakage is estimated at 25-30%, with some utilities agencies allowing it to rise to over 50%. Water retention and monitoring is crucial for the local population longevity.

•

Reduction of Traffic Incidents (Including Active Mobility) by smart grid systems and rail implementation.

•

Increased access to food sources, daily needs accessible within walking distance (one mile radius / 15 minutes.

Properly allocate resources.

CO2 Per household (Ed Galser) values prefer dense Ubran Environments.

SECTION 1.2 PRECEDENT [PROJECTS & ATTRIBUTES]

1.2 Project Precedent - Precedent 1 - Vancouver Process and Funding

Almost all the cost of this commonwealth of amenities is secured from new projects as developer contributions and almost no capital funds need to be drawn from the tax base or public borrowing. Shorelines have been constructed to regenerate marine life and offer recreation and discovery. New investment turned the ideas into action and the whole inner city was quickly and dramatically transformed, creating what has been popularly dubbed as Vancouverism.

Use of The Existing Built Enviornment

Civic leaders decided it would be cheaper and easier to cluster population growth into a few dense town centers but especially in the inner city where most jobs were located. This inner city sits on a large peninsula, and it has lots of room to grow by replacing obsolete rail yards and warehouse areas.

Close Proximity Design

Almost 120,000 people live comfortably in the core city in a densed, mixed use, walkable, and gracious arrangement. The population includes not just singles and empty nesters but also thousands of families with children, low-income households, and people with special needs. A constellation of neighborhoods with varied housing types, local shops, some dispersed workplaces, plus community and commercial services clusters around a business center with just short of 200,000 jobs. These places are all enclosed within a well-developed open space system of parks and beaches, pedestrian walkways, and protected bikeways. Origins and destinations for jobs, housing, recreation, and day-to-day activities are very close together. In Vancouver’s growth model, there’s a big emphasis on amenity, attractive architecture and landscape, protected views of the mountains and water, shelter from the weather, cultural and community facilities, nightlife, a vivacious sidewalk culture, and a domestic feel in neighborhoods. The sprawling suburbs are not performing nearly as well as the core city.

Public Input

There’s peer review and public review of all proposals. And all specific development approvals are made in public outside the political context of city council. The politicians adopt the plans and policies and audit the processes, but day-to-day decisions on development applications are made by experienced professionals with careful input of citizens and peers and proponents. Hundreds of thousands of people were involved in designing the overall plan and the area planned for Vancouver’s inner city.

Active Mobility

Over 60% of the trips are made by non-motorized modes, mostly people walking but also bicycling and even using skates. Fewer commuters come into the core city in their cars every year, even though the job base is growing. Improved transit and better proximity are handling the growth. Walking and cycling have become the natural way to move around, bringing exercise into everyday activity. Walking trips are usually short, about 15 or 20 minutes or less. Walking from one extent of the core city to another need take no more than 45 minutes. Walking and skating is comfortable, enjoyable, healthy, and much more convenient than auto or even transit travel.

Vehicular Circulation

Now the car is definitely accommodated, but urban activity does not defer to the car or give it more than basically adequate space. There are no freeways into the core city. Most other trips are on transit, including a local bus system and rapid transit for longer trips.

Surface Parking

There are almost no surface parking lots. Some of the old automobile infrastructure is being demolished and the land used for more productive and diverse purposes. The street system supports all transportation modes, and the public realm is a complete network that ties everything together.

Enviornmental Design Local landscape supports urban wildlife. Waste recycling is pervasive. District energy plants are being expanded. Cutting edge new standard for advanced systems for managing waste water and energy. Prime agricultural land is protected throughout the region. And the overall prevailing density of the region is about twice that of Seattle, a similarly sized American city nearby. The core city is the closest to carbon neutral of any place in North America.

SHORTCOMINGS

Vancouver, despite its many successes, still falls short of what we need for comprehensive ecodesign. It continues to have vexing sustainability and livability issues. Housing affordability is an increasingly difficult problem, and while homelessness has decreased from previous years, it’s not yet eradicated. Auto dominant still prevails, traffic can be frustrating, pollution still exists, and newer neighborhoods are incomplete. So this is only a partial success, and partial successes are not going to be enough in the future. But Vancouver has made a commendable start,and it is a good place to reference.

1.2 Project Precedent - Precedent 2 - Helsinki Process and Funding

Helsinki, the capital of Finland, is one of the fastest growing cities in metropolitan areas in Europe.The cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2050 plan, and the vision it shares with the other communities in the region, is to accommodate future growth without urbanizing any more land. Instead, growth will fill in under-used areas around multiple new centers of development supported by an extended transit network, again without Urbanizing new land outside the city. The plan removed expressways inbound and outbound from the city, then constructed boulevards that incorperate neigborhoods and a street railway sytems. Land use tradeoffs from highways to neighborhoods were a boost to tax generation.

Use of The Existing Built Enviornment

Helsinkiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2050 plan is a complete reversal of this history of decentralization, that starts with infill development. Two important ways to increase the number of people and jobs in the central part of the city. In 2008, the city moved the loading and unloading of container shipping from outmoded docks in the center of the city to a new location. This freed 250 hectares which is rougly 618 acres, of prime waterfront land for development. A newly redeveloped waterfront area included a new business area along existing railway tracks.

Close Proximity Design

Future EcoDesign planning in Pasila, a neighorhood of Helskinki is programmed for 20,000 inhabitants and 50,000 jobs by 2040 Future EcoDesign planning Lansisatama, a neigborhood programmed for 22,000 inhabitants and 8,000 jobs by 2030. All neighborhoods have access to public transit, office incubators and innovation centers for new/ emerging tech industries. The most recent proposal is to deck over the highway that runs through the development for parkspace and and build four new lowrise towers and a concourse system, both adding space for more jobs and making it easier to make pedestrian connections among the different buildings.

1.2 Project Precedent - Precedent 3 - Portland Process and Funding

Faced with economic malaise toward the end of the last century along with strong competition from suburban centers, the leaders of Portland decided to be proactive about the future of their downtow by establishing a metropolitan growth boundary policy in 1979. They decided to make it more accessible, more attractive, and more diverse with the intention of not only growing their jobs base but also their resident population by investign in transit, cycling routes, and enhancements for walking. Portland’s core city is now competitive with its suburbs and it’s competitive with other cities. It’s also more and more sustainable, with this factor becoming part of the vivid story of what is popularly now called Portlandia.

Use of The Existing Built Enviornment

Close Proximity Design

Another area of redundant industrial and warehousing adjacent to the Willamette River has been totally redeveloped into what is now known as the South Waterfront District. Developed in the early 2000s, this predominantly high rise and townhouse area now has over 5,000 people in almost 3,000 households with 60% affordable rental rates. It has its own waterfront walkway, bikeway, new park land, local shops, restaurants, and some offices. It calls itself an ecodistrict because of sustainability measures and green construction. New construction represents some of the best architecture for mid-rise construction in North America. In addition, new park and walkway investments then rounded out the offerings for a complete, tight, and attractive community of over 6,000 people in about 4,200 households over 2/3 of which are rental and therefore, generally affordable.

Heritage buildings have been restored throughout the inner city, dramatically enhancing the overall ambience and hospitality of the streetscape. While many cities talk about removing unnecessary automobile infrastructure, Portland has taken decisive action that has opened up significant opportunities for the core city by removing the negative impactful highways. In the 1970s, Harbor Drive was demolished and replaced with Tom McCall Waterfront Park extending dramatically along the Willamette River shoreline. In the 1990s, most of the Lovejoy Viaduct was removed, opening up the potential for a new residential area in the northwest sector of the inner city that’s now very well established. Now there’s talk of more roadway demolitions to remove what are clearly excess dedications of land for auto movement causing unnecessary impacts on properties nearby. Beginning in the early 1990s, a vast area called The Northwest Industrial Triangle was becoming increasingly obsolete with major negative impacts on the image of the city. The railroad and warehousing and industrial operations were no longer viable in that particular location, Lingering industrial tombs were repalced with dense mix use waterfront developemnt along new transit lines. The removal of the Lovejoy Viaduct set off a major redesign and redevelopment of the area which was then renamed the Pearl District, first repurposing solid large floor plate industrial and historic buildings into housing and office and shops and then infilling with stylish mid-rise buildings which extend that mix of uses.

Active Mobility

Public Input

SHORTCOMINGS

Public initiatives have stimulated widespread private sector activity to develop new workplaces and housing. And this investment has accomplished a primary public objective of the city, which has been to repopulate the inner city, bringing back the vibrancy and energy that was traditionally there.

Equally innovative has been smart and sustained investment in the public realm. Not just to key locations but throughout the inner city. Minor streets are closed to traffic for walkablility a term named “small streets.” Portland has one of the most elegant and pervasive streetscaping programs in North America, focusing on landscaping and hardscaping of sidewalks and leftover street rights of way, creating a comfortable, safe, and fascinating setting for walking and for relaxation along all the local streets. Street tree planting has been a priority for many years, and the result is a shaded attractive perspective of trees along almost every walking street promoting a humane public environment. Public parks have been upgraded with landscape, public art, fountains, water play features, and furnishings.

Vehicular Circulation

Pivotal to everything was enhancement of transit. Tax money was poured into a balanced transportation system. The transit mall concept was put in place in the downtown for buses, and it was extended and upgraded in 2007, 2009, for rail transit. The city has a Four-line grid of light rail transit connecting downtown to suburban centers. Mixed use and diversification in densification was facilitated around those suburban transit stops and centers. Streetcars in the central area were introduced in 2001. And then in 2009, commuter rail began, at that time one of only three such new systems in the United States. 13% of commuters travel by rail transit.

It suffers from pervasive homelessness. Its suburbs continue to sprawl, challenging the growth boundary. And in some cases, neighborhood services lag behind demand.

1.2 Project - Transit Oriented Development - U.S. Comparison Outlook Peer Group

Buffalo, New York

Cincinnati, Ohio

Minneapolis, Minnesota

St. Louis, Missouri

Portland, Oregon

Percent of housing units built pre-1980 Vacancy rate Home value to income ratio Homeownership rate Percent rent-burdened households Share of metropolitan area population Median monthly housing costs Labor force participation rate Unemployment rate Percent change in population, 2000-2017 Median household income Total population Change in labor force participation rate Labor share of manufacturing Change, labor share of manufacturing, 1970-2017 Median family income Change in median family income, 2000-2017 Share of metropolitan area population Percent foreign-born Percent of families with children Percent of population 20-64

92.5% 16.2% 2.3 41% 54.1% 2.8% $721 59.4% 8.8% -11.3% $34,268 259,574 1% 8.5% -73.4% $41,837 -8.3% 22.8% 9.4% 54.7% 61.7%

85.8% 15.9% 3.4 37.7% 49.3% 13.9% $777 65.7% 10.4% -9.8% $36,429 298,957 2.7% 10.1% -64% $48,567 -13.2% 13.9% 5.5% 52.7% 62.1%

79.8% 6.1% 4 47.4% 48.6% 11.7% $1,103 74.2% 6% 7.5% $55,720 411,452 2.1% 8.6% -58.2% $78,227 8% 11.7% 15.9% 51% 67.3%

87.7% 20.7% 3.2 43.5% 51.4% 11.2% $829 65% 9.4% -9.6% $38,664 314,867 4.5% 8.5% -69.5% $49,555 2% 11.2% 6.8% 49.4% 65.5%

71% 6% 5.7 53.5% 52.4% 26.5% $1,299 69.8% 6.6% 19.1% $61,532 630,331 0.9% 9.1% -69.5% $80,212 7% 26.5% 6.8% 48% 67.7%

SECTION 1.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVED SCENARIO PLANNING [STUDIES & ATTRIBUTES]

1.3 Scenario Planning - One Region Forward - Erie County One Region Forward:

MAPPING OUR VALUES

How do these Alternative Scenarios impact our region?

Is a broad-based, collaborative effort to promote more sustainable forms of development in Erie and Niagara counties – the Buffalo Niagara Region – in land use, transportation, housing, energy and climate, access to food, and more. It combines research and public engagement with planning and action to help us meet the combined economic, environmental, and social challenges of the 21st century.

COMMUNITY AND SPECIALIST SCENARIO MODELING :

One Region Forward was launched through a planning process to craft a Regional Plan for Sustainable Development, a federally recognized document that gives our region priority status for funding opportunities today and into the future. The plan, called A New Way to Plan for Buffalo Niagara serves as a practical roadmap for improving mobility, promoting more efficient land use patterns, strengthening our basic infrastructure, growing a 21st century economy, ensuring broad access to healthy food, protecting housing and neighborhoods, and mounting our region’s response to the challenge of global climate change.

OPTIMIZED SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT PATH :

The skyway Corridor will be designed according to One Region Forward’s “Back to The City” Scenario study. The data collection and computation data is displayed on this sheet along with alernative scenario numbers.

TOP TEN COMMUNITY CONCERNS: 1.

A Competitive, creative, equitable economy

Build where we already have infrastructure

Make it easier for people to get around

Repair, renew and redesign housing for a changing population

Protect farm land, parks and natural areas

Use less energy and promote green energy

Restore and protect water and natural resources

8. 9. 10.

Embrace culture and heritage

BACK TO THE CITY

Why are these indicators important to moving One Region Forward?

Grow Where We’ve Already Grown Percent of New Homes in Developed Areas Percent of New Jobs in Developed Areas

Abandoned Homes New Jobs Brought Back to Former Industrial Sites New Paved Surfaces (Acres)

37%

66%

86%

88%

64%

79%

92%

96%

When we build new homes and locate new jobs in already developed areas we preserve open space and farmland and avoid the cost of building new infrastructure.

When we reinvest in existing communities -including housing rehabilitation -- we avoid the high cost of demolition, preserve our tax base, and conserve embedded energy.

60,668

40,776

38,783

15,778

1,551

17,087

15,996

21,700

Locating jobs on former “brownfields” preserves open space and farmland while re-using land and buildings, saving on infrastructure and building the tax base.

15,785

8,482

6,578

3,356

Building more “impervious” surfaces -- especially roads and parking lots -- means more polluted runoff into our streams, more building and maintenance costs, and more of the “urban heat island” effect.

Build and Protect Walkable, Livable Communities Percent of New Homes in Walkable Communities

69%

23%

Walkability (0-100)

81%

82%

Building new homes in walkable communities helps us conserve land and makes neighborhoods safer, healthier and more accessible to work, school, shopping and recreation. It also helps transit work more effectively.

Connect Our Region by Expanding Transportation Options Transit Proximity to New Homes

Transit Proximity to New Jobs Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Per Capita

20%

45%

50%

39%

63%

72%

18.1

22.7

17.7

729

1,553

Lane Miles of New Road

261

MILES

When high quality transit service is close to both homes and jobs the less we have to depend on cars to travel, the more energy we conserve and the less carbon we emit that is harmful to our climate. Also, the easier it is for individuals to find and keep a job. Reducing how much we drive saves valuable time in our daily commutes, saves households money, conserves energy and reduces the size of our “carbon footprint.”

16.8

496

MILES

The more roads we build to serve sprawling development the higher the cost to maintain them and the greater our tax burden.

MILES

Protect Farmland, Parks, and Natural Areas Percent of Open Space Protected from Development

33%

79%

84%

Current and Potential Prime Farmland Lost to Development (Acres)

Invest in and connect our parks Foster collaboration, transparency and diverse perspectives

A REGION OF VILLAGES

SPRAWLING SMARTER

BUSINESS AS USUAL

Acres of Development on Environmentally-Sensitive Areas Energy Savings Per Household (Compared to Existing Conditions)

58,093

12,548

4,591

5,311

71,411

11,755

4,108

3,992

-2.4%

+1.2%

Protecting open space, prime farmland and environmentally-sensitive lands has multiple benefits: preserving scenic values, making our food system more secure, making fresh, healthy local food more readily available, and maintaining the “environmental services” and habitats that wetlands, stream corridors, woodlands and other open spaces provide.

+2.7%

The more energy efficient our homes become and the more we conserve, the less harmful carbon emissions we produce and the more affordable it becomes to heat and cool our homes.

+3.2%

Maintain fiscally sound local governments Total Tax Revenue of New Development

Total Cost to Build and Maintain Infrastructure of New Development

Source: University at Buffalo Regional Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning. 2015. “One Region Forward: A New Way to Plan for Buffalo Niagara.”

Cost to Revenue Ratio

$11.9 Billion

$11.0 Billion

$12.2 Billion

$10.3 Billion

$18.8 Billion

$11.9 Billion

$10.0 Billion

$7.0 Billion

-36.9%

-7.6%

+22.5%

It’s important for new development to produce additional property tax and sales tax revenues. But some forms of development cost more than others to serve with public infrastructure like roads, utilities, parks and schools. Sprawl costs more. So 1 it’s most important that the ratio of new costs to new revenues for new development be positive. That will allow us to keep taxes down and spend public 1 dollars on other needs.

+48.3%

1.3 Scenario Planning - One Region Forward - Erie County

Grow Where We’ve Already Grown Perc Percent of New Homes in Developed Hom Area

BUSINESS AS USUAL

Perc Percent of New Jobs Developed Area in De

New jobs and homes would continue to eat up rural land, leaving more vacant lots and buildings in the center city and HYHQ ROGHU ùUVW ULQJ suburbs.

Hom Left Homes Aban Abandoned URBANIZED AREA NEW HOMES NEW JOBS HOMES LEFT ABANDONED

New Jobs Brought Back to Former Industrial Sites Indu

Suburban towns would build new roads, utilities, parks and schools while existing infrastructure in our urban centers would be neglected and underused.

New Paved Surfaces (Acre (Acres)

Old industrial sites would grow weeds while new factories and warehouses would spring up on the metropolitan periphery.

146

38,906

WHERE

DO OUR

Growth on Undeveloped vs. Developed Land

SCENARIOS

FALL? ALL new growth should be on undeveloped ŐƌĞĞŶĮĞůĚ ůĂŶĚ

ALL new growth should ďĞ ŽŶ ůĂŶĚ ǁĞ͛ǀĞ ĂůƌĞĂĚǇ developed

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Some new homes and jobs would go on VXEXUEDQ ßJUHHQùHOGà sites but most new development would go in existing urban areas.

60,668

1,551

URBANIZED AREA NEW HOMES NEW JOBS HOMES LEFT ABANDONED

New homes and jobs would be concentrated in Buffalo Niagara’s treasured villages as well as in urban centers of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Lockport.

Home Left Homes Abandoned Aband URBANIZED AREA NEW HOMES NEW JOBS HOMES LEFT ABANDONED

Most new development would still occur LQ H[LVWLQJ XUEDQ FHQWHUV DQG ùUVW ULQJ suburbs, taking advantage of vacant lots, parking lots and underused land.

New JJobs Brought Back to Former Indus Industrial Sites

New Paved P Surfaces (Acres (Acres)

Every home built in outlying villages would be one home not built or rehabbed in central cities. So, abandonment would be reduced but not DV PXFK DV LQ ß%DFN WR WKH &LW\ à

2,841 8,786 2,764 What type of development will we see?

Acres

Re-development

Hom Left Homes Abandoned Aba

15,785

There would be some housing rehab in the central cities -- but less than in WKH ßFLW\à DQG ßYLOODJHà VFHQDULRV

39,348

New Jobs Brought Back to Former Bac Industrial Sites Ind

4,298

100%

66%

79%

40,776

New Paved Surfaces (Acres) (Ac

The increase in new paved surfaces -roads, parking lots, rooftops -- would be about half as much as the trend.

17,087

8,482

9,956 12,073

What type of development will we see?

Acres

Perce of New Jobs Percent Developed Area in Dev

90%

Many more jobs would go on UHFODLPHG ßEURZQùHOGà VLWHV WKDQ LQ WKH ß%XVLQHVV DV 8VXDOà VFHQDULR

Re-development

A REGION OF VILLAGES

80%

Per Percent of New Jobs Developed Area in D

64%

What type of development will we see?

Perce of New Percent Homes in Developed Home Area

70%

Per Percent of New Hom Homes in Developed Are Area

SPRAWLING SMARTER

37%

60%

Acres

Re-development

86%

Pe Percent of New Homes in Developed Ho Ar Area

BACK TO THE CITY

Pe Percent of New Jobs in Developed Area

92%

38,783

15,996

6,578

Most new homes and nearly all new jobs would be focused in central cities and older suburbs -- areas already served by infrastructure.

Ho Homes Left Abandoned Ab URBANIZED AREA NEW HOMES NEW JOBS HOMES LEFT ABANDONED

Housing abandonment would be drastically reduced compared with the other scenarios as vacant homes DUH UHKDEEHG DQG YDFDQW ORWV ùOOHG LQ

Ne Jobs Brought New Back to Former Ba In Industrial Sites

Ne Paved Surfaces New (Acres) (A

$GGLWLRQDO ßLPSHUYLRXV VXUIDFHVà -- roads, parking lots, and rooftops -would be limited. 5HFODLPHG ßEURZQùHOGVà ZRXOG KRVW D VLJQLùFDQW VKDUH RI QHZ MREV

88%

96%

15,778

21,700

3,356

8,206 2,581 3,534 What type of development will we see?

Acres

Re-development

SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT 19

2.0 - Development Overview

SECTION 2.1 DEVELOPMENT: PRECEDENT STUDY

2.1 Development - Precedent - Minneapolis The Right Way To Renew a City When the Minneapolis metro region went to build a light rail line connecting downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, the initial reaction was not good. Several community groups from lower-income neighborhoods along the proposed route opposed the project. They’d been scarred from a previous highway project that cut right through the neighborhood, dividing homes from the retail district and resulting in hundreds of evictions. They were afraid the new rail line would do the same. Many of the train supporters wanted to run the line through the neighborhood. They saw it as not only a tool to move people but also one to drive economic development. The 11-mile, billion dollar Green Line opened in June. Not everyone loves it - the chief complaint is that it’s too slow. But many are hailing it as a model urban project. Supporters successfully addressed many of the concerns of people along the route, and there are many benefits.

New Businesses Formed and Jobs Created The Episcopal Homes of Minnesota recently embarked on a $45 million expansion of its senior housing facility at the Fairview Ave Station. The addition will have 168 new units. It will employ 100 new people many are from the surrounding neighborhood. Demand for our location has been going up over the last three or four years, and the most common theme we hear is it’s because of the light rail,” said Marvin Plakut, the organization’s chief executive. “It’s brought a lot of energy to the urban core again.”Development is taking place all along the Green Line.

Affordable Housing

Public transit is known to attract development, and that development is known to bring gentrification. To make sure longtime residents don’t get displaced, several affordable housing developments are being built along the line with the help of tax breaks, grants and other financial support from city and state governments.”It’s how you make infrastructure welcome into the neighborhood, how you make it part of a community that was suspicious of it.” -- Nancy Homans, policy director, St. Paul Mayor’s OfficeProject for Pride in Living broke ground in August on an affordable housing complex also named Hamline Station. The five-story building contains 108 units, most starting at around $500 month. It’s expected to open in the fall of 2016.

An Anchor Tenant Minneapolis craft beer maker Surly recently broke ground on an eight-acre, $30 million “destination” brewery and beer garden in an old industrial neighborhood still loomed over by giant grain silos. Owner Omar Ansari, the son of a Pakistani immigrant who also started a business in Minneapolis, says the location’s proximity to the city’s new light rail line and bike trail were key reasons behind the move to this post-industrial part of town.Surly may be one of the first businesses in the neighborhood, but others have even bigger ideas. A group of neighbors and developers has a plan to turn the whole area into a kind of “future city.” The idea, still in the conceptual stage, calls for arts and industrial incubators and retail and residential space that’s totally sustainable, with on-site power generation from renewable sources and a waste disposal system that uses pneumatic tubes to suck garbage from people’s homes. The compost would be used for either power generation or as fertilizer for the local greenhouse.

Sustainability

Nearly 1,000 trees were planted along the St. Paul section of the Green Line. Rain water from nearby streets is diverted into the tree beds, preventing the polluted runoff from reaching the river. Projects like this have helped improve the health of the fish in the Mississippi River, said Glenn Skuta, a manager at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Those trenches will do a great job filtering the water.”

2.1 Development Precedent - Precedent - Stockholm Stockholmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hammarby Sjostad community occupies the site of an old port and an old industrial district, which has what the name actually means, port town. So here is the neighborhood plan. This was a contaminated brownfield site which has been cleaned and redeveloped using the best currently available technology for sustainable energy, stormwater, and sewage treatment, as well as solid waste disposal, with the aim of cutting the negative environmental impacts in half compared with conventional development as practiced in Sweden in the 1990s. The completed district will include about 11,500 apartments, about 26,000 people, and over 10,000 people are also expected to work there.

2.1 Development Precedent - Precedent - IKEA Urban Village

2.1 Development Precedent - Precedent - Brooklyn Grange Brooklyn Grange is the leading rooftop farming and intensive green roofing business in the US. We operate the world’s largest rooftop soil farms, located on three roofs in New York City, and grow over 80,000 lbs of organically-cultivated produce per year. In addition to growing and distributing fresh local vegetables and herbs, Brooklyn Grange also hosts events and educational programming; designs, installs, and often maintains green spaces for clients all over the tri-state area, and provides urban farming and green roof consulting services to clients worldwide. The business also operates an apiary, keeping bees in dozens of naturally-managed hives, on roofs, backyards, and nooks dispersed throughout NYC. Brooklyn Grange provides several key ecosystem services, and partners with numerous non-profit and community service organizations throughout New York to promote healthy and strong local communities. ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THE CITY Since we began offering landscaping services to New Yorkers in 2012, our Design/Build team at Brooklyn Grange has installed over 40,000 square feet of green roof area to the City, in addition to our 135,000 square feet of cultivated area on our own farms. We have also installed and activated dozens of other spaces, including terraces, back yards, tree pits and vacant lots with soil and plants. Adding and improving green space in New York improves the city’s air, water, temperature, biodiversity, and overall well-being, and it is one of the most rewarding ways that we work to achieve our mission of making cities greener and move livable. MATERIALS AND PLANTS Wherever possible, our installations utilize green materials such as reclaimed and/or sustainably-harvested lumber, post-industrial recycled green roofing materials, and durable, inert metals that are designed to last for generations. We don’t use chemically-treated wood products, and we work with certified organic soils and natural, untreated mulch and other materials. Our plants are sourced from nurseries throughout the East Coast, and although much of the available nursery stock is not organically-grown in this region, we always use organic practices to maintain them once the plants come into our care. MAINTENANCE AND METHODS We maintain all of our farms and gardens in accordance with organic principles, using only organic-approved soil amendments. You will never find chemical fertilizers or pesticides on our projects sites, and we are committed to adhering to sustainable farming and garden practices, and avoiding toxic implements at all costs. WASTE AND COMPOSTING Many of our installation sites include on-site composting, and for those that don’t, we remove all organic waste and bring it to local composting facilities for recycling. We are also committed to re-using materials, and our team will save and re-use everything from garbage bags to wood scraps to every extent possible. We even go as far as saving damaged or discarded plants, bringing them back to our farms to nurse them back to care and integrate them into our ornamental plant areas. WATER USE AND RETENTION Almost all of our installations employ water-efficient drip irrigation systems, which include rain sensors and timers to ensure that water isn’t being wasted. What’s more, our rooftop installations are responsible for retaining tens of thousands of gallons of rainfall every time it rains in New York, which keeps stormwater out of our sewer system and helps to combat New York’s Combined Sewer Overflow problem.

SECTION 2.2 DEVELOPMENT: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Zoning

Zoning Urban Core (N-1) N-1D (Downtown Hub) N-1C (Mixed-Use Core) N-1S (Secondary Employment Center) Urban Center(N-2) N-2C (Mixed-Use Center) N-2E (Mixed-Use Edge) N-2R (Residential) Urban Neighborhood(N-3) N-3C (Mixed-Use Center) N-3E (Mixed-Use Edge) N-3R (Residential) Urban Edge(N-4) N-4-30 (Single Framily) N-4-45 (Single Family) N-4-60 (Single Family) Campus D-R (Residential Campus) D-E (Educational Campus) D-M (Medical Campus) Employment D-S (Retail Strip) D-C (Flex Commercial) D-IL (Light Industrial) D-IH (Heavy Industrial) Open Space D-OG (Green) D-OS (Square) Rail Corridor

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Zoning - Enlarged Area 1

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Zoning - Enlarged Area 2

Key D-IHPlaces (Heavy Industrial) Buildings Open Space D-OG Facilities (Green) D-OS (Square) Rail Corridor

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Key Places - Enlarged Area 1

Key Places Buildings Facilities

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Key Places - Enlarged Area 2

Key Places Buildings Facilities

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Green Space - Enlarged Area 1

Green Space Parks and open space

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Green Space - Enlarged Area 2

Green Space Parks and open space

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Vacant Space- Enlarged Area 1

Vacant Land Structures

2.2 Development - Existing Conditions - Vacant Space - Enlarged Area 2

Vacant Land Structures

SECTION 2.3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DESIGN

2.3 Development - Proposed Design Overview

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I OBJECTIVES: Phase I - 2020 •Commercial / Office: 17,000 SF

17 Jobs Created

•Retail: 12,000 SF

12 Jobs Created

•Restaurant / Food Service : 11,000 SF

11 Jobs Created

•Residential: 162,000 SF

6 Jobs Created

Total: 202,000 SF •Public Space: 86,160 SF

4 Jobs Created

•Parking: 165 Spaces (1 Per Unit) Streetscape: 64,000 SF 50 Jobs Created

COST

Total Costs: $35.5M Equity Required: $7.5M IRR: 22.5% DSCR: 1.62x (10yr. Avg.) (Debt Service coverage Ratio) ROE: 17.4% (10yr. Avg.) NOI: $3.6M (10 yr. Avg.)

Revenue

Commercial Annual Income 17,000 SF of Commercial/Office @ $26/SF: $403,000 12,000 SF of Retail @ $18-22/SF: $240,000 11,000 SF of Restaurant @ $20/SF: $220,000

Commercial Total:

Residential 1 bedroom: $1,320/mo. - 800 SF: 2 bedroom: $1,620/mo. - 1000 SF: 3 bedroom: $1,920/mo. - 1200 SF: 165 Units

Commercial Total:

$863,300 Annual Income $950,400 $1,166,400 $1,036,800 $3,153,600

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Funding- Project Oversight

Acquisition Cost Hard Costs Soft Costs Construction Total Development Fee - 4% Contingency - 5% Phase I Total Costs

Phase I Total Costs Construction Loan 70% LTC Financing Fee - 2.5%

Project Costs - Phase I $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Construction Loan Sizing - Phase I $ $ $

Permanent Loan Loan Amount $ Financing Fee - 2.5% $ IDA Mortgage Recording Tax Savings - 0.75% $ Interest Rate Amortization LTV

29,630,650 5,834,105 35,464,755 1,418,590 1,773,238 38,656,583

38,656,583 27,059,608 676,490

31,257,050 781,426 5.00% 25 70.00%

Direct Capitalization Value Cap Rate Phase 1 Stabilized Value

IDA Term - 0 (off), 7 or 10 years IDA Sales Tax Savings IDA Fees & Expenses

$ $

Equity Required

8.00% 41,676,066 0

Total Project Returns - Phase I $ Effective Gross Income Expenses $ Year 1 NOI $ Replacement Reserves IDA PILOT Reimbursement Net Cash Flow

$ $ $

Project Financial Metrics Cash on Cash Stabilized Free & Clear Cash Flow 10 Year IRR 10 Year DSCR

By the Numbers Costs Permanent Loan Equity Required Net Cash Flow DSCR IRR ROE Equity Multiple Revenue Residential Office New Retail Exisiting Retail

5,087,217 (1,753,132) 3,334,085 (58,423) 1,028,137

Equity Partner Contribution % Equity Invested Cash Flow (10 Year Avg ROE (10 Year Avg.) IRR

(GP) 20% $1,479,907 $326,837 22.09% 24.64%

Private Equity X (LP) 80% $5,919,627 $1,009,272 17.05% 21.97%

13.89% 8.62% 22.50% Average 1.62x

$ $ $ $

38,656,583 31,257,050 7,399,533 1,028,137 1.62x 22.50% 13.89% 1.81x 1.62 28.00 22.00 -

7,399,533

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Funding- Construction Costs

Hard Costs Office & Commercial $ Retail $ Hotel $ Hotel- FF&E $ Multi-family mid/high rise $ Multi-family low rise $ Surface Parking $ Structured Parking $ Selective Demolition $ Full Building Demolition $ Placemaking $ Streetscape $ Total Hard Costs $

Soft Costs Engineering/ Architecture $ Permit Fees $ Leasing Fees $ Total Soft Costs $ Hard & Soft Costs Loan Amount Interest Rate Amortization LTV

3,754,050 3,273,600 16,200,000 495,000 4,308,000 1,600,000 29,630,650

2,074,146 1,481,533 2,278,427 5,834,105

Asset Type Office Retail Hotel Hotel & FFE MF (mid/high) MF (low) Public Space Streetscape Underground Parking Structured Parking Surface Parking Demolition (Selective) Demolition (Full) New Exterior Wall Contingency on total development budget Architecture and engineering fees (construction costs) Financing and legal fees (amounts on any loans) Permit fees (construction costs) Development fee (total development budget) Leasing commissions Streetscape

Construction Expenses $/PSF TI Comments $ 150 $ 75 $ 100 $ 40 $ 80 $40 for speciality, $80 for restaurants $ 200 Or $100,000 per door $ 20,000 $15,000 to $25,000 per room, with median of $20,000 for middle tier flag $ 155 $ 100 $ 50 $ 25 20% of hard costs should be allocated to place making $ 45,000 Per space $ 20,000 Per space $ 3,000 Per space $ 5 $5 PSF for selective demolition in retail space where the structure remains $ 10 $10 PSF for full building demolition $ 48,000 $2- $3 PSF 5% 7.0% 2.5% 5% 4% 5% 20%

35,464,755

Permanent Loan $ 31,257,050 5.00% 25 75.00%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Funding- Incomes 1 12

Residential Income

13 24

Year 1

25 36

Year 2

37 48

Year 3

49 60

Year 4

61 72

Year 5

73 84

Year 6

85 96

Year 7

97 108

Year 8

Hypothetical Sale Projections

109 120

Year 9

Year 10

3.00% Annual Growth 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $

3,153,600 $ (157,680) $ 2,995,920 $

3,248,208 $ (162,410) $ 3,085,798 $

3,345,654 $ (167,283) $ 3,178,372 $

3,446,024 $ (172,301) $ 3,273,723 $

3,549,405 $ (177,470) $ 3,371,934 $

3,655,887 $ (182,794) $ 3,473,092 $

3,765,563 $ (188,278) $ 3,577,285 $

3,878,530 $ (193,927) $ 3,684,604 $

3,994,886 $ (199,744) $ 3,795,142 $

4,114,733 $ (205,737) $ 3,908,996 $

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

403,884 129,450 (26,667) 506,667

$ $ $ $

416,001 177,984 (29,699) 564,285

$ $ $ $

428,481 183,324 (30,590) 581,214

$ $ $ $

441,335 188,823 (31,508) 598,650

$ $ $ $

454,575 194,488 (32,453) 616,610

$ $ $ $

468,212 200,323 (33,427) 635,108

$ $ $ $

482,259 206,332 (34,430) 654,161

$ $ $ $

496,726 212,522 (35,462) 673,786

$ $ $ $

511,628 218,898 (36,526) 694,000

$ $ $ $

526,977 225,465 (37,622) 714,820

$ $ $ $

542,786 232,229 (38,751) 736,264

Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

442,600 172,800 (30,770) 584,630

$ $ $ $

455,878 (22,794) 433,084

$ $ $ $

469,554 (23,478) 446,077

$ $ $ $

483,641 (24,182) 459,459

$ $ $ $

498,150 (24,908) 473,243

$ $ $ $

513,095 (25,655) 487,440

$ $ $ $

528,488 (26,424) 502,063

$ $ $ $

544,342 (27,217) 517,125

$ $ $ $

560,672 (28,034) 532,639

$ $ $ $

577,493 (28,875) 548,618

$ $ $ $

594,817 (29,741) 565,077

Vending/Advertising Income

2.00% Annual Growth

Gross Potential Revenue Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

General Commercial/Office Income Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

Retail Income

Effective Gross Income

Operating Expenses

1,000,000

5,087,217

1,020,000

5,103,167

1,040,400

5,246,062

1,061,208

5,393,040

1,082,432

5,544,219

1,104,081

5,699,721

1,126,162

5,859,672

1,148,686

6,024,201

1,171,659

6,193,440

1,195,093

6,367,526

4,238,175 (211,909) 4,026,266

1,218,994

6,546,601

General Commercial/Office Retail/Resturant Public Space Programming

$10 PSF $10 PSF $3.50 PSF

3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $

172,600 230,400 301,560

$ $ $

177,778 237,312 310,607

$ $ $

183,111 244,431 319,925

$ $ $

188,605 251,764 329,523

$ $ $

194,263 259,317 339,408

$ $ $

200,091 267,097 349,591

$ $ $

206,093 275,110 360,078

$ $ $

212,276 283,363 370,881

$ $ $

218,645 291,864 382,007

$ $ $

225,204 300,620 393,467

$ $ $

231,960 309,638 405,271

Residential

35% Residential EGI

1,048,572

1,080,029

1,112,430

1,145,803

1,180,177

1,215,582

1,252,050

1,289,611

1,328,300

1,368,149

1,409,193

Total Operating Expenses

(1,753,132) $ 34.46%

Operating Expense Ratio

Net Operating Income

Annual Debt Service

$ $ $

Beginning of Period Balance Principal

3,334,085

(1,805,726) $ 35.38%

(2,247,525) $ 32,038,476 $ (660,604) $

3,297,441

(1,859,898) $ 35.45%

(2,247,525) $ 31,377,872 $ (694,401) $

3,386,164

(1,915,695) $ 35.52%

(2,247,525) $ 30,683,471 $ (729,928) $

3,477,345

(1,973,166) $ 35.59%

(2,247,525) $ 29,953,543 $ (767,273) $

3,571,053

(2,032,360) $

(2,093,331) $

35.66%

(2,247,525) $ 29,186,270 $ (806,528) $

3,667,361

35.72%

(2,247,525) $ 28,379,743 $ (847,791) $

3,766,341

(2,156,131) $ 35.79%

(2,247,525) $ 27,531,951 $ (891,166) $

3,868,069

(2,220,815) $ 35.86%

(2,247,525) $ 26,640,785 $ (936,760) $

3,972,625

(2,287,440) $ 35.92%

(2,247,525) $ 25,704,026 $ (984,686) $

4,080,087

(1,586,921) $

(1,553,124) $

(1,517,597) $

(1,480,252) $

(1,440,997) $

(1,399,734) $

(1,356,359) $

(1,310,765) $

(1,262,839) $

(1,212,460)

31,377,872

30,683,471

29,953,543

29,186,270

28,379,743

27,531,951

26,640,785

25,704,026

24,719,340

23,684,275

Less Net Condominium Sales

$.25 PSF

4,315

Retail

$.20 PSF

4,608

4,608 49,500

Residential

$300 Per Unit

49,500

Hotel

4% Hotel Revenue

DSCR

1.62x Average

IDA PILOT Reimbursement 0 (off), 7 or 10 years

Net Cash Flow

0 $

$ IRR Return on Equity

Exit

Improvement Value $ Depreciation 10 Years $ Improvement Basis Land Value Depreciated Basis

29,630,650 (1,519,521) $28,111,129 $17,000,000 $45,111,129

Year 11 NOI Terminal Cap Rate Direct Cap Value/Sale Price Less Sale Comissions 2.5% $ Net Sale Price Less Basis $ Gain on Sale Capital Gains Tax 20%

$4,190,538 8.00% $52,381,730 (1,309,543) $51,072,187 (45,111,129) $5,961,057 $1,192,211

Sale Price Sale Expenses Less Taxes Less Depreciation Recapture 25% Less Remainder of Loan Net Sale Proceeds IRR:

$ $ $ $

$52,381,730 (1,309,543) (1,192,211) (379,880) $ (23,684,275) $25,815,820 22.50%

(7,399,533) $ 22.50% 17.40% Average

11,586,954 5.054747552

(58,423) $ 1.48x -

1,028,137 13.89%

(58,423) $ 1.47x

4,190,538

Office

Replacement Reserves

24,719,340 (1,035,064)

Interest

35.99%

(2,247,525)

End of Period Balance

(2,356,063)

991,493 13.40%

(58,423) $ 1.51x

1,080,216 14.60%

(58,423) $ 1.55x

1,171,397 15.83%

(58,423) $ 1.59x

1,265,106 17.10%

(58,423) $

1.63x $

1,361,413 18.40%

1.68x $

1,460,393 #REF!

19.74%

(58,423) $ 1.72x

1,562,121 21.11%

(58,423) $ 1.77x

1,666,677 22.52%

(58,423) 1.82x

1,774,139

$25,815,820 $

1.8056669 13,361,093

23.98%

$25,815,820

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Funding- Income & Expense Assumptions

Unit Type: 1BR Annual Rent: 2BR Annual Rent: 3BR Annual Rent: Year 1 Residential GPR:

Residential Income Rent (PSF) # of Units Square Footage $ 1.65 60 800 $ 1.62 60 1000 $ 1.60 45 1200 $1.62 Weighted Avg. Total Units: 165 Total Rentable SF: 162,000

Office Type: Rent (PSF) General Commercial / Office $ Class A Office $ Total SF Year 1 Office GPR

Retail Type: Local Retail National Retail Restaurants Year 1 Retail Income

Occupancy

Total SF

Rent (PSF) $ $ $

ADR 63.7% $ Total SF

Office & Commercial Income Total SF Rentable SF 26.00 17,260 28.00 17,260

18.00 22.00 20.00

Total SF

New Retail Income Rentable SF 10,000 2,000 11,040 23,040

Hotel Income 154.69

Doors 0

Annualized Rent $ 950,400 $ 1,166,400 $ 1,036,800 100.00% Rentable SF $ 3,153,600

9,500 1,900 10,488 21,888

Annualized Rent Load Factor $ 180,000 $ 41,800 $ 220,800 $

10% 10%

48000 29.63% $ 1.65 60000 37.04% $ 1.62 54000 33.33% $ 1.60 162000 100.00%

Hotel Rooms 0 Rooms Hotel Space 0 Square Feet Public Space 86,160 Square Feet 2 blocks

5% 5% 5%

442,600

Annualized Rent 0 $ -

Residential Mid/High Rise 0 Square Feet Office Space 17,260 Square Feet

Annualized Rent Load Factor 15,534 $ 403,884 $ 15,534 $ 403,884

Streetscape 64,000 Square Feet all street scape & roads

Surface or Podium Parking 165 Spaces 1 spot per residential, all other will have to either find alternative parking or commut in by train/bus/etc. Structured Parking 0 Spaces

ADR Is inflated for 2023

Selective Demo Square Feet Full Demo Square Feet

Vending/Advertising Income Advertising Year 1 Other Income

$1,320 $1,620 $1,920

Residential Low Rise 162,000 Square Feet

$ $

1,000,000 1,000,000

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Funding- IDA 7-Year IDA benefits calculator - based on construction cost of: County Town Year 1 90% $ $ Year 2 90% $ $ Year 3 80% $ $ Year 4 80% $ $ Year 5 70% $ $ Year 6 70% $ $ Year 7 70% $ $ Total $ $

10-Year IDA benefits calculator - based on construction cost of: County Year 1 90% $ Year 2 90% $ Year 3 90% $ Year 4 80% $ Year 5 80% $ Year 6 80% $ Year 7 70% $ Year 8 70% $ Year 9 70% $ Year 10 70% $ Total $ -

Sales Tax Savings Equipment Purchase Savings $ Construction Sales Tax Savings 4.37% $ Total Sales Tax Savings $ Mortgage Recording Tax Savings

Agency Fees 1.25% $ Attorney Fees $ Closing Costs $ Total Estimated Fees and Expenses $

$ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Total Property Tax Savings For 7 Year For 10 Year Sales Tax Savings Mortgage Recording Tax Savings

Town $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase I - Equity Waterfall Cashflow

Year 1 1,028,137

Year 2 991,493

Year 3 1,080,216

Year 4 1,171,397

Year 5 1,265,106

Year 6 1,361,413

Year 7 1,460,393

Year 8 1,562,121

Year 9 1,666,677

Year 10 1,774,139

Equity Balance

7,399,533

739,953

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

$ $ $

147,991 591,963 -

288,184

251,540

340,263

431,444

525,152

621,460

720,440

822,168

926,723

1,034,186

$ $

86,455 201,729

$ $

75,462 176,078

$ $

102,079 238,184

$ $

129,433 302,011

$ $

157,546 367,607

$ $

186,438 435,022

$ $

216,132 504,308

$ $

246,650 575,518

$ $

278,017 648,706

$ $

310,256 723,930

$ $

234,446 793,692

$ $

223,453 768,041

$ $

250,070 830,147

$ $

277,424 893,973

$ $

305,536 959,569

$ $

334,429 1,026,984

$ $

364,123 1,096,270

$ $

394,641 1,167,480

$ $

426,008 1,240,669

$ $

458,246 1,315,893

Required Return 10.00% Tier I Pro Rata Cashflow

GP 20% LP 80% Preferred Return Shortfall

Cashflow Available for Tier II Distribution Tier II Pro Rata Cashflow

GP 30% LP 70%

Total Cashflow GP LP Return on Equity GP LP IRR GP LP Taxable Income GP NOI

Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed

Taxable Income LP NOI

Equity Invested $1,479,907 $5,919,627

Year 1 15.84% 13.41%

Year 2 15.10% 12.97%

Year 3 16.90% 14.02%

Year 4 18.75% 15.10%

Year 5 20.65% 16.21%

Year 6 22.60% 17.35%

Year 7 24.60% 18.52%

Year 8 26.67% 19.72%

Year 9 28.79% 20.96%

Year 10 30.96% 22.23%

24.64% 21.97%

-$1,479,907 -$5,919,627

$234,446 $793,692

$223,453 $768,041

$250,070 $830,147

$277,424 $893,973

$305,536 $959,569

$334,429 $1,026,984

$364,123 $1,096,270

$394,641 $1,167,480

$426,008 $1,240,669

20%

Year 1 666,817 (151,952) (317,384) 197,481

$ $ $ $ 21% $ $

197,481 151,952 (132,121) 217,312 (45,636) 171,677 11.60%

$ 39 Years $ $ $

80%

Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed

$ 39 Years $ $ $

$ $ $ $ 21% $ $

Year 1 2,667,268 (607,808) (1,269,537) 789,923

789,923 607,808 (528,483) 869,248 (182,542) 686,706 11.60%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 2 659,488 (151,952) (310,625) 196,911

196,911 151,952 (138,880) 209,983 (44,096) 165,887 11.21%

Year 2 2,637,953 (607,808) (1,242,499) 787,646

787,646 607,808 (555,521) 839,933 (176,386) 663,547 11.21%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 3 677,233 (151,952) (303,519) 221,761

221,761 151,952 (145,986) 227,728 (47,823) 179,905 12.16%

Year 3 2,708,931 (607,808) (1,214,077) 887,046

887,046 607,808 (583,943) 910,912 (191,291) 719,620 12.16%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 4 695,469 (151,952) (296,050) 247,467

247,467 151,952 (153,455) 245,964 (51,652) 194,312 13.13%

Year 4 2,781,876 (607,808) (1,184,202) 989,866

989,866 607,808 (613,818) 983,856 (206,610) 777,246 13.13%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 5 714,211 (151,952) (288,199) 274,059

274,059 151,952 (161,306) 264,706 (55,588) 209,118 14.13%

Year 5 2,856,843 (607,808) (1,152,798) 1,096,237

1,096,237 607,808 (645,222) 1,058,823 (222,353) 836,470 14.13%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 6 733,472 (151,952) (279,947) 301,573

301,573 151,952 (169,558) 283,967 (59,633) 224,334 15.16%

Year 6 2,933,889 (607,808) (1,119,787) 1,206,294

1,206,294 607,808 (678,233) 1,135,869 (238,532) 897,336 15.16%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 7 753,268 (151,952) (271,272) 330,044

330,044 151,952 (178,233) 303,763 (63,790) 239,973 16.22%

Year 7 3,013,073 (607,808) (1,085,087) 1,320,177

1,320,177 607,808 (712,933) 1,215,053 (255,161) 959,892 16.22%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 8 773,614 (151,952) (262,153) 359,509

359,509 151,952 (187,352) 324,109 (68,063) 256,046 17.30%

Year 8 3,094,455 (607,808) (1,048,612) 1,438,035

1,438,035 607,808 (749,408) 1,296,436 (272,251) 1,024,184 17.30%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

Year 9 794,525 (151,952) (252,568) 390,005

390,005 151,952 (196,937) 345,020 (72,454) 272,566 18.42%

Year 9 3,178,100 (607,808) (1,010,271) 1,560,020

1,560,020 607,808 (787,749) 1,380,080 (289,817) 1,090,263 18.42%

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

Average 326,837 1,009,272 Average 22.09% 17.05%

$458,246 $5,163,163.99 $1,315,893 $20,652,656

Year 10 Average 816,017 (151,952) (242,492) 421,573 $ 294,038

421,573 Average 151,952 (207,013) 366,512 (76,968) 289,545 $ 220,336 19.57% 14.89%

Year 10 Average 3,264,069 (607,808) (969,968) 1,686,293 $ 1,176,154

1,686,293 Average 607,808 (828,052) 1,466,049 (307,870) 1,158,179 $ 881,344 19.57% 14.89%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II OBJECTIVES: Phase II - 2025 •Commercial / Office: 12,598 SF

13 Jobs Created

•Retail: 20,000 SF

20 Jobs Created

•Restaurant / Food Service : 11,000 SF

11 Jobs Created

•Residential: 193,200 SF

6 Jobs Created

Total: 236,798 SF •Public Space: 158,810 SF

4 Jobs Created

•Parking: 199 Spaces (1 Per Unit) Streetscape: 0 SF 54 Jobs Created

COST

Total Costs: $41.6M Equity Required: $12.8M IRR: 14.8% DSCR: 1.64x (10yr. Avg.) (Debt Service coverage Ratio) ROE: 10.7% (10yr. Avg.) NOI: $3.8M (10 yr. Avg.)

Revenue

Commercial Annual Income 12,598 SF of Commercial/Office @ $26/SF: $317,444 20,000 SF of Retail @ $18-22/SF: $383,710 11,000 SF of Restaurant @ $20/SF: $167,960 Commercial Total: $869,114 Residential Annual Income 1 bedroom: $1,320/mo. - 800 SF: $1,251,360 2 bedroom: $1,620/mo. - 1000 SF: $1,360,800 3 bedroom: $1,920/mo. - 1200 SF: $1,152,000 199 Units Residential Total:

$3,764,160

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Funding- Project Oversight

Acquisition Cost Hard Costs Soft Costs Construction Total Development Fee - 4% Contingency - 5% Phase I Total Costs

Phase I Total Costs Construction Loan 70% LTC Financing Fee - 2.5%

Project Costs - Phase II $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Construction Loan Sizing - Phase II $ $ $

Permanent Loan Loan Amount $ Financing Fee - 2.5% $ IDA Mortgage Recording Tax Savings - 0.75% $ Interest Rate Amortization LTV

Cap Rate Phase 1 Stabilized Value

Direct Capitalization Value $

IDA Term - 0 (off), 7 or 10 years IDA Sales Tax Savings IDA Fees & Expenses

$ $

Equity Required

34,760,368 6,818,750 41,579,117 1,663,165 2,078,956 45,321,238

45,321,238 31,724,866 793,122

32,563,793 814,095 5.00% 25 70.00%

8.00% 43,418,390

Total Project Returns - Phase II $ Effective Gross Income Expenses $ Year 1 NOI $ Replacement Reserves IDA PILOT Reimbursement Net Cash Flow

$ $ $

Project Financial Metrics Cash on Cash Stabilized Free & Clear Cash Flow 10 Year IRR 10 Year DSCR

By the Numbers Costs Permanent Loan Equity Required Net Cash Flow DSCR IRR ROE Equity Multiple Revenue Residential Office New Retail Exisiting Retail

5,700,789 (2,227,318) 3,473,471 (68,728) 1,063,258

Equity Partner Contribution % Equity Invested Cash Flow (10 Year Avg ROE (10 Year Avg.) IRR

(GP) 20% $2,551,489 $300,345 11.77% 15.11%

Private Equity X (LP) 80% $10,205,956 $1,126,054 11.03% 14.80%

8.33% 7.66% 14.86% Average 1.64x

$ $ $ $

45,321,238 32,563,793 12,757,445 1,063,258 1.64x 14.86% 8.33% 1.12x 1.62 28.00 22.00 -

12,757,445

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Funding- Construction Costs

Soft Costs Engineering/ Architecture $ Permit Fees $ Leasing Fees $ Total Soft Costs $ Hard & Soft Costs

2,739,848 4,163,020 19,320,000 597,000 7,940,500 34,760,368

2,433,226 1,738,018 2,647,506 6,818,750

41,579,117

Permanent Loan Loan Amount $ 32,563,793 Interest Rate 5.00% Amortization 25 LTV 75.00%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Funding- Incomes 1 12

Residential Income

13 24

Year 1

25 36

Year 2

37 48

Year 3

49 60

Year 4

61 72

Year 5

73 84

Year 6

85 96

Year 7

97 108

Year 8

Hypothetical Sale Projections

109 120

Year 9

Year 10

3.00% Annual Growth 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $

3,764,160 $ (188,208) $ 3,575,952 $

3,877,085 $ (193,854) $ 3,683,231 $

3,993,397 $ (199,670) $ 3,793,727 $

4,113,199 $ (205,660) $ 3,907,539 $

4,236,595 $ (211,830) $ 4,024,765 $

4,363,693 $ (218,185) $ 4,145,508 $

4,494,604 $ (224,730) $ 4,269,874 $

4,629,442 $ (231,472) $ 4,397,970 $

4,768,325 $ (238,416) $ 4,529,909 $

4,911,375 $ (245,569) $ 4,665,806 $

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

317,444 94,478 (20,596) 391,326

$ $ $ $

326,968 227,061 (27,701) 526,327

$ $ $ $

336,777 233,873 (28,532) 542,117

$ $ $ $

346,880 240,889 (29,388) 558,381

$ $ $ $

357,286 248,116 (30,270) 575,132

$ $ $ $

368,005 255,559 (31,178) 592,386

$ $ $ $

379,045 263,226 (32,114) 610,158

$ $ $ $

390,417 271,123 (33,077) 628,462

$ $ $ $

402,129 279,256 (34,069) 647,316

$ $ $ $

414,193 287,634 (35,091) 666,736

$ $ $ $

426,619 296,263 (36,144) 686,738

Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

551,670 220,448 (38,606) 733,512

$ $ $ $

568,220 (28,411) 539,809

$ $ $ $

585,267 (29,263) 556,003

$ $ $ $

602,825 (30,141) 572,683

$ $ $ $

620,909 (31,045) 589,864

$ $ $ $

639,537 (31,977) 607,560

$ $ $ $

658,723 (32,936) 625,787

$ $ $ $

678,485 (33,924) 644,560

$ $ $ $

698,839 (34,942) 663,897

$ $ $ $

719,804 (35,990) 683,814

$ $ $ $

741,398 (37,070) 704,328

Vending/Advertising Income

2.00% Annual Growth

Gross Potential Revenue Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

General Commercial/Office Income Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

Retail Income

Effective Gross Income

Operating Expenses

1,000,000

5,700,789

1,020,000

5,769,367

1,040,400

5,932,248

1,061,208

6,099,811

1,082,432

6,272,194

1,104,081

6,449,535

1,126,162

6,631,980

1,148,686

6,819,678

1,171,659

7,012,782

1,195,093

7,211,448

5,058,716 (252,936) 4,805,780

1,218,994

7,415,841

General Commercial/Office Retail/Resturant Public Space Programming

$10 PSF $10 PSF $3.50 PSF

3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $

125,970 293,930 555,835

$ $ $

129,749 302,748 572,510

$ $ $

133,642 311,830 589,685

$ $ $

137,651 321,185 607,376

$ $ $

141,780 330,821 625,597

$ $ $

146,034 340,745 644,365

$ $ $

150,415 350,968 663,696

$ $ $

154,927 361,497 683,607

$ $ $

159,575 372,342 704,115

$ $ $

164,362 383,512 725,239

$ $ $

169,293 395,017 746,996

Residential

35% Residential EGI

1,251,583

1,289,131

1,327,805

1,367,639

1,408,668

1,450,928

1,494,456

1,539,289

1,585,468

1,633,032

1,682,023

Total Operating Expenses

(2,227,318) $ 39.07%

Operating Expense Ratio

Net Operating Income

Annual Debt Service

$ $ $

Beginning of Period Balance Principal

3,473,471

(2,294,138) $ 39.76%

(2,341,486) $ 33,377,888 $ (688,221) $

3,475,229

(2,362,962) $ 39.83%

(2,341,486) $ 32,689,667 $ (723,432) $

3,569,286

(2,433,851) $ 39.90%

(2,341,486) $ 31,966,235 $ (760,444) $

3,665,961

(2,506,866) $ 39.97%

(2,341,486) $ 31,205,791 $ (799,350) $

3,765,327

(2,582,072) $

(2,659,534) $

40.04%

(2,341,486) $ 30,406,442 $ (840,246) $

3,867,463

40.10%

(2,341,486) $ 29,566,196 $ (883,234) $

3,972,446

(2,739,320) $ 40.17%

(2,341,486) $ 28,682,962 $ (928,422) $

4,080,358

(2,821,500) $ 40.23%

(2,341,486) $ 27,754,539 $ (975,922) $

4,191,282

(2,906,145) $ 40.30%

(2,341,486) $ 26,778,617 $ (1,025,852) $

4,305,303

(1,653,265) $

(1,618,054) $

(1,581,042) $

(1,542,136) $

(1,501,240) $

(1,458,251) $

(1,413,063) $

(1,365,564) $

(1,315,634) $

(1,263,149)

32,689,667

31,966,235

31,205,791

30,406,442

29,566,196

28,682,962

27,754,539

26,778,617

25,752,765

24,674,428

Less Net Condominium Sales

$.25 PSF

3,149

Retail

$.20 PSF

5,879

5,879 59,700

Residential

$300 Per Unit

59,700

Hotel

4% Hotel Revenue

DSCR

1.64x Average

IDA PILOT Reimbursement 0 (off), 7 or 10 years

Net Cash Flow

0 $

$ IRR Return on Equity

Exit

Improvement Value $ Depreciation 10 Years $ Improvement Basis Land Value Depreciated Basis

34,760,368 (1,782,583) $32,977,785 $17,000,000 $49,977,785

Year 11 NOI Terminal Cap Rate Direct Cap Value/Sale Price Less Sale Comissions 2.5% $ Net Sale Price Less Basis $ Gain on Sale Capital Gains Tax 20%

$4,422,512 8.00% $55,281,394 (1,382,035) $53,899,360 (49,977,785) $3,921,575 $784,315

Sale Price Sale Expenses Less Taxes Less Depreciation Recapture 25% Less Remainder of Loan Net Sale Proceeds IRR:

$ $ $ $

$55,281,394 (1,382,035) (784,315) (445,646) $ (24,674,428) $27,994,970 14.86%

(12,757,445) $ 14.86% 10.77% Average

12,368,900 3.163946308

(68,728) $ 1.48x -

1,063,258 8.33%

(68,728) $ 1.48x

4,422,512

Office

Replacement Reserves

25,752,765 (1,078,337)

Interest

40.36%

(2,341,486)

End of Period Balance

(2,993,329)

1,065,016 8.35%

(68,728) $ 1.52x

1,159,072 9.09%

(68,728) $ 1.57x

1,255,747 9.84%

(68,728) $ 1.61x

1,355,114 10.62%

(68,728) $

1.65x $

1,457,249 11.42%

1.70x $

1,562,232 #REF!

12.25%

(68,728) $ 1.74x

1,670,144 13.09%

(68,728) $ 1.79x

1,781,068 13.96%

(68,728) 1.84x

1,895,090

$27,994,970 $

1.118091458 14,263,990

14.85%

$27,994,970

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Funding- Income & Expense Assumptions

Unit Type: 1BR Annual Rent: 2BR Annual Rent: 3BR Annual Rent: Year 1 Residential GPR:

Residential Income Rent (PSF) # of Units Square Footage $ 1.65 79 800 $ 1.62 70 1000 $ 1.60 50 1200 $1.62 Weighted Avg. Total Units: 199 Total Rentable SF: 193,200

Office Type: Rent (PSF) General Commercial / Office $ Class A Office $ Total SF Year 1 Office GPR

Retail Type: Local Retail National Retail Restaurants Year 1 Retail Income

Occupancy

Total SF

Rent (PSF) $ $ $

ADR 63.7% $ Total SF

Office & Commercial Income Total SF Rentable SF 26.00 28.00 12,597 12,597

18.00 22.00 20.00

Total SF

New Retail Income Rentable SF 18,995 2,000 8,398 29,393

Hotel Income 154.69

Doors 0

Annualized Rent $ 1,251,360 $ 1,360,800 $ 1,152,000 100.00% Rentable SF $ 3,764,160

18,045 1,900 7,978 27,923

Annualized Rent Load Factor $ 341,910 $ 41,800 $ 167,960 $

10% 10%

63200 32.71% $ 1.65 70000 36.23% $ 1.62 60000 31.06% $ 1.60 193200 100.00%

Hotel Rooms 0 Rooms Hotel Space 0 Square Feet Public Space 158,810 Square Feet 3 blocks

5% 5% 5%

551,670

Annualized Rent 0 $ -

Residential Mid/High Rise 0 Square Feet Office Space 12,597 Square Feet

Annualized Rent Load Factor $ 11,337 $ 317,444 11,337 $ 317,444

Streetscape 0 Square Feet

Surface or Podium Parking 199 Spaces 1 spot per residential, all other will have to either find alternative parking or commut in by train/bus/etc. Structured Parking 0 Spaces

ADR Is inflated for 2023

Selective Demo Square Feet Full Demo Square Feet

Vending/Advertising Income Advertising Year 1 Other Income

$1,320 $1,620 $1,920

Residential Low Rise 193,200 Square Feet

$ $

1,000,000 1,000,000

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Funding- IDA 7-Year IDA benefits calculator - based on construction cost of: County Town Year 1 90% $ $ Year 2 90% $ $ Year 3 80% $ $ Year 4 80% $ $ Year 5 70% $ $ Year 6 70% $ $ Year 7 70% $ $ Total $ $

Sales Tax Savings Equipment Purchase Savings $ Construction Sales Tax Savings 4.37% $ Total Sales Tax Savings $ Mortgage Recording Tax Savings

Town $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Agency Fees 1.25% $ Attorney Fees $ Closing Costs $ Total Estimated Fees and Expenses $

Total Property Tax Savings For 7 Year For 10 Year Sales Tax Savings Mortgage Recording Tax Savings Estimated Fees and Expenses

$ $ $ $ $

Grand Total For 7 Year Grand Total For 10 Year

$ $

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase II - Equity Waterfall $

Cashflow Equity Balance Required Return 10.00% Tier I Pro Rata Cashflow

GP 20% LP 80% Preferred Return Shortfall

Cashflow Available for Tier II Distribution Tier II Pro Rata Cashflow

GP 30% LP 70%

Total Cashflow GP LP

IRR GP LP Taxable Income GP NOI

Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed Taxable Income LP NOI

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed

Year 2 1,065,016

Year 3 1,159,072

Year 4 1,255,747

Year 5 1,355,114

Year 6 1,457,249

Year 7 1,562,232

Year 8 1,670,144

Year 9 1,781,068

Year 10 1,895,090

$ 12,757,445

12,757,445

1,275,744

1,488,231

1,698,960

1,815,632

1,835,630

1,756,260

1,574,756

1,288,268

1,275,744

$ $ $

212,652 850,606 212,487

$ $ $

213,003 852,012 423,216

$ $ $

231,814 927,258 539,888

$ $ $

251,149 1,004,598 559,885

$ $ $

271,023 1,084,091 480,516

$ $ $

291,450 1,165,799 299,011

$ $ $

312,446 1,249,786 12,523

$ $ $

257,654 1,030,614 -

$ $ $

255,149 1,020,596 -

$ $ $

255,149 1,020,596 -

381,876

505,323

619,345

$ $

114,563 267,314

$ $

151,597 353,726

$ $

185,804 433,542

$ $

372,216 1,297,928

$ $

406,746 1,374,322

$ $

440,953 1,454,137

212,652 850,606

$ $

213,003 852,012

$ $

231,814 927,258

$ $

251,149 1,004,598

$ $

271,023 1,084,091

$ $

291,450 1,165,799

$ $

312,446 1,249,786

Equity Invested $2,551,489 $10,205,956

Year 1 8.33% 8.33%

Year 2 8.35% 8.35%

Year 3 9.09% 9.09%

Year 4 9.84% 9.84%

Year 5 10.62% 10.62%

Year 6 11.42% 11.42%

Year 7 12.25% 12.25%

Year 8 14.59% 12.72%

Year 9 15.94% 13.47%

Year 10 17.28% 14.25%

15.11% 14.80%

-$2,551,489 -$10,205,956

$212,652 $850,606

$213,003 $852,012

$231,814 $927,258

$251,149 $1,004,598

$271,023 $1,084,091

$291,450 $1,165,799

$312,446 $1,249,786

$372,216 $1,297,928

$406,746 $1,374,322

20%

Year 1 694,694 (178,258) (330,653) 185,783

$ $ $ $ 21% $ $

185,783 178,258 (137,644) 226,397 (47,543) 178,854 7.01%

$ 39 Years $ $ $

80%

Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

$ 12,757,445

$ $

Return on Equity GP LP

Year 1 1,063,258

$ 39 Years $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21% $ $

Year 1 2,778,777 (713,033) (1,322,612) 743,132 743,132 713,033 (550,577) 905,588 (190,174) 715,415 7.01%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 2 695,046 (178,258) (323,611) 193,177 193,177 178,258 (144,686) 226,749 (47,617) 179,131 7.02%

Year 2 2,780,183 (713,033) (1,294,443) 772,707 772,707 713,033 (578,745) 906,995 (190,469) 716,526 7.02%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 3 713,857 (178,258) (316,208) 219,391 219,391 178,258 (152,089) 245,560 (51,568) 193,992 7.60%

Year 3 2,855,429 (713,033) (1,264,834) 877,562 877,562 713,033 (608,355) 982,240 (206,270) 775,970 7.60%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 4 733,192 (178,258) (308,427) 246,507 246,507 178,258 (159,870) 264,895 (55,628) 209,267 8.20%

Year 4 2,932,768 (713,033) (1,233,709) 986,026 986,026 713,033 (639,480) 1,059,580 (222,512) 837,068 8.20%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 5 753,065 (178,258) (300,248) 274,559 274,559 178,258 (168,049) 284,768 (59,801) 224,967 8.82%

Year 5 3,012,262 (713,033) (1,200,992) 1,098,237 1,098,237 713,033 (672,197) 1,139,073 (239,205) 899,868 8.82%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 6 773,493 (178,258) (291,650) 303,584 303,584 178,258 (176,647) 305,195 (64,091) 241,104 9.45%

Year 6 3,093,970 (713,033) (1,166,601) 1,214,336 1,214,336 713,033 (706,587) 1,220,782 (256,364) 964,418 9.45%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 7 794,489 (178,258) (282,613) 333,618 333,618 178,258 (185,684) 326,192 (68,500) 257,692 10.10%

Year 7 3,177,957 (713,033) (1,130,451) 1,334,473 1,334,473 713,033 (742,738) 1,304,768 (274,001) 1,030,767 10.10%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 8 816,072 (178,258) (273,113) 364,701 364,701 178,258 (195,184) 347,774 (73,033) 274,742 10.77%

Year 8 3,264,286 (713,033) (1,092,451) 1,458,802 1,458,802 713,033 (780,738) 1,391,098 (292,130) 1,098,967 10.77%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 9 838,256 (178,258) (263,127) 396,871 396,871 178,258 (205,170) 369,959 (77,691) 292,268 11.45%

Year 9 3,353,025 (713,033) (1,052,507) 1,587,485 1,587,485 713,033 (820,682) 1,479,837 (310,766) 1,169,071 11.45%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

Average 300,345 1,126,054 Average 11.77% 11.03% $440,953 ######### $1,454,137 $22,395,976

Year 10 Average 861,061 (178,258) (252,630) 430,173 $ 294,836 430,173 Average 178,258 (215,667) 392,764 (82,480) 310,283 $ 236,230 12.16% 9.26%

Year 10 Average 3,444,243 (713,033) (1,010,519) 1,720,690 $ 1,179,345 1,720,690 Average 713,033 (862,669) 1,571,054 (329,921) 1,241,133 $ 944,920 12.16% 9.26%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III OBJECTIVES: Phase II - 2035 •Commercial / Office: 30,000 SF

30 Jobs Created

•Retail: 20,000 SF

20 Jobs Created

•Restaurant / Food Service : 10,000 SF

10 Jobs Created

•Residential: 351,000 SF

6 Jobs Created

Total: 411,000 SF •Public Space: 98,430 SF

4 Jobs Created

•Parking: 365 Spaces (1 Per Unit) Streetscape: 0 SF 70 Jobs Created

COST

Total Costs: $62.7M Equity Required: $12.8M IRR: 22.7% DSCR: 1.63x (10yr. Avg.) (Debt Service coverage Ratio) ROE: 18% (10yr. Avg.) NOI: $6.5M (10 yr. Avg.)

Revenue

Commercial 30,000 SF of Commercial/Office @ $26/SF: 20,000 SF of Retail @ $18-22/SF: 10,000 SF of Restaurant @ $20/SF: Commercial Total: Residential 1 bedroom: $1,320/mo. - 800 SF: 2 bedroom: $1,620/mo. - 1000 SF: 3 bedroom: $1,920/mo. - 1200 SF: 365 Units Residential Total:

Annual Income $703,755 $375,850 $200,000 $1,279,605 Annual Income $2,376,000 $2,624,400 $1,843,200 $6,843,600

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Funding- Project Oversight

Project Costs - Phase III $ $ $ $

Acquisition Cost Hard Costs Soft Costs Construction Total Development Fee - 4% Contingency - 5% Phase I Total Costs

Phase I Total Costs

$ $ $

Construction Loan Sizing - Phase III $

Construction Loan 70% LTC Financing Fee - 2.5%

$ $

Permanent Loan Loan Amount $ Financing Fee - 2.5% $ IDA Mortgage Recording Tax Savings - 0.75% $ Interest Rate Amortization LTV

Cap Rate Phase 1 Stabilized Value

Direct Capitalization Value $

IDA Term - 0 (off), 7 or 10 years IDA Sales Tax Savings IDA Fees & Expenses

$ $

Equity Required

51,916,313 10,786,862 62,703,174 2,508,127 3,135,159 68,346,460

68,346,460 47,842,522 1,196,063

55,538,545 1,388,464 5.00% 25 70.00%

8.00% 74,051,394

Total Project Returns - Phase III $ Effective Gross Income Expenses $ Year 1 NOI $ Replacement Reserves IDA PILOT Reimbursement Net Cash Flow

$ $ $

Project Financial Metrics Cash on Cash Stabilized Free & Clear Cash Flow 10 Year IRR 10 Year DSCR

By the Numbers Costs Permanent Loan Equity Required Net Cash Flow DSCR IRR ROE Equity Multiple Revenue Residential Office New Retail Exisiting Retail

9,145,614 (3,221,502) 5,924,112 (123,034) 1,807,602

Equity Partner Contribution % Equity Invested Cash Flow (10 Year Avg ROE (10 Year Avg.) IRR

(GP) 20% $2,561,583 $591,675 23.10% #VALUE!

Private Equity X (LP) 80% $10,246,332 $1,807,505 17.64% #VALUE!

14.11% 8.67% 22.77% Average 1.63x

$ $ $ $

68,346,460 55,538,545 12,807,915 1,807,602 1.63x 22.77% 14.11% 1.87x 1.62 28.00 22.00 -

12,807,915

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Funding- Construction Costs

6,541,313 4,258,500 35,100,000 1,095,000 4,921,500 51,916,313

Soft Costs Engineering/ Architecture $ Permit Fees $ Leasing Fees $ Total Soft Costs $

3,634,142 2,595,816 4,556,904 10,786,862

Hard & Soft Costs

62,703,174

Permanent Loan Loan Amount $ 55,538,545 Interest Rate 5.00% Amortization 25 LTV 75.00%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Funding- Incomes 1 12

Residential Income

13 24

Year 1

25 36

Year 2

37 48

Year 3

49 60

Year 4

61 72

Year 5

Year 6

3.00% Annual Growth 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $

6,843,600 $ (342,180) $ 6,501,420 $

7,048,908 $ (352,445) $ 6,696,463 $

7,260,375 $ (363,019) $ 6,897,356 $

7,478,186 $ (373,909) $ 7,104,277 $

7,702,532 $ (385,127) $ 7,317,405 $

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

703,755 225,563 (46,466) 882,852

$ $ $ $

724,868 232,329 (47,860) 909,337

$ $ $ $

746,614 239,299 (49,296) 936,617

$ $ $ $

769,012 246,478 (50,775) 964,716

$ $ $ $

792,082 253,873 (52,298) 993,657

Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

3.00% Annual Growth 75% Recovery 5.00% Vacancy

$ $ $ $

575,850 225,563 (40,071) 761,342

$ $ $ $

593,126 (29,656) 563,469

$ $ $ $

610,919 (30,546) 580,373

$ $ $ $

629,247 (31,462) 597,785

$ $ $ $

648,124 (32,406) 615,718

Vending/Advertising Income

2.00% Annual Growth

Gross Potential Revenue Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

General Commercial/Office Income Gross Potential Revenue CAM & Expense Reimbursement Less: Vacancy Effective Gross Income

Retail Income

Effective Gross Income

Operating Expenses

1,000,000

9,145,614

1,020,000

9,189,269

1,040,400

9,454,747

1,061,208

9,727,985

73 84

1,082,432

$ 10,009,213

85 96

Year 7

97 108

Year 8

Hypothetical Sale Projections

109 120

Year 9

Year 10

7,933,608 $ (396,680) $ 7,536,928 $

8,171,616 $ (408,581) $ 7,763,035 $

8,416,765 $ (420,838) $ 7,995,927 $

8,669,268 $ (433,463) $ 8,235,804 $

8,929,346 $ (446,467) $ 8,482,878 $

9,197,226 (459,861) 8,737,365

$ $ $ $

815,845 261,489 (53,867) 1,023,467

$ $ $ $

840,320 269,333 (55,483) 1,054,171

$ $ $ $

865,530 277,413 (57,147) 1,085,796

$ $ $ $

891,496 285,736 (58,862) 1,118,370

$ $ $ $

918,241 294,308 (60,627) 1,151,921

$ $ $ $

945,788 303,137 (62,446) 1,186,479

$ $ $ $

667,568 (33,378) 634,190

$ $ $ $

687,595 (34,380) 653,215

$ $ $ $

708,223 (35,411) 672,812

$ $ $ $

729,470 (36,473) 692,996

$ $ $ $

751,354 (37,568) 713,786

$ $ $ $

773,894 (38,695) 735,200

1,104,081

$ 10,298,665

1,126,162

$ 10,596,584

1,148,686

$ 10,903,220

1,171,659

$ 11,218,830

1,195,093

11,543,678

1,218,994

11,878,038

General Commercial/Office Retail/Resturant Public Space Programming

$10 PSF $10 PSF $3.50 PSF

3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $ 3.00% Annual Growth $

300,750 300,750 344,505

$ $ $

309,773 309,773 354,840

$ $ $

319,066 319,066 365,485

$ $ $

328,638 328,638 376,450

$ $ $

338,497 338,497 387,743

$ $ $

348,652 348,652 399,376

$ $ $

359,111 359,111 411,357

$ $ $

369,885 369,885 423,698

$ $ $

380,981 380,981 436,409

$ $ $

392,411 392,411 449,501

$ $ $

404,183 404,183 462,986

Residential

35% Residential EGI

2,275,497

2,343,762

2,414,075

2,486,497

2,561,092

2,637,925

2,717,062

2,798,574

2,882,532

2,969,007

3,058,078

Total Operating Expenses

(3,221,502) $ 35.22%

Operating Expense Ratio

Net Operating Income

Annual Debt Service

$ $ $

Beginning of Period Balance Principal

5,924,112

(3,318,147) $ 36.11%

(3,993,476) $ 56,927,009 $ (1,173,782) $

5,871,122

(3,417,691) $ 36.15%

(3,993,476) $ 55,753,227 $ (1,233,835) $

6,037,056

(3,520,222) $ 36.19%

(3,993,476) $ 54,519,392 $ (1,296,960) $

6,207,763

(3,625,829) $ 36.22%

(3,993,476) $ 53,222,432 $ (1,363,315) $

6,383,384

(3,734,604) $

(3,846,642) $

36.26%

(3,993,476) $ 51,859,117 $ (1,433,065) $

6,564,061

36.30%

(3,993,476) $ 50,426,052 $ (1,506,383) $

6,749,942

(3,962,041) $ 36.34%

(3,993,476) $ 48,919,669 $ (1,583,453) $

6,941,179

(4,080,902) $ 36.38%

(3,993,476) $ 47,336,216 $ (1,664,465) $

7,137,927

(4,203,329) $ 36.41%

(3,993,476) $ 45,671,751 $ (1,749,622) $

7,340,349

(2,819,694) $

(2,759,641) $

(2,696,515) $

(2,630,160) $

(2,560,411) $

(2,487,092) $

(2,410,023) $

(2,329,010) $

(2,243,853) $

(2,154,339)

55,753,227

54,519,392

53,222,432

51,859,117

50,426,052

48,919,669

47,336,216

45,671,751

43,922,129

42,082,993

Less Net Condominium Sales

$.25 PSF

7,519

Retail

$.20 PSF

6,015

109,500

$300 Per Unit

Hotel

4% Hotel Revenue

Replacement Reserves

DSCR

1.63x Average

IDA PILOT Reimbursement 0 (off), 7 or 10 years

Net Cash Flow

0 $

$ IRR Return on Equity

Exit

Improvement Value $ Depreciation 10 Years $ Improvement Basis Land Value Depreciated Basis

51,916,313 (2,662,375) $49,253,938 $17,000,000 $66,253,938

Year 11 NOI Terminal Cap Rate Direct Cap Value/Sale Price Less Sale Comissions 2.5% $ Net Sale Price Less Basis $ Gain on Sale Capital Gains Tax 20%

$7,548,608 8.00% $94,357,603 (2,358,940) $91,998,663 (66,253,938) $25,744,725 $5,148,945

Sale Price Sale Expenses Less Taxes Less Depreciation Recapture 25% Less Remainder of Loan Net Sale Proceeds IRR:

$ $ $ $

$94,357,603 (2,358,940) (5,148,945) (665,594) $ (42,082,993) $44,101,131 22.77%

(12,807,915) $ 22.77% 18.02% Average

20,767,963 5.064766319

(123,034) $ 1.48x -

1,807,602 14.11%

(123,034) $ 1.47x

7,548,608

Office Residential

43,922,129 (1,839,136)

Interest

36.45%

(3,993,476)

End of Period Balance

(4,329,429)

1,754,613 13.70%

(123,034) $ 1.51x

1,920,546 14.99%

(123,034) $ 1.55x

2,091,254 16.33%

(123,034) $ 1.60x

2,266,875 17.70%

(123,034) $

1.64x $

2,447,552 19.11%

1.69x $

2,633,433 #REF!

20.56%

(123,034) $ 1.74x

2,824,670 22.05%

(123,034) $ 1.79x

3,021,418 23.59%

(123,034) 1.84x

3,223,839

$44,101,131 $

1.873201327 23,991,803

25.17%

$44,101,131

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Funding- Income & Expense Assumptions

Unit Type: 1BR Annual Rent: 2BR Annual Rent: 3BR Annual Rent: Year 1 Residential GPR:

Residential Income Rent (PSF) # of Units Square Footage $ 1.65 150 800 $ 1.62 135 1000 $ 1.60 80 1200 $1.62 Weighted Avg. Total Units: 365 Total Rentable SF: 351,000

Office Type: Rent (PSF) General Commercial / Office $ Class A Office $ Total SF Year 1 Office GPR

Retail Type: Local Retail National Retail Restaurants Year 1 Retail Income

Occupancy

Total SF

Rent (PSF) $ $ $

ADR 63.7% $ Total SF

Office & Commercial Income Total SF Rentable SF 26.00 30,075 28.00 30,075

18.00 22.00 20.00

Total SF

New Retail Income Rentable SF 15,075 5,000 10,000 30,075

Hotel Income 154.69

Doors 0

Annualized Rent $ 2,376,000 $ 2,624,400 $ 1,843,200 100.00% Rentable SF $ 6,843,600

14,321 4,750 9,500 28,571

Annualized Rent Load Factor $ 271,350 $ 104,500 $ 200,000 $

10% 10%

120000 34.19% $ 1.65 135000 38.46% $ 1.62 96000 27.35% $ 1.60 351000 100.00%

Hotel Rooms 0 Rooms Hotel Space 0 Square Feet Public Space 98,430 Square Feet 3 blocks

5% 5% 5%

575,850

Annualized Rent 0 $ -

Residential Mid/High Rise 0 Square Feet Office Space 30,075 Square Feet

Annualized Rent Load Factor 27,068 $ 703,755 $ 27,068 $ 703,755

Streetscape 0 Square Feet

Surface or Podium Parking 365 Spaces 1 spot per residential, all other will have to either find alternative parking or commut in by train/bus/etc. Structured Parking 0 Spaces

ADR Is inflated for 2023

Selective Demo Square Feet Full Demo Square Feet

Vending/Advertising Income Advertising Year 1 Other Income

$1,320 $1,620 $1,920

Residential Low Rise 351,000 Square Feet

$ $

1,000,000 1,000,000

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Funding- IDA 7-Year IDA benefits calculator - based on construction cost of: County Town Year 1 90% $ $ Year 2 90% $ $ Year 3 80% $ $ Year 4 80% $ $ Year 5 70% $ $ Year 6 70% $ $ Year 7 70% $ $ Total $ $

Sales Tax Savings Equipment Purchase Savings $ Construction Sales Tax Savings 4.37% $ Total Sales Tax Savings $ Mortgage Recording Tax Savings

Town $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

School $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Tax Rates - Reverse Engineered County Town 0.3796% 0.1536%

School 1.0597%

Agency Fees 1.25% $ Attorney Fees $ Closing Costs $ Total Estimated Fees and Expenses $

Total Property Tax Savings For 7 Year For 10 Year Sales Tax Savings Mortgage Recording Tax Savings Estimated Fees and Expenses

$ $ $ $ $

Grand Total For 7 Year Grand Total For 10 Year

$ $

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Phase III - Equity Waterfall Cashflow

Year 1 1,807,602

Equity Balance

12,807,915 $

Required Return 10.00%

Year 2 1,754,613

12,807,915 $

Year 3 1,920,546

12,807,915 $

Year 4 2,091,254

12,807,915 $

Year 5 2,266,875

12,807,915 $

Year 6 2,447,552

12,807,915 $

Year 7 2,633,433

12,807,915 $

Year 8 2,824,670

12,807,915 $

Year 9 3,021,418

Year 10 3,223,839

12,807,915 $

12,807,915

1,280,791

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

$ $ $

256,158 1,024,633 -

526,811

473,821

639,755

810,463

986,083

1,166,761

1,352,642

1,543,878

1,740,627

1,943,048

$ $

158,043 368,768

$ $

142,146 331,675

$ $

191,926 447,828

$ $

243,139 567,324

$ $

295,825 690,258

$ $

350,028 816,732

$ $

405,792 946,849

$ $

463,163 1,080,715

$ $

522,188 1,218,439

$ $

582,914 1,360,134

$ $

414,202 1,393,401

$ $

398,305 1,356,308

$ $

448,085 1,472,462

$ $

499,297 1,591,957

$ $

551,983 1,714,892

$ $

606,186 1,841,366

$ $

661,951 1,971,482

$ $

719,322 2,105,348

$ $

778,346 2,243,072

$ $

839,073 2,384,767

Tier I Pro Rata Cashflow GP 20% LP 80% Preferred Return Shortfall Cashflow Available for Tier II Distribution Tier II Pro Rata Cashflow

GP 30% LP 70%

Total Cashflow GP LP Return on Equity GP LP

Equity Invested $2,561,583 $10,246,332

IRR GP LP

#VALUE! #VALUE! 20%

Taxable Income GP NOI Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed

$ 39 Years $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21% $ $

80%

Taxable Income LP NOI Less: Depreciation Less: Interest Taxable Income

Taxable Income Plus: Depreciation Less: Principal Repaid CFBT Taxes Cash Flow After Tax Return on Equity- Taxed

$ 39 Years $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21% $ $

Year 1 16.17% 13.60%

Year 2 15.55% 13.24%

Year 3 17.49% 14.37%

Year 4 19.49% 15.54%

Year 5 21.55% 16.74%

Year 6 23.66% 17.97%

Year 7 25.84% 19.24%

Year 8 28.08% 20.55%

Year 9 30.39% 21.89%

Year 10 32.76% 23.27%

-$2,561,583 -$10,246,332

$414,202 $1,393,401

$398,305 $1,356,308

$448,085 $1,472,462

$499,297 $1,591,957

$551,983 $1,714,892

$606,186 $1,841,366

$661,951 $1,971,482

$719,322 $2,105,348

$778,346 $2,243,072

Year 1 1,184,822 (266,238) (563,939) 354,646 354,646 266,238 (234,756) 386,127 (81,087) 305,040 11.91% Year 1 4,739,289 (1,064,950) (2,255,755) 1,418,584 1,418,584 1,064,950 (939,026) 1,544,509 (324,347) 1,220,162 11.91%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 2 1,174,224 (266,238) (551,928) 356,059 356,059 266,238 (246,767) 375,529 (78,861) 296,668 11.58% Year 2 4,696,898 (1,064,950) (2,207,713) 1,424,235 1,424,235 1,064,950 (987,068) 1,502,117 (315,445) 1,186,673 11.58%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 3 1,207,411 (266,238) (539,303) 401,871 401,871 266,238 (259,392) 408,716 (85,830) 322,886 12.60% Year 3 4,829,644 (1,064,950) (2,157,212) 1,607,482 1,607,482 1,064,950 (1,037,568) 1,634,864 (343,321) 1,291,543 12.60%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 4 1,241,553 (266,238) (526,032) 449,283 449,283 266,238 (272,663) 442,858 (93,000) 349,857 13.66% Year 4 4,966,211 (1,064,950) (2,104,128) 1,797,132 1,797,132 1,064,950 (1,090,652) 1,771,430 (372,000) 1,399,430 13.66%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 5 1,276,677 (266,238) (512,082) 498,357 498,357 266,238 (286,613) 477,982 (100,376) 377,606 14.74% Year 5 5,106,707 (1,064,950) (2,048,329) 1,993,429 1,993,429 1,064,950 (1,146,452) 1,911,927 (401,505) 1,510,422 14.74%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 6 1,312,812 (266,238) (497,418) 549,156 549,156 266,238 (301,277) 514,117 (107,965) 406,153 15.86% Year 6 5,251,249 (1,064,950) (1,989,674) 2,196,625 2,196,625 1,064,950 (1,205,107) 2,056,469 (431,858) 1,624,610 15.86%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 7 1,349,988 (266,238) (482,005) 601,746 601,746 266,238 (316,691) 551,293 (115,772) 435,522 17.00% Year 7 5,399,954 (1,064,950) (1,928,018) 2,406,986 2,406,986 1,064,950 (1,266,762) 2,205,173 (463,086) 1,742,087 17.00%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 8 1,388,236 (266,238) (465,802) 656,196 656,196 266,238 (332,893) 589,541 (123,804) 465,737 18.18% Year 8 5,552,943 (1,064,950) (1,863,208) 2,624,785 2,624,785 1,064,950 (1,331,572) 2,358,163 (495,214) 1,862,949 18.18%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Year 9 1,427,585 (266,238) (448,771) 712,577 712,577 266,238 (349,924) 628,890 (132,067) 496,823 19.40% Year 9 5,710,342 (1,064,950) (1,795,083) 2,850,309 2,850,309 1,064,950 (1,399,698) 2,515,562 (528,268) 1,987,294 19.40%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

Average 591,675 1,807,505 Average 23.10% 17.64% $839,073 #REF! $2,384,767 #REF!

Year 10 Average 1,468,070 (266,238) (430,868) 770,964 $ 535,086 770,964 Average 266,238 (367,827) 669,375 (140,569) 528,806 $ 398,510 20.64% 15.56% Year 10 Average 5,872,279 (1,064,950) (1,723,471) 3,083,858 $ 2,140,342 3,083,858 Average 1,064,950 (1,471,309) 2,677,499 (562,275) 2,115,224 $ 1,594,039 20.64% 15.56%

2.3 Development - Proposed Design -Completed OBJECTIVES: COMPLETED DESIGN

Phase I Totals: Total SF 202,000 SF 50 Jobs Created Revenue Commercial / Retail / Food: $863,300 Revenue Residential: $3,153,600 165 Units Cost: $35.5M Annual Revenue: $4,016,900 Phase II Totals: Total SF Revenue Commercial / Retail / Food: Revenue Residential: Cost: Annual Revenue:

236,798 SF 54 Jobs Created $869,114 $3,764,160 169 Units $41.6M $4,633,274

Phase I Totals: Total SF 411,000 SF 70 Jobs Created Revenue Commercial / Retail / Food: $1,279,605 Revenue Residential: $6,843,600 365 Units Cost: $62.7M Annual Revenue: $8,123,205

Combine Phases Residential 729 Housing Units or 706,000 SF (approx. 1,480 persons) - 289, 1 beds - 265, 2 beds -175, 3 beds Commercial 59,500SF of Commercial/Office 52,000SF of Retail 29,000SF of Restaurant Total SF: 849,798 SF Jobs: 174 Jobs Total Costs: $140M Total Annual Revenue $16,773,379

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Overall Development Design

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Rust Belt Museum 1

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Rust Belt Museum 2 with observation deck (Canalside)

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Rust Belt Museum 3 with observation deck (Outer Harbor)

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Rust Belt Museum 4 with development in background

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - City Ship Canal and Ganson Transit Oriented Development

2.3 Development - Proposed Design - Zoning

SECTION 3 TRANSIT 75

3.0 Transit - Overview Sensors (for improving situational awareness)

Internet of Things Deployed sensors (hooked on the internet) and advanced computing are making the physical assets of the utilities network more intelligent and driving responses based on the ambient conditions. The IoT is finding use across asset performance, maintenance and visibility, as well as through fleet operations and customer metering, thereby impacting the entire chain of utilities. For example, in Queensland (Australia), Unitywater cut its direct water losses by 1 billion litres in one year, saving $1.9 million; it reduced the time required to detect and resolve network events by two-thirds, and increased availability by almost 20%.

Mobile-based sensing

Citizens Connect is a mobile application developed at the Boston (USA) Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics (MONUM) that allows residents to report public issues directly from their smartphones into the city’s work-order management system. Those issues go immediately to the right person in City Hall to fix the problem. This application has been adopted by many other cities throughout the state of Massachusetts and across the United States.

Location & condition sensing

Japan has deployed a solution that gathers information on disasters from sources such as surveillance cameras, water-level gauges, rain gauges and seismometers, and processes the data at a command centre. If analysis suggests that evaluation is required, multiple agencies (police, fire brigade, army and hospitals) are informed, using various communication channels to save people’s lives. Street Bump, a project of Boston’s MONUM, helps residents improve their neighbourhood streets. Volunteers use the Street Bump mobile app to collect road condition data while they drive. Boston aggregates the data across users to provide the city with real-time information for fixing short-term problems and planning long-term investments.

Data (for improving decision-making)

Big data The city of Auckland (New Zealand) uses big data – from business transactions, video streams and sensor data to social media feeds such as tweets – to manage its transport system on a day-to-day basis. The big data solution operates on real time on tens of thousands of video streams to detect a range of information, including number plates, vehicle demographic analysis and intelligent scene analysis for many moving vehicles. All of this is integrated with multiple, disparate physical security, building and traffic management control and monitoring functions. Government organizations can thus make instant conceptual and contextual associations between disparate pieces of data and are able to respond in the most efficient way possible. Data analytics Utilities have begun applying differential rates based on in-depth consumer analysis, consumption patterns of users and efficiency levels of the network. The consumption data also allows users to monitor rates and save money by shifting use away from times when utility rates are high. Consumption analytics are supporting the distributor to determine the right user charges for normalizing peak loads. Open data Dublin (Ireland) intends to increase transparency and create opportunities to attract transnational companies and local businesses interested in urban technology through its Dublinked initiative. Dublinked is managed by a partnership of four city councils in Dublin’s region, a university and a major technology provider, which has recently opened a “smart city R&D centre” with 200 jobs in the city.

Intelligent transport

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated and “smarter” use of transport networks. The systems include stand-alone applications such as traffic management systems, information and warning systems installed in individual vehicles, and cooperative ITS (C-ITS) applications involving vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications. Countries including Australia have developed a framework and endorse the use of ITS in all their states, cities and towns.Singapore has developed an Electronic Road Pricing System, which charges motorists based on usage of roads during peak hours. The system optimizes road usage with differential pricing based on local traffic conditions, prompting motorists to change their mode of transport, travel route and time of travel. The system not only makes the best of available capacity, but also has a greater social benefit by reducing the loss of productive hours, environmental pollution, fuel consumption and adverse health effects. Smart grid The city of Chattanooga (USA) has provided its community with the latest technology-enabled, fibre optic smart-grid energy network, a more secure, affordable and efficient power supply for homes and businesses throughout the city. Beyond energy security, the overall impacts were a reduction in energy consumption and cost-saving benefits from reduced usage and demandsensitive pricing. Over 20 large industries have signed up to “time-of-use” tariffs that will save those businesses $2.3 million collectively a year. Citizen e-ID Belgium’s Flemish region has implemented Maximum Data Sharing Between Administrations and Agencies, a platform that enables once-only data collection. Citizens log on to the Flemish e-government services using electronic ID cards that automatically transfer data to the concerned state registry.

Mobile health monitoring

3G-enabled monitoring devices are being used in Japan to measure blood pressure. The solution was primarily employed in temporary houses in the area impacted by the country’s 2011 earthquake. The wireless monitoring system helped to ensure patients’ health and safety, manage and control lifestyle-related diseases such as hypertension, and enhance cooperation with local communities. Source: World Economic Forum, Shaping the Future of Urban Development & Services Initiative, Global Survey on Urban Services (Oct.-Dec. 2015

3.0 Transit - Overview Observations : •Skyway: (Route. 5 ) lifespan is in good condition until 2040. •Reduce automobile dependency and surface parking lots by a public rail system that can access major neighborhood points. •87.9% of commuters are using private vehicles at the same time of day. •Increasing in infrastructure will result it increased cars this is called Induced Demand •Do not incentivize induced demand infrastructure habits! •How to creating public spaces that thrive after peak transportation times? •Autonomous vehicles will optimize traffic patterns in the future. •Public transit saves citizen / inhabitants $$ to grow the local economy. •Reduce Automotive Dependability. 1/10 income on transportation, since then roads have doubles, and we now spend 1/5 of income on transportation. •Working families ($20,000, - $50,000) a year spend slightly more on transportation than housing due to commuting. 85% of all driving costs leaves the local economy. •Portland saves 4 miles less and 11 minutes a day , which adds up to 3.5% of all income earned in the region. •Driving less increases recreational activities which boost local economies along with home equity.

3.1 Transit - Precedent

SECTION 3.1.1 PRECEDENT PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE (VEHICULAR CIRCULATION)

3.1.1 Transit - Precedent Multimodal Public Transportation System, Quito, Ecuador

Auckland: Big Data Analytics for Mobility Management

On-road Integrated Optimization Navigation Software, UPS (ORION)

Auckland, on the North Island of New Zealand, is the largest and most populous urban area in the country. It is an emerging international city that is fast developing a reputation for the quality of life it offers its residents. The city aspires to become the most liveable city in the world by 2040 by improving mobility, housing, economy and environment. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transport services, from roads and footpaths to cycling, parking and public transport.

The Municipality of Quito is building the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first metro line as part of a sustainable urban development strategy that integrates existing mobility systems. At its heart will be an integrated payment system, scheduled to start working in October 2019 when the system is inaugurated. It will initially include the metro and public bus systems, and expand to include public bike and two new cable car lines that are also being built. The municipality is working on systems that will produce data to analyse and optimize the routes, informing users about their journey planning and measuring how long journeys take. In 2017, the municipality launched Movilizate UIO, a mobile app that keeps citizens informed about the routes and stations of the BRT system, public bikes, and privately operated buses. The city government has been introducing more accessible buses, and is working on incentives to promote the use of electric buses and taxis.

The on-road integrated optimization navigation (ORION) algorithm uses historical route tracking to identify the most efficient path for each UPS driver to follow to deliver packages on a given day. It learns over time how to optimize routes to increase efficiency and reduce fuel consumption, and adapt to changes in the environment and surrounding infrastructure. Similar tools can be used by public transportation departments.

Electronic road pricing system, Singapore

Singapore has launched a next-generation electronic road pricing (ERP) system to manage traffic congestion issues. Global navigation satellite system technology will enable motorists to be charged according to distance travelled on congested roads. On-board units will provide real-time traffic information and alert drivers of potential charges before their journey, allowing them to decide whether to drive or choose public transport instead. Sources: https://sustainability.ups.com/media/UPS_ORION_2016.pdf

The city has implemented a technology solution to obtain real-time insights on traffic movements and support quick decision-making. The big data solution enhances public safety and transport efficiency by analyzing a large volume of structured and unstructured data. The system uses video analytics, automatic number plate recognition, vehicle model recognition, face recognition, demographic analysis and intelligent scene analysis to support decision-making. The stakeholders involved in the execution of the project include Auckland Transport and its partner organizations responsible for control and monitoring functions of physical security (including surveillance), building management, traffic management and computer-aided dispatch. Further, Auckland Transport collaborated with the private sector to design and implement the technology solution. The tiered, open and fault-tolerant architecture of the solution facilitates replication across cities. The key takeaway is that agencies must collaborate to use the same technology infrastructure and concerns of multiple departmental silos through a common solution. (This case study was provided by Hewlett Packard Enterprise)

Sources: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Urban-Services.pdf (This case study was provided by Hewlett Packard Enterprise)

SECTION 3.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE

3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions

3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions Primary Travel Route Inbound (Rte. 5 Skyway) (Towards Central Business District) Peak Hour: 7 - 8 A.M. Peak Hours 6 - 9 A.M.

~3,000 Vehicles including ~250 Heavy Vehicles ~7,500 Vehicles

76% of skyway traffic travels Inbound from Rte 179 (Milestrip Road) during morning peak hours.

Peak Hours:

6-9 A.M. Inbound (Towards Central Business District)

~7,500 Vehicles

43%

Travel to The Central Business District

~3,200 Vehicles

Bypass The Central Business District

~4,200 Vehicles

19% Travel to Delaware Ave 07% Travel to Niagara street Via I-190 NB 08% Travel to Church Street 07% Travel to Seneca Street 05% Travel to Elm Street via I-190 SB

57% 36% 21%

Travel to the I90 - N to Peace bridge or Rte-198 Travel to the I90 - S to I-90

Avg. Peak Hours travel time from Rte 179 (Milestrip Road)

Primary

~12 Minutes

Observations :

1) 2) 3)

57% Bypass downtown Buffalo during Demand Peak Hours 20,000 of 40,000 daily vehicles Travel to / From The Central Business District Skyway removal would cut secondary travel routes required capacity by 50%

Sources: 1) Plausibility Review for Removal of the Buffalo Skyway https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Buffalo-Skyway-Plausibility-Review.pdf 2) New York State Route 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study Report https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/repository/FinalReportAnd%20Appendicies10-20-08Report.pdf

3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions Secondary travel route Inbound (Towards Central Business District)

Peak Hour: 7-8 A.M. Inbound (TCBD from Rte. 5)

1 Ohio Street NB (BRIDGE) 2 Michigan Street NB (BRIDGE) 3 Ganson Street NB 4 Louisiana 5 South Park NB 6 Hopkins ST NB 7 Tift Street EB 8 I-190 NB 9 Route 5 Skyway NB

Avg. Peak Hours travel time from Rte 179 (Milestrip Road)

Secondary

~700 Vehicles ~470 Vehicles ~330 Vehicles ~200 Vehicles ~200 Vehicles ~860 Vehicles ~540 Vehicles ~540 Vehicles ~3,000Vehicles ~3,510 Vehicles

~16 Minutes

Observations :

1) 2) 3)

Streets Inbound from Ohio Street bridge distributes traffic rather than bottle necks. Ganson street is very under utilized for existing traffic scenarios Louisiana street has potential for a main street hub / boulevard condition.

3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions

3.1.2 Transit - Personal Automobile - Existing Conditions Existing Morning Traffic Counts Roadway I-190 NB Ohio Street NB Louisiana Street NB South Park Avenue NB Michigan Street NB Hopkins Street NB Tifft Street EB Route 5 Skyway NB

Morning Peak Hour Vehicles 3,000 470 200 860 330 390 540 3,510

Existing Morning Level of Service Existing Level Of Service (LOS) Roadway Ohio Street: Route 5/Fuhrmann to Louisiana Street B Route 5: Ridge Road to Ohio Street D Michigan Avenue: Ohio Street to Seneca Street A McKinley Parkway: Tifft Street to Southside Parkway A I-190: I-90 to Smith Street C South Park Avenue: Hopkins Street to Smith Street A

Existing Morning Level of Service Intersections Ohio Street at Ganson Street Ohio Street at Louisiana Street Michigan Avenue at South Park Avenue Michigan Avenue at Perry Street Michigan Avenue at Scott Street Tifft Street at Hopkins Street Hopkins Street at South Park Avenue

Existing Level Of Service (LOS) B B B B B C B

Existing Morning Travel Paths Roadway Ohio Street- Louisiana Street Corridor Tifft Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hopkins Street Corridor South Park Avenue Corridor NYS Thruway I-90EB to I-190 NB

Distance (Miles) 6.9 8.6 9.0 13.2

Existing Travel Time 15.2 25.8 24.3 15.1

SECTION 3.1.3 PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE PROPOSED DESIGN

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design Completed Overview: •The major traffic constraint of this proposal is driven from the 2017 Skyway Deck Rehab design by the Statewide Structures Management for the future of the 61 year old Buffalo Skyway Bridge (BIN 1001579). •The team determined that there is significant remaining useful life in the existing bridge structure and immediate action is necessary to preserve the value and serviceability of the bridge. •Repairs and rehabilitation are necessary to prolong the functionality of the Skyway for the next 20 years to meet the predicted remaining life of the overall structure. The structure is in reasonably good condition overall, and does not have a significant risk of loss of service in the short term. •The cost of full removal according to the Buffalo Skyway Management study the skyway removal will cost $21.7 million. The removal of the skyway deck without the removal of the skyway piers will cost an estimated $15 million. •Street improvements along Furhmann Boulevard, Route 5, Ganson Street, Ohio Street, Louisiana Street, St. Clair Street, and Chicago Street will allow increased traffic flows along current secondary travel routes that will become primary travel routes during phase III. •Planning for the future conditions of personal automobiles traffic will be optimized through agile mobility, according to the Global Future Council Urbanization Report. Electronic road pricing system like those in Singapore, On-road Integrated Optimization Navigation Software (ORION) by UPS, and a Multi-modal Public Transportation System like Quito, Ecuado. •Big data solution enhances public safety and transport efficiency by analyzing a large volume of structured and unstructured data.

Sources: 1) Plausibility Review for Removal of the Buffalo Skyway https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Buffalo-Skyway-Plausibility-Review.pdf

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Phase I OBJECTIVES: Phase I - 2020 •A key priority for phase I is to accommodate a rail line at the intersection of South Michigan Street and Ganson Street to the DL&W Station roughly 1,200 linear feet. •Another accommodation for phase I is to solve a bottleneck issue and allow for safe active mobility on Ohio Street by designing a 1,300 SF traffic circle. •Another accommodation are smart traffic sensors to monitor and optimize traffic flow for the outer harbor. •A secondary priority is to accommodate Chicago Street to prepare for future development and retail roughly 1,200 linear feet of roadways. This includes mill and overlay, a new striping pattern; new LED street lighting, sidewalks, green infrastructure, traffic signals, and new ADA ramps for a complete street design and implementation.

BENEFITS •Form a connection from the Southtowns to downtown using a street rail system. •This phase will allow future development and promote active mobility. •Traffic Circle will eliminate hardware, maintenance and electrical costs associated with traffic signals, which can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per year.

COST •Michigan Street (1,200 Linear Feet): For cost of the bridge improvements for added track and asphalt removals refer to phase I Rail Design proposal cost). •Ganson Street 4,500 Linear Feet: Street Improvements Total Cost $4,770,000 •Ohio Street Landscaped Traffic Circle (1300 SF): Total Cost $250,000 •Optional* Chicago Street (1,200 LF @ $1060 / LF): *Total Cost: $1,272,000*

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Phase II OBJECTIVES: Phase II - 2025 •The main priority for phase II is to accommodate Furhmann Boulevard to prepare for a 4.5 Mile Autonomous Bus Rapid Transit System. •A secondary improvement for phase II is to allow future expansion for development and safety for active mobility along Louisiana Street roughly 3,000 linear feet. This includes mill and overlay, a new striping pattern; new LED street lighting, sidewalks, green infrastructure, traffic signals, and new ADA ramps for a complete street design and implementation.

BENEFITS •Safety accommodate higher pedestrian active mobility issues. •This phase will allow more transportation access to 23% of Buffalo households that do not own a vehicle by preparing a Bus Rapid Transit System.

COST •Furhmann Boulevard would remain as existing. •Optional* Louisiana Street Improvements ($1060 / LF): *Total Cost: 3,180,000*

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Phase III OBJECTIVES: Phase III - 2035 •Removal of the 1.2 mile Skyway deck to accommodate an aerial tramway. •The piers of the skyway bridge structure will need significant attention to accommodate the structural loads of the aerial tramway, full removal of the skyway is roughly $21.7 million, an estimated $15 million will remove the skyway deck, the difference of $6.7 million will be utilized to improve the existing to remain concrete piers and columns.

BENEFITS •A significant improvement of active mobility will occur with the bridge removal. •This phase will allow an aerial tramway to connect the inner and outer harbors with a public transit system. This is also symbolic gesture of the demolished bridge sculpture.

COST •The cost of full removal according to the Buffalo Skyway Management study the skyway removal will cost $21.7 million. •The removal of the skyway deck without the removal of the skyway piers will cost an estimated $15 million.

Sources: 1) Plausibility Review for Removal of the Buffalo Skyway https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Buffalo-Skyway-Plausibility-Review. pdf 2) New York State Route 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study Report https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/repository/FinalReportAnd%20Appendicies10-20-08Report.pdf

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Enlarged

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Future LOS

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - LOS Optional Improvement OPTIONAL COMPONENT: Phase I - 2020 •Ohio Street after ganson to be a one way only during peak hours allowing two lane morning inbound to the city or two lane afternoon outbound. •Ohio Street new construction to provide an additional morning inbound and afternoon outbound lane to accommodate hours. •*(Optional Constructed 3rd lane to increase capacity to accommodate peak times is possible)

BENEFITS •Decrease travel times and improve LOS by implementing a peak hour one way controlled by traffic lights on individual lanes

COST •Ohio Street (Traffic Signal and lane painting ): Total Cost $250,000 • Optional Ohio Street lane addition 4,800ft (1,200 LF @ $400 / LF): Optional Cost: $1,920,000*

TOTAL COST •Total cost for the partial skyway removal, Ganson Street priority street improvements, and two optional street improvements, and a traffic circle is $24,472,000 (RECOMMENDED) + One way option

TOTAL RECOMMENDED VEHICULAR COSTS 24,914,000

100

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Enlarged

101

3.1.3 Transit - Personal Automobile - Proposed Design - Complete OBJECTIVES: Completed Phase TOTAL COST

•Total cost for the partial skyway removal, Ganson Street improvements, and a traffic circle is $20,020,000. •Total cost for a complete skyway removal, Ganson Street improvements, and a traffic circle is $26,720,000. •Total cost for the partial skyway removal, Ganson Street priority street improvements, and two optional street improvements, and a traffic circle is $24,472,000 (RECOMMENDED) *•Total cost for the full skyway removal, Ganson Street priority street improvements, and two optional street improvements, and a traffic circle is $31,172,000 Phase I: •Ganson Street 4,500 Linear Feet: Street Improvements Total Cost $4,770,000 •Ohio Street Landscaped Traffic Circle (1300 SF): Total Cost $250,000 *•Optional* Chicago Street (1,200 LF @ $1060 / LF): *Total Cost: $1,272,000* *Phase II:•Optional* Louisiana Street Improvements ($1060 / LF): *Total Cost: 3,180,000* Phase III •The removal of the skyway deck without the removal of the skyway piers will cost an estimated $15 million. *•The cost of full removal according to the Buffalo Skyway Management study the skyway removal will cost $21.7 million.

BENEFITS

102

SECTION 3.2.1 RAILWAY PRECEDENT

103

3.2.1 Transit - Railway - Precedent - Cincinnati Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study Summary of Findings : Following project Goals and Guiding Principles, the study team identified a four mile street car study alignment servicing downtown and OTR. The purpose of the Feasibility Study was to examine the study alignment and to assess the engineering viability of streetcar technology in this environment; to evaluate impacts related to traffic, parking, the existing bus transit system and utilities; estimate streetcar ridership and economic benefits; to develop preliminary capital and operating cost estimates for the study alignment; and, to identify a set of potential financing options. The study team presented the following key findings in this report: • Impacts identified related to traffic, parking, bus transit, and existing utilities along the study alignment, but did not find any major obstacles or cost prohibitive impacts or issues. • Preliminary cost estimate to design and construct the streetcar study alignment totaling $84 million in 2007 base year costs, and $102 million in escalated costs assuming construction completed by the year 2010. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the study alignment range from $2.0 to $2.75 million. • Preliminary ridership estimates for average daily streetcar ridership in the Opening Year (assumed 2010) ranged from 3,700 to 5,600, and ranged from 5,000 to 7,900 in the year 2015. Streetcar ridership generated by special events is not included in these figures. • Economic impacts in conjunction with the streetcar investment are estimated over thirty years as $379 million in increased property values and $34 million in additional property taxes; and, based on experience in U.S. communities that implemented streetcars, the consultant team estimated over $1.4 billion in redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties in the corridor. • An array of federal, state, and local funding sources identified for further consideration in further phases of study

Source: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/linkservid/17D4E8BF-EE36-4924-94AAFBB630857475/showMeta/0/

104

SECTION 3.2.2 RAILWAY EXISTING CONDITIONS

105

3.2.2 Transit - Railway - Existing Conditions OVERVIEW

•The 2025 Long Range Plan of the Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council calls for Metro Rail extensions to the airport as well as the Tonawandas. The 2025 plan is incorporated by reference in the City of Buffalo’s comprehensive plan. An expanded rail system could reinforce the strategic position of Downtown in the region and reverse a trend of declining transit ridership. •Federal funding for such projects is competitive. Significant local matching funds are required. Source: Queen City Hub: A Strategic Regional Action Plan for Downtown Buffalo. (November 2003)

•The BOA is served by two Class I railroads CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern. Class I railroads are defined as having annual carrier operating revenues of at least $250 million. •Other railroads operate facilities and use trackage in the BOA, including Amtrak, the Class II Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad, and the Class III Buffalo Southern Railroad and South Buffalo Railway. •CSX also owns, operates, and maintains two drawbridges over the Buffalo River, both of which link to the Tifft Street Yard, a transfer location south of the BOA. •The extensive rail network offers opportunities to more effectively utilize existing lines, as well as to develop new ones. •There are numerous industrial sites adjacent to existing rail lines or already connected by sidings or spurs and abandoned rail corridors that could be put back into service. SOURCE: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd/boa/BuffaloRiverCorridorBOA.pdf

ISSUES •Strictly for Amtrack and Commercial use. •Most development was formed around these rail lines. •Unused existing infrastructure. •Majority of public input wants more public rail connectivity

106

SECTION 3.2.3 RAILWAY PROPOSED DESIGN

107

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Phase I OBJECTIVES: Phase I - 2020

•Existing CSX Rail Lines to support a Rapid Transit commuter rail system from Mile Strip Road to support commuters from Hamburg. •New Rail Station / Junction near the CSX Buffalo Creek Ohio Street Yard (former BCK yard). •Use of Existing CSX Rail Lines adjacent to Ganson Street for a light rail. •New Street Rail on South Michigan Street that continues over the South Michigan Lift Bridge and connects the newly designed DL&W Station roughly 1,200 feet. •New water taxi / water ferry line on the Buffalo River to the existing Queen City ferry.

BENEFITS

•Allow more access to The City of Buffalo Central Business District providing a solution to the 57% of bypassing vehicular traffic that uses the current primary method of transportation. Using Light Rail Trains, 4 cars running a train every 5 minutes, 2,667 passengers inbound from the south. •This phase will allow more transportation access to 23% of Buffalo households that do not own a vehicle. •Due to ease of access to the Central Business District it will also increase the values of properties for each stop along the rapid transit system.

COST

•New Rail Station / Junction near the CSX Buffalo Creek Ohio Street Yard (former BCK yard): Will require negotiations with CSX and land acquisition. The project will cost an estimated $30 million. •New water taxi / water ferry lines on the Buffalo River to the existing Queen City ferry: The project will cost an estimated $825,000. •Guideway and Track / street modifications: $20 Million Design, Management, Soft Costs: $8 Million Contingencies and Finance Costs: $8 Million Conversions from existing CSX rails to a shared rapid transit will need rail cars (rolling stock). Will need 4 trains Rolling Stock Total: $20 Million TOTAL: 86,825,000

108

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Phase III OBJECTIVES: Phase III - 2035 Year Plan •New 4, 000 FT Aerial Tramway •New Aerial Tramway Stations (refer to proposed development plan)

BENEFITS •This Aerial Tramway will accommodate tourists and local residents with a direct connection to the outer harbor. This is a symbolic gesture towards the demolished skyway. •This Aerial Tramway will also accommodate a “Dine in the sky” function after peak transportation hours for additional revenue.

COST •New 4, 000 ft aerial tramway with four Aerial Tramway Stations. The average cost per mile is $18M per mile, this includes structural support. Using the existing skyway structure with rehabilitation cost will save an estimated $5 million. The estimated cost for an aerial tramway is a Total Cost of $13 million. Source: Hercules Aerial Tram/Mobility Study & Report

Source: (Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images) https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/04/26/mexico-ecatepec-aerial-tram

109

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Completed OBJECTIVES: Completed Phase TOTAL COST

•The total cost for a new rail system, a new rail station, a water ferry, and Aerial Tramway with soft and financial cost: Total: $99,825,000. Accommodating 5,000 - 8000 daily riders.

BENEFITS

•Attract Tourists, and former sprawlers with a reduced Automotive dependence. •Increased access / connectivity from Hamburg to the University at Buffalo South Campus. •Job creation and economic growth •Additional revenue source for The City of Buffalo •Sustainability from less automotive emissions •Safety, Fewer automobile accidents •Benefits to Downtown Residents and Employees , nearly all of these employees and residents would have direct and efficient access to the Outer Harbor with the rail system built. •A Rail Line would, in effect, stimulate latent demand for trips to the waterfront area for a variety of work and also non-work activities that would otherwise not occur if a Bridge were not built. Some of these non-work trips would be for purely recreational purposes, such as exercise or relaxation, and would not generate any commercial activity. •Other trips would occur by residents and employees working downtown for economic purposes such as eating, shopping, entertainment, special events, conferences, and other activities. Both of these trip types have value because they involve people exercising the option to spend non-work time performing activities that increase quality of life and increase the critical mass of downtown activities needed to spur revitalization.

BENEFIT TO A PROPOSED BRIDGE STUDY

According to an expensive $150 Million outer harbor bridge connectivity proposal in 2009, The total induced benefits to downtown residents and employees was $102 million in value by connecting the outer harbor to inner harbor. Source:

110

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Enlarged Area 1

111

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Enlarged Area 2

112

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Rail Stops

113

SECTION 3.2.4 RAILWAY PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATES 114

3.2.4 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Alternate Travel Route 2 Alternate Travel Route 2 (Ohio Street) BENEFIT •Allow the development of the first ward to benefit the neighborhood.

ISSUE •The cost of new rail lines along Ohio Street would be Greater than the use of existing ganson Street rail lines. •There would be no connectivity between Furhmann Boulevard and the new DL&W Station

115

3.2.4 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Alternative Travel Route 3 Alternate Travel Route 3 (DL&W Corridor) BENEFITS •Allow the development of the old DL&W corridor.

ISSUES •The cost of new rail lines along the DL&W Corridor would be Greater than the use of existing ganson Street rail lines. •There would be no connectivity between Furhmann Boulevard and the new DL&W Station

116

SECTION 3.3.1 PUBLIC METRO / BUS PRECEDENT

117

3.3.1 Transit - Public Metro / Bus - Precedent - Helsinki Japanese brand Muji and Finnish autonomous-driving company Sensible 4 launched the self-driving Gacha bus last week in Helsinki, which is fit for all weather conditions. First revealed as renders just four months ago, the driverless Gacha shuttle bus has now made its maiden journey, which took place in front of the Helsinki Central Library Oodi in the Finnish capital on 8 March. According to Muji and Sensible 4, it is the first autonomous bus in the world that is able to drive in all types of weather, including heavy rain, fog and snow. Users can order the on-demand bus via a ride-hailing app on their smartphone, and simply get on when it approaches them. It also connects them with existing transportation services, so that they can select the best route and transportation methods according to the situation, and transfer between different services with ease. While Muji supplied the minimal design of the vehicle, Sensible 4 provided the driverless technology, which includes using digital mapping and sensor technology to detect and avoid any obstacles. The autonomous system runs while simultaneously tracing a digital map, like an “invisible railway”. According to Muji, the inspiration for the design came from a “toy capsule” – they wanted it to represent “a universal shape that embodies joy and excitement, bringing peace and happiness to those who encounter it”. With no driver, the exterior of the bus has no defined front or rear. This also frees up space inside, where bench-style seating follows the vehicle’s soft, rounded shape, offering more space for passengers. An LED belt around the exterior of the bus serves as both headlights and a communication screen, informing other vehicles and passersby of the vehicle’s movements. Swedish car manufacturer Volvo also recently revealed a driverless electric bus that can carry up to 93 people. The 12-metre long AB 7900 bus is set to undergo testing before being put into operation on Singapore’s roads.

Source https://www.dezeen.com/2019/03/15/gacha-self-driving-bus-muji-sensible-4/

118

SECTION 3.3.2 PUBLIC METRO / BUS EXISTING CONDITIONS

119

3.3.2 Transit - Public Metro / Bus - Existing

120

SECTION 3.3.3 PUBLIC METRO / BUS PROPOSED DESIGN

121

3.2.3 Transit - Bus Route - Proposed Design - Phase I Bus Route OBJECTIVES: Phase I- 2025 Year Plan Optional:

•4.5 Mile new Autonomous Rapid Transit line on Rte 5 Continuing on Furhmann Boulevard with 5 outdoor stops and 2 new stations . •New Park and Ride Station at Route 5 off-ramp near Ridge Road.

BENEFITS •Allow more access to The City of Buffalo Central Business District providing a solution to the 57% of bypassing vehicular traffic that uses the current primary method of transportation. •This phase will allow more transportation access to 23% of households that do not own a vehicle. •Due to ease of access to the Central Business District it will also increase the values of properties for each stop along the pubic transit system.

Ai Driver-less Bus COST •4 4.5 Mile new Autonomous Rapid Transit line on Rte 5 Continuing on Furhmann ($250,000 per bus) $1 Million Transit Stops and landscaping / hardscape : $1 Million Park and Ride Station on Ridge Road: $2 Million Total: $4 Million

122

3.2.3 Transit - Bus Route - Proposed Design - Phase I Bus Route Routes

123

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Phase I Bus Route Enlarged Area 1

124

3.2.3 Transit - Railway - Proposed Design - Phase I Bus Route Enlarged Area 2

125

SECTION 3.4.1 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN (ACTIVE MOBILITY) PRECEDENT

126

3.4.1 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Precedent - Portland Portland Ranked #1 for best bike cities in America •Very few bike lanes in the country are being built with the attention to detail that engineers in Seattle are using. Protected lanes sport concrete buffers—the gold standard for protected lanes—and at intersections, riders can lean on lean rails as they wait for their cycling-specific signal to change. “The city has done some really impressive things,” says Tom Fucoloro, editor of the Seattle Bike Blog. “The Second Avenue protected bike lane takes you all the way from the Space Needle to Pioneer Square on a nice, protected bike lane that’s really fun to ride.” A few miles away, the West Lake Cycle Track was even chosen as the best bike facility in North America by People For Bikes. •There are currently 60 miles of low-stress neighborhood greenways in the works, and connecting existing protected bikeways is a major priority, says Dongho Chang, a traffic engineer for the city. The Vision Zero initiative has also been taken seriously. “We timed all 300 traffic signals for 23 miles per hour,” says Chang. That’s significantly slowed traffic, which is a major tenet of reducing bike and pedestrian deaths. The city has also narrowed lanes and inserted speed tables and traffic islands—all of which calm vehicular traffic. Fucoloro even says that the will to reduce speeds was surprisingly universal. •One of Seattle’s true bright spots is its transit system. During the period when Seattle added 60,000 jobs, it somehow also managed to reduce single occupancy car trips by 9 percent. This shift was thanks in large part to a well-engineered—and therefore well-used—public transit system. So what does that have to do with biking? First and last mile bike commuting, where you ride to or from the bus stop, helps cut down on car traffic around transit stops. It can also help cities develop more infrastructure for bikes in high-transportation areas. For many riders, riding to and from a stop is an end unto itself. But it’s also how many bike commuters get their start. First, you’re just riding a mile. Soon, you’re going all the way to work on two wheels. •One final success story in Seattle is its bike share system—or lack thereof. Seattle’s bike share system, named Pronto, shut down in 2017. “It felt like a real loss,” says Fucoloro. But he adds that really, it turned out to be kind of a blessing. When start-up bike share companies were looking for a market to enter, Seattle was just about the only large city that didn’t have a system already up and running. From day one, there were bikes everywhere–something the first system had failed to do. In its first six months, 1 million rides were taken on Limebikes in Seattle. “It turned this failure into a real success.”

Source: https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-cities-2018/

127

SECTION 3.4.2 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN (ACTIVE MOBILITY) EXISTING CONDITIONS

128

3.4.1 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Existing Conditions

129

3.4.1 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Existing Conditions Enlarged

130

SECTION 3.4.3 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN (ACTIVE MOBILITY) PROPOSED DESIGN

131

3.4.3 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Proposed Design OBJECTIVES: Phase I - III •Phase I- Ganson Street, Louisiana Street, Chicago Street, Miami street and Moore Street will receive bike lanes and landscaped walkways •Phase II- 3,000 LF Boardwalk feature along Terminal B •Phase III- Walking paths to connect future development

BENEFITS •Lower crime rates with more active mobility •Physical activity has been associated with a risk reduction for premature death and a number of chronic diseases. Estimated risk reductions between the most active and the least active groups are substantial, i.e., about 30 percent for all causes of death. •Areas with more amenities for biking and walking, such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or paths are associated with more active commuting to school. •Traffic volume, highway density, and traffic speeds are negatively associated with levels of active travel, while smaller block size, access to public transport, retail, neighborhood shops, and street connectivity are positively associated with levels of bicycle ridership. •Walking and cycling can be increased by community-scale urban design and land use policies. These include zoning regulations and building codes. higher street connectivity, higher density of development, and having more stores, jobs and schools within walking distance of where people live.

COST •Ganson Street, Louisiana Street, Chicago Street, Miami street and Moore Street will receive bike lanes and landscaped walkways refer to personal vehicle estimate •Phase II- Boardwalk feature along Terminal B ($150 / LF) Total Cost: $450,000 •Phase III- Walking path to connect future development ($80 / LF) Total Cost: $160,000

132

3.4.3 Transit - Bicycle & Pedestrian - Proposed Design

133

SECTION 4 FUNDING 134

4.1 Funding - Local Capital Funding Local Capital Funding City of Buffalo Capital Funding •Since 2006, the City of Buffalo has invested over$15.3 million of City bond funding on street, bridge and marina and park improvements within the LWRA. City bond funds are often used as the local match component for State and Federal grant programs, helping to bring sub-stantial resources to the City. The Mayor develops the proposed capital budget based upon staff recommendations and input from the Citizens Planning Council. Mandated by the City Charter to be submitted by the Mayor on or before November 1, the Common Council has until December 15 to adopt the recommended capital budget.

Erie County Funding •The Buffalo waterfront is a regional resource, enjoyed by many Erie County residents. As such, Erie County has periodically invested in strategic waterfront projects. The Citizens Planning Council is a board established by the City Charter to review and make recommendations regarding the City’s capital budget program.

Niagara River Greenway Funds •In 2007, in conjunction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of the Niagara River Hydropower Project, the New York Power Authority created four Niagara River Greenway Funds, collectively providing $9 million per year for fifty years to implement projects deemed consistent with the Niagara River Greenway Plan. The funds include: New York State Parks Greenway Fund ($3 million per year – only in State Parks) Buffalo and Erie County Greenway Fund ($2 million per year) Ecological Greenway Fund ($1 million per year). •Funding through the State Parks Greenway Fund is restricted to projects located within a State Park within the Niagara River Greenway boundaries. These funds may be utilized for new capital investments associated with the Buffalo Harbor State Park on the City’s Outer Harbor. The Buffalo and Erie County Greenway Funds may be used within the Niagara River Greenway boundaries in Erie County. The funds are considered local funding source for State and Federal grant purposes. Funding applications are solicited once per year and are reviewed by a committee comprised of the City of Buffalo, Erie County, Olmsted Parks Conservancy, and the New York Power Authority representatives. Since the Fund began in 2007, the following projects have been funded within the LWRA. •The fund will continue to receive $2 million per year through 2057. As of 2013, this translates into 44 more years of funding remaining or $88 million. At least two opportunities exist to improve the fund’s impact. First, the Buffalo and Erie County Greenway Fund Standing Committee may identify key funding priorities to help advance large scale implementation of greenway projects in Erie County. Second, the committee may explore options for obtaining some or all of the funding earlier than at the $2 million per year rate. •Any changes would need to be approved by the Buffalo Erie County Standing Committee. The Ecological Greenway Fund may also be utilized for projects within the LWRA. Since the fund began in 2007, seventy percent of the Ecological Standing Committee funding has been awarded to projects either located within the Buffalo LWRA or Niagara River ecosystem research.

135

4.2 Funding - State Funding State Funding It is recognized that a State and federal agency’s ability to undertake these listed actions is subject to a variety of factors and considerations; that the consistency provisions of the approved LWRP may not apply; and, that the consistency requirements cannot be used to require a State or federal agency to undertake an action it could not undertake pursuant to other provisions of law. Reference also should be made to Section II, Section III, and Section V, which discuss local goals, proposed projects, and local implementation techniques, including State and federal assistance needed to implement the approved LWRP. The State of New York is an active partner in the revitalization of the Buffalo LWRA. In addition to the ongoing implementation of the programs outlined above, the following proactive State actions are needed to implement the Policies and Action Strategy. This reflects land ownership conditions, the complexities of international boundary management, the limited financial resources of the local community and the regional significance of the Buffalo waterfront. Empire State Development Corporation •Partner with the City of Buffalo to encourage private investment in the City’s designated priority water enhanced, mixed uses development areas identified in Policy 5A. •Support the City’s major local waterfront investment corridors such as Niagara St. and Ohio St. as per Policy 5B, 5E and 5F. •Develop the City as a high quality international gateway as per Goal 6. •Work with State and Federal landowners at Cotter Point to activate the former army storage building and maximize recreation, tourism and economic development opportunities at the site as per the Action Strategy. •Partner with the City of Buffalo to facilitate the redevelopment of the City’s Auto Impound Property as per the Action Strategy. •Support historic preservation tax credits, brownfield clean up and energy efficiency funding for reuse of iconic waterfront structures. •Explore opportunities to incentivize Buffalo’s blue economy including water based businesses and enterprise activities within the LWRA. •Support City of Buffalo efforts to create a long term revenue stream to support water dependent and enhanced public amenities in the LWRA. Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation •Support the City of Buffalo’s phased development of the City’s Canalside parcels as per Policy 5A. •Partner with the City of Buffalo and local stakeholders to design and implement the Cars on Main Street project from Terrace to South Park and Erie Street design improvements as per Policy 5E. •Implement those elements of the Grain Elevator and Waterfront Bridge lighting proposal that are economically and environmentally sustainable and offer a positive return on investment as per the Action Strategy . •Preserve access to the publicly owned waterfront on the Outer Harbor as per Policy 8A. •Reactivate the Ford Terminal Complex on the Outer Harbor, including public access as per Policy 8A. Department of Environmental Conservation •Monitor the Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) implementation of BSA’s Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan comprised of both green and grey infrastructure solutions in support of Policies 2A and 2B •Ensure the local implementation of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions, as per Policy 2B; •Work with the Buffalo Water Authority to implement the Great Lakes Compact water quantity and conservation provisions; as per Policy 2F. •Provide funding (as funds are available) and technical and management assistance for the ongoing implementation of the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the Buffalo and Niagara River Great Lakes Areas of Concern, the Lake Erie Lakewide Area Management Plan (LAMP), the Bi-National Niagara River Toxics Management Plan and the State’s Great Lakes Basin Action Agenda. •Provide funding (as funds are available) and technical assistance to the Buffalo River Great Lakes Legacy Act Environmental Dredging Project and the strategic removal of contaminated sediments from the Buffalo River. •Fund and provide technical assistance for efforts to characterize and address contaminated sediment and/or botulism concerns in` Scajaquada Creek/Hoyt Lake/Mirror Lake and South Park Lake. •Provide brownfields clean up and asbestos remediation support for mixed use and industrial redevelopment in the LWRA. •Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and populations in accordance with Goal 7;Periodically monitor water quality in areas adjacent to the confined disposal areas within the LWRA. •Periodically review ongoing compliance arguments with hazardous waste and brownfield clean up, as well as junkyard provisions, within the LWRA as per Goals 10; and •Provide funding and technical assistance to local marinas for vessel pump-out stations and wash down facilities to protect near shore water quality and discourage the transport of aquatic invasive species. New York State Department of Transportation •Provide technical assistance and funding for the following transportation projects outlined in Policy 5F and the Action Strategy. New York Power Authority •Coordinate with the Buffalo and Erie County Greenway Steering Committee to maximize the impact of the remaining NYPA greenway expenditures. •Coordinate investments in the Erie Basin Marina, Buffalo Harbor State Park, and NYPA First Buffalo Marina docks and boating service facilities to maximize their boating, recreation and economic development benefits. •Ensure that efforts to develop energy resources in the LWRA, including but not limited to wind and/or hydrokinetic energy, thoroughly examine and document potential adverse impacts to the environment, the Buffalo community’s use and enjoyment of local waters for recreation, transportation, and economic development.

136

4.2 Funding - State Funding State Funding Continued Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority •Finalize implementation of the Niagara Street Revitalization Project. •Actively partner with the City of Buffalo to maximize public transit ridership within the LWRA. •Partner with the City and the ECHDC to activate the DLW Station as a vital component of the Canalside/Cobblestone revitalization. •Preserve the DLW “Dell” corridor for future passenger rail service and/or greenway open space. NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation •Coordinate investments in the Erie Basin Marina, Buffalo Harbor State Park, and NYPA First Buffalo Marina docks and boating service facilities to maximize their boating, recreation and economic development benefits; •Provide funding and technical support for the development of a City of Buffalo parks, recreation and open space master plan as per the Action Strategy; •Facilitate, through funding and technical support, cross border interpretation of the War of 1812 and Underground Railroad, as per Policy 5D; •Provide funding and technical support, including Historic Preservation Tax Credits, for the preservation and enhancement of the privately held historic resources in the LWRA as per the LWRP Action Strategy; •Provide funding and technical support for the preservation and enhancement of the publicly held historic resources in the LWRA as per Policy 5C and the LWRP Action Strategy including: Lighting of the City’s waterfront grain elevator and bridges. Activation of the Colonel Ward Pumping Station for heritage interpretation and economic development. Activation of the DL& W Terminal. Activation of the Ford Terminal Complex. Provide security for the City-owned Cargill Superior and Concrete Central grain elevators. •Provide funding and technical support for the long term restoration of the historic Buffalo Olmsted Park system elements located within the LWRA, as per the LWRP Action Strategy. Department of Health •Protect public health from contaminated fish as per Partner with the Buffalo Water Authority to eliminate chemicals of concern in drinking water supply as per Policy 2F.

New York State’s Rail Capital Improvement Programs Rail Service Preservation Program •The Rail Service Preservation Program is a multiyear freight and passenger rail funding program enacted by the State Legislature with funds appropriated annually. The current program is a $100 million program over five years. Beginning in State FY 2005-06, $20 million is available annually for rail passenger and freight capital projects. Funding from this program is also used for the annual subsidy that NYSDOT pays Amtrak for operation of Adirondack service between Albany and Montreal. There is no local match requirement for this program. Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act of 2005 •The $2.9 billion Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act of 2005 was passed by the voters of New York State in the November 2005 election. The Governor and the Legislature signed a Memorandum of Understanding that established the criteria for the use of these funds. The bond act allocates $27 million each year for rail and port projects. The projects funded in the initial two years of the program were included in the MOU. For years three through five of the program, the MOU requires that NYSDOT develop formal procedures to solicit applications from eligible recipients, specifies application evaluation criteria and requires notification to the Governor and the Legislature of those projects which the Department proposes to fund. A 10 percent local match is required for projects funded by the bond program. Industrial Access Program •The Industrial Access Program was established by Chapter 54 of the Laws of 1985 for the purpose of providing state funding for necessary road and bridge improvements which facilitate economic development and result in the creation and/or retention of jobs. Under the Laws of 1998, projects that provide rail access were made eligible. The Industrial Access Program is a combination 60 percent grant and 40 percent loan program with a specified repayment period based on the project cost. No new funding has been appropriated since SFY 2006-07. Multi-Modal Program •The Multi-Modal Program is authorized by Section 14-k of NYS Transportation Law. This program provides funds for capital improvements to rail freight and passenger facilities, port facilities, aviation facilities, local roads and bridges and fixed ferry facilities. Projects funded from this program must be nominated by the Governor or members of the Legislature. NYSDOT evaluates nominated projects for compliance with the eligibility criteria but has no role in project selection. There is no requirement for a local match in this program.

137

4.2 Funding - State Funding State Funding Continued Section 5307/5340 - Urbanized Area Formula Program •The largest of FTA’s grant programs, this program provides grants to urbanized areas to support public transportation. Funding is distributed by formula based on the level of transit service provision, population, and other factors. Total national funding is $5.1 Billion in FY 2018 which includes the Growing States and High-Density States formula. The program remains largely unchanged with a few exceptions. In addition, the urbanized area formula for distributing funds now includes the number of low-income individuals as a factor. There is no floor or ceiling on the amounts that can be spent on job access and reverse commute activities. Additionally, these funds are not subject to the coordinated planning process or require a solicitation to program the funds. Section 5309 - Fixed-Guideway Capital Investment Grants •Also known as “New Starts/Small Starts,” this program awards grants on a competitive basis for major investments in new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and ferry systems. The authorization levels for this program total $2.65 Billion for FFY 2018. These funds are not included in the fiscal constraint calculations for the state because they are discretionary based on FTA’s process. As funds are awarded or Full Funding Agreements (FFA) are added for specific projects, these projects must be added to the TIP/STIP. Section 5310 – Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals with Disabilities •This program provides formula funding to increase the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. Funds are apportioned based on each State’s share of the targeted populations and in the FAST Act are apportioned to both State (for all areas under 200,000) and large urbanized areas (over 200,000). The former New Freedom program (5317) is folded into this program. The New Freedom program provided grants for services with disabilities that went above and beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Nationally, the enhanced 5310 program has $273 M for 2018. These funds require that projects awarded be included in the Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Plan that was part of the SAFETEA-LU legislation. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) •The FAST Act continued the CMAQ program to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) •The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation alternatives (TA). These setaside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP, encompassing a variety of smaller-scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. The FAST Act requires all TA projects to be funded through a competitive process. Eligible applicants include all entities that were eligible to apply for TAP funds. The FAST Act also allows nonprofit entities responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs to apply. NYSDOT Statewide Priority Projects •NYSDOT reserves 25% of expected National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds and Surface Transportation Program (STP) Off-System Bridge funds from each MPO for statewide distribution on a statewide competitive basis. Statewide competition for these funds offers an opportunity to increase regional funding and to advance new projects considered critical to renew and strategically enhance the state’s overall transportation system. Larger, strategic,beyond preservation projects which may be beyond the funding limitations of current planning targets would be eligible for this program. When a new round of funding is announced, NYSDOT will solicit projects and provide guidance to MPOs. Projects receiving Statewide Priority awards will be added to the TIP following a 20-day public review and comment period via amendment in accordance to the established TIP Change Guidelines (5/13).

138

4.2 Funding - State Funding State Funding Continued BRIDGE-NY •BRIDGE-NY is a program designed to rehabilitate and replace bridges and culverts statewide. This investment in local transportation infrastructure supports the needs of the traveling public, movement of goods and regional economic competitiveness. The BRIDGE NY program, administered by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), is open to all municipal owners of bridges and culverts. Projects will be awarded through a competitive process and will support all phases of project development. Projects selected for funding under the BRIDGE NY Initiative will be evaluated based on the resiliency of the structure, including such factors as hydraulic vulnerability and structural resiliency; the significance and importance of the bridge including traffic volumes, detour considerations, number and types of businesses served and impacts on commerce; and the current bridge and culvert structural conditions. Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) •The Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) was established by the NYS Legislature in 1981. The program provides state funding to municipalities to support the construction and repair of highways, bridges, highway-railroad crossings, and other facilities that are not on the State highway system. These state funds may also be used for the local match portion of federal-aid TIP projects or to supplement federal funding for projects (provide a larger local match). The applicable rules for the CHIPS Program are contained in Section 10-c of the State Highway Law. Apportionments to municipalities are calculated annually by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) according to formulas specified in this section of the Law. Upon approval of the State Budget, NYSDOT determines each municipality’s final CHIPS Capital apportionment for the new State fiscal year and notifies them of the available amount via the letter for the scheduled June payment and a posting to the Capital Apportionment Balances link on the CHIPS website. The 2016-17 New York budget provided $438 million in direct funding for the CHIPS. PAVE-NY •PAVE-NY is a new program included in the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2015/16 – 2019/20 State Transportation Plan. It assists municipalities with the rehabilitation and reconstruction of local highways and roads by providing $100 million annually through SFY 2019-20. Funds are apportioned by NYSDOT based on the ratio of funds each municipality received under the SFY 2016-17 Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS). PAVE-NY is available to New York City and all cities, counties, towns and villages that report local roadway mileage to NYSDOT pursuant to the Local Highway Inventory (LHI). Municipal project sponsors must follow locally adopted street and highway design and construction standards. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for local streets and highways or NYSDOT highway standards may be used for the design of municipally owned roads. The following work is eligible for reimbursement if it is part of a $933,627 highway resurfacing or highway reconstruction project: New signs, New, upgraded, or coordinated traffic signals, Intelligent transportation systems (ITS), Traffic calming installations (speed humps, etc.), Guiderail (galvanized) projects, Removal or relocation of roadside obstacles, Pavement grooving Economic Development Fund (ESD) •New York offers financial incentives to manufacturers, service providers, warehousers and distributors & research and development companies to assist with site location, new facility construction, existing facility expansion or modernizing existing operations — all of which can be tailored to the size and scope of your project. Incentive may also assist with your working capital, employee training, expanding export opportunities and productivity enhancement. Power Proceeds Grant Program (NYPA) •Support the growth of businesses that lead to the creation or maintenance of jobs and tax revenues in NYS. Eligible projects include, workforce development; energy-related projects, programs and services; capital investments in buildings, equipment, and associated infrastructure owned by an eligible applicant for fund benefits; transportation projects under state or federally approved plans; the acquisition of land needed for infrastructure; research and development where the results of such research and development will directly benefit NYS. An eligible project must be physically located in the state of NY and within a 30-mile radius of the NYPA Niagara Power Project in Lewiston. Centers for Advanced Technology (CAT) grants •Non-dilutive matching grant monies available to companies that engage with a college/university partner on a research & development project that facilitates commercialization of a technology and brings it closer to market. There are 15 CATs across New York State, with two in the Buffalo Niagara region: the University at Buffalo (UB) CAT in Biomedical & Bioengineering; and the Center for Advanced Ceramic Technology at Alfred University. Companies located in New York State can access CAT funds from any of the 15 CATs, regardless of geographic proximity. Tax Programs •New York State has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the Northeast. In addition, New York and the Buffalo Niagara region offer a variety of incentives to companies expanding or relocating in the Empire State. Excelsior Jobs Program •The Excelsior Jobs Program provides job creation and investment incentives to firms in targeted industries such as biotechnology, pharmaceutical, high-tech, clean-technology, green technology, financial services, agriculture, software development and manufacturing. Firms in these industries that create and maintain new jobs or make significant financial investment are eligible to apply for up to four fully refundable tax credits. Businesses claim the credits over a 10 year period.

139

4.2 Funding - State Funding State Funding Continued START-UP NY •Governor Cuomo’s groundbreaking initiative, is transforming communities across the state into tax-free sites for new and expanding businesses through affiliations with public and private universities, colleges and community colleges. Businesses can operate 100% NYS tax-free for 10 years. No income tax, business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees on or near academic campuses. IDA Abatement Programs •A common benefit pursued for most expansion or retention projects are tax abatements. In Buffalo Niagara, abatements typically take three forms: Property Tax Abatements (on new building construction and expansions), Sales Tax Abatements (on non-production equipment and construction materials), and/or Mortgage Recording Tax Abatements (a 1% tax). These programs can reduce expansion costs for eligible target companies. Investment Tax Credit •Businesses new to New York State that make new investments in production property and equipment may qualify for tax credits of up to 5% of their eligible investment. New businesses may elect to receive a refund for many of these credits, and all unused credits can be carried forward for 15 years. Opportunity Zone •The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created the Opportunity Zone Program – a new economic development initiative designed to spur investment activity and job creation in economically distressed communities. Qualified investments made in designated Opportunity Zones are eligible for preferential tax treatment. For a look at Buffalo Niagara sites and buildings within Opportunity Zones, visit our Site Search page and toggle ‘Opportunity Zone’ in criteria.

140

4.3 Funding - Federal Funding Federal Funding The Federal Government is also an active partner in the revitalization of the Buffalo LWRA, driven in part by the unique conditions associated with the City of Buffalo’s location on Great Lakes and the US-Canadian border. In addition to the ongoing implementation of the programs outlined in Appendix D, the following proactive federal actions have been identified for the implementation of the City of Buffalo LWRP Policies and Action Strategy. Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 •Fund and provide technical and management assistance for the ongoing implementation of the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the Buffalo and Niagara River Great Lakes Areas of Concern, the Lake Erie Lakewide Area Management Plan (LAMP), the Bi-National Niagara River Toxics Management Plan and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. •Fund and provide technical assistance to the Buffalo River Great Lakes Legacy Act Environmental Dredging Project and the strategic removal of contaminated sediments from the Buffalo River. •Fund and provide technical assistance for efforts to characterize and address contaminated sediment and / or botulism concerns in` Scajaquada Creek/Hoyt Lake/Mirror Lake and South Park Lake. •Provide funding and technical assistance for the implementation of the Buffalo Sewer Authority green and grey infrastructure plan for CSO abatement in support of Policies 2A and 2B. •Ensure the local implementation of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions, as per Policies 2B. •Provide funding for brownfield assessment and remediation within the LWRA. •Provide funding and technical assistance to local marinas for vessel pump-out stations and wash down facilities to protect near shore water quality and discourage the transport of aquatic invasive species. Federal Highway Administration •Provide funding and technical support for enhancement of the Great Lakes Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway in Buffalo in support of Policy 5B including: The implementation of traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and heritage interpretation amenities along Niagara Street. Review and resolution of National Scenic Byway offsite signage compliance within the LWRA. •Provide technical assistance and funding for the following transportation projects outlined in Policy 5F and the Action Strategy: NYS Route 198 Virginia/Carolina I-190 Interchange; Erie Street extension from Main Street to Lakeside Boulevard; and Cars on Main Street from Terrace to South Park. Federal Railroad Administration •Assist with the implementation of a new Amtrak Rail station, for which a location study determined Downtown Buffalo to be the “preferred” location. Department of Health •Protect public health from contaminated fish as per Partner with the Buffalo Water Authority to eliminate chemicals of concern in drinking water supply as per Policy 2F. Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) •The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development, or BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grants, Congress has dedicated nearly $7.1 billion for ten rounds of National Infrastructure Investments to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact. Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) •INFRA advances a grant program established in the FAST Act of 2015 and utilizes updated criteria to evaluate projects to align them with national and regional economic vitality goals and to leverage additional non-federal funding. The program (previously known as FASTLANE) seeks to increase the impact of projects by leveraging federal grant funding and incentivizing project sponsors to pursue innovative strategies, including public-private partnerships. •The INFRA program focuses on economic vitality, leverage (including private sector participation), innovation, and performance. It provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our nation’s highways and bridges. INFRA grants will support fixing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure by creating opportunities for all levels of government and the private sector to fund infrastructure, using innovative approaches to improve the necessary processes for building significant projects, and increasing accountability for the projects that are built. •The USDOT will make awards under the INFRA program to both large and small projects. For a large project, the INFRA grant must be at least $25 million. For a small project, the grant must be at least $5 million. For each fiscal year of INFRA funds, 10 percent of available funds are reserved for small projects. The INFRA grant program also preserves the statutory requirement in the FAST Act to award at least 25 percent of funding for rural projects In FFY 18, INFRA grants in the amount of nearly $1.5 billion were awarded to 26 projects nationally. For FFY 19, $950M is available for projects.

141

4.3 Funding - Federal Funding Federal Funding Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 •The recently enacted Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 authorizes a total of slightly more than $13 billion over the next five years to Amtrak and it encourages the development of new and improved intercity rail passenger services. The act established a first-ever intercity passenger rail capital grant program for states. States are required to identify intercity passenger rail corridor improvement projects in their State Rail Plan to be eligible for the federal capital grant funding authorized by this act. The act authorizes $1.9 billion for capital grants to states over five years, starting in 2009, for facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger rail. The act reserves $2 million annually for states for small capital projects. Also under this act, $325 million is authorized in “congestion grants” to be made available to Amtrak and states over the next five years, beginning in 2009, for high-priority rail corridors to increase capacity along certain lines to reduce congestion and facilitate ridership. The act establishes a high speed rail corridor development program, with authorized funding of $1.5 billion beginning in FY 2009. States and Amtrak can apply for grants for capital projects in high speed rail corridors. The 2008 Act substantially increases the federal government’s commitment to enhancing the nation’s intercity rail passenger network. It is important to note that Congress must annually appropriate funding for these newly authorized programs. The current federal surface transportation authorization, SAFETEA-LU, authorizes the federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety and transit through 2009. The following is a brief review of several programs available for rail investments contained in SAFETEA-LU as well as a description of the recently enacted tax credit for regional and short line railroads. SAFETEA-LU Funding Programs •SAFETEA-LU is the latest transportation authorization act that continues many of the policies and programs originating in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SAFETEA-LU continues to include the trademark of flexibility that has characterized the three authorization acts discussed above. This flexibility allows states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to utilize federal funding from various sources for rail projects. Typically, federal funding for rail projects has come from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Transportation Enhancements, Rail-Highway Crossing Program (the so-called Section 130 program), High Speed Rail Development and other programs. The following sections provide additional detail regarding these federal programs: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement •The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program funds projects that reduce traffic congestion and help meet federal Clean Air Act requirements. CMAQ funding may be used for freight and passenger rail projects that accomplish CMAQ goals. Funding is available for projects in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (e.g. nonattainment areas), in former non-attainment areas now in compliance (e.g. maintenance areas), and for projects outside air quality non-attainment areas where the air-quality benefits of the project accrue to the non-attainment area or maintenance area. The FFY 2008 dollar amount apportioned to New York State for this program is $171 million. Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP) •TEP funds support non-traditional, environmentally related transportation-related improvements, including rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities and preservation of abandoned railway corridors. Section 130 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Program •The Highway Safety Act of 1973 established the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, 23 USC 130. The goal of the Section 130 program is to provide federal support in efforts to reduce the incidence of accidents, injuries and fatalities at public rail-highway crossings. States may utilize the Section 130 program, administered by the Federal Highway Administration, to improve railroad crossings using a variety of methods, including installation of warning devices, elimination of at-grade crossings by grade separation or by consolidation and closing of crossings. A portion of the safety program funding is also eligible for elimination of crossing hazards should a state choose to use the funds for this purpose. Funds from other apportionment categories may also be used to improve crossing safety. For example, any repair, construction or reconstruction of roads and bridges affected by a project would be eligible under normal funding categories. A corridor approach to improving railroad crossing safety promotes greater efficiency in solving the problem and has been encouraged by FHWA. SAFETEA-LU provided $220 million nationwide per year FY 2005-2009 for Section 130 from the Highway Trust Fund. New York’s apportionment for FFY 2008 is $6.3 million. Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects •SAFETEA-LU established this new grant program to provide financial assistance for rail line relocation or grade separation of track that is interfering with a community’s motor vehicle traffic flow, its quality of life or its economic development. The program authorizes $350 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. The rules established for this program were scheduled to be completed in October 2006, however, the rulemaking process has been delayed with no projected date of completion. Furthermore, Congress has yet to appropriate funds for this program.

142

4.3 Funding - Federal Funding Federal Funding Continued Credit Assistance Programs •SAFETEA-LU authorizes two credit assistance (direct loans, loan guarantee) programs available for rail investments. The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program provides direct loans and loan guarantees to state and local governments, government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. Eligible projects include (1) acquisition, improvements or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities (including tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings and shops); (2) refinancing outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; or (3) development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities. At the time of this writing, the future of the RRIF program is uncertain. Congress has failed to appropriate funds for this program. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) provides credit assistance on flexible terms directly to public-private sponsors of major surface transportation projects to assist them in gaining access to capital markets. TIFIA can provide direct loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to support up to 33 percent of a project’s cost. The eligibility of projects for TIFIA has been expanded in SAFETEA-LU to include not only highway and capital transit projects, intercity bus and rail projects, and publicly owned intermodal freight transfer facilities, but also private freight rail facilities that provide public benefit to highway users, intermodal freight transfer facilities and access to these facilities. TIFIA is restricted to projects costing at least $50 million ($15 million for ITS projects). SAFETEA-LU also established a new financial assistance program that provides up to $15 billion in Private Activity Bonds for transportation infrastructure projects. This program enables loans for specific projects at a lower interest rate since the bond purchaser is not required to pay federal taxes on the incomes they receive. The eligible projects include privately owned-or-operated highway projects and rail-truck transfer facilities. However, New York would require state legislation to be able to utilize the SAFETEA-LU private activity bond provision. New Starts Program •Federal Transit Administration funding for major commuter rail projects may be available under FTA’s New Starts program. SAFETEA-LU authorized more than $8 billion for New Starts, in order to support transit “guideway” capital investments, including commuter rail. FTA evaluates projects based upon “New Starts criteria,” assigning ratings based upon cost-effectiveness, local financial commitment and transit supported land use. Surface Transportation Program •Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are also available for railroad relocations and consolidations, intermodal terminals and the acquisition of abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Economic Development Administration Programs •The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce administers two project grants programs: Grants to Public Works and Economic Development Facilities and Economic Adjustment Assistance. They are intended, respectively, to promote long-term economic development in areas experiencing substantial economic distress and to assist states and local interests with strategies to bring about a change in the economy focusing on areas under serious economic damage. October 2004 Tax Credit •In October 2004, President Bush signed into law the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which includes provisions to provide a tax credit to help regional and short line railroads fund their infrastructure projects. “The tax credit will provide small roads 50 cents for every dollar of qualifying track maintenance expenditures, such as cost to improve track, bridges and signals.” The tax credit is for a three-year period starting in 2005 and is capped by the number of miles owned or leased (by a Class II or Class III railroad) multiplied by $350,000 for each of the three years.

SBIR/STTR Grants •Funding is available from certain federal governmental agencies via the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. Through a competitive awards-based program, SBIR enables small businesses to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization. Central to the STTR program is expansion of the public/private sector partnership to include the joint venture opportunities for small businesses. The unique feature of the STTR program is the requirement for the small business to formally collaborate with a research institution in Phase I and Phase II. STTR’s most important role is to bridge the gap between performance of basic science and commercialization of resulting innovations.

143

4.4 Funding - Other Funding Sources Other Finance Options for Rail System Improvements Public-Private Partnerships •“Public-Private Partnerships” (PPP) are contractual agreements formed between a public agency and private-sector entity that allow for greater private-sector participation in the delivery of transportation projects. Expanding the private-sector role allows the public agencies to tap private-sector technical, management and financial resources in new ways to achieve certain public agency objectives, such as greater cost and schedule certainty, supplementing in-house staff, innovative technology applications, specialized expertise or access to private capital. •To address future capacity issues from the growth in freight, the freight railroads have indicated an interest in participating in PPPs that provide tangible benefits for both the public and private sectors. As an example, CSXT has partnered on projects with Maryland and Virginia as well as New York State to the mutual benefit of all the parties. •Some other examples of successful freight rail-related PPPs are: • Alameda Corridor – a $2 billion, 20-mile rail expressway connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach with rail yards near downtown Los Angeles. • Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) – a $1.5 billion project to improve rail freight connections involving the State of Illinois, City of Chicago and major freight and passenger rail serving the region. • Heartland Corridor – a $200 million multistate partnership with Norfolk Southern to increase the flow of goods between the East Coast and Chicago. • Reno Trench – a multimillion-dollar project that separates trains running through downtown Reno, Nev., from motor vehicle traffic. • South Florida Commuter Rail Upgrades, Florida. • Portland MAX Airport Extension, Oregon. • BART Oakland Airport Connector, California.

Other Finance Options for Development Commercial Tax Incentives & Grants

Real Estate Development - Tax Exemptions/Tax Credits • City of Buffalo 485-a Tax Exemption is a declining 12-year partial exemption from real property taxes for non-residential real property converted to a mix of residential and commercial uses. • City of Buffalo 485-b Tax Exemption is a partial exemption from real property taxation for commercial, business or industrial property constructed, altered, installed or improved. • The Erie County Industrial Development Agency Adaptive Reuse Programoffers tax incentives for the development of buildings that have been vacant for three years or longer and are 20 years old or older. Additional information regarding ECIDA Tax Incentive Programs available at the ECIDA Website. • The Department of Environment Conservation offers Brownfield Redevelopment Tax Credits.

Real Estate Development - Utility Incentives

National Grid Energy Initiative Programs, National Grid Energy Initiative Programs provide financial incentives and technical assistance to replace inefficient equipment. For additional information please contact Mary Grace Welch, Lead Economic Development Representative at 716-831-7752. National Grid Economic Development offers a variety of programs for businesses looking to redevelop marketable sites and buildings and brownfields. For further information visits the National Grid Economic Development website or contact Mary Grace Welch, Lead Economic Development Representative at 716-831-7752. National Fuel New York Area Development Program (ADP) The program provides grants for specific projects in order to stimulate economic activity and redevelopment in National Fuel’s service area. For information on this program, contact Energy Services at 716-857-7776. National Fuel New York Business Development Rates A transportation rate discount, the portion of the bill covering delivery of the utility, is available for businesses, not in an Empire Zone, that qualify and meet requirements.

Capital Improvement Grants

Better Buffalo Fund The fund offers up to $30 million for projects that encourage Buffalo’s economic development along transportation corridors and revitalize downtown commercial districts. For more information visit the Better Buffalo Fund website.

144

SECTION 5 SOURCES 145

5 Sources - Bibliography Development czb LLC. 2017. “Buffalo Housing Opportunity Strategy.” ECONorthwest; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quate & Douglas, Inc. 2002. “Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A Guidebook for Practitioners.” Florida Department of Transportation. 2015. “Transportation Costs Reports.” Glynn, Astrid C., Paterson, David A. 2009. “New York State Rail Plan: Strategies for a New Age.” Godavarthy, Ranjit, Mattson, Jeremy, and Ndembe, Elvis. 2014. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit.” Stinson, Liz. 2019. “Ikea’s Space10 lab reimagines city life as a high-design commune.” Urban3. 2014. “The Buffalo Niagara Regional Report: The Dollars & $ense of Development Patterns.” University at Buffalo Regional Institute; Conley, Brian, Dixon, Kelly, and Wattles, Matthew. “Scenario Planning Pilot Projects: Imagining the Future of a Niagara Falls Neighborhood, Niagara Falls, NY.” www.oneregionforward.org. University at Buffalo Regional Institute; Conley, Brian, Dixon, Kelly, Wattles, Matthew, and Weymouth, Amy. “Scenario Planning Pilot Projects: Imagining the Future of Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY.” www. oneregionforward.org. University at Buffalo Regional Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning. 2014. “One Region Forward: A New Way to Plan for Buffalo Niagara.” University at Buffalo Regional Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning. 2015. “One Region Forward: A New Way to Plan for Buffalo Niagara.” Wendel; WWS Planning. 2019. “City of Buffalo Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.”

Traffic Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council. 2019. “2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).” Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council; University at Buffalo Regional Institute, The State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning; Cambridge Systematics; TyLin International. 2018. “Moving Forward 2050: A Regional Transportation Plan for Buffalo Niagara.” Christopher, David R., Vaidya, Sanjyot S., and Schaller, Robert F. 2017. “Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report: Bridge Rehabilitation Project.” Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council. 2019. “2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).” Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council; University at Buffalo Regional Institute, The State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Architecture and Planning; Cambridge Systematics; TyLin International. 2018. “Moving Forward 2050: A Regional Transportation Plan for Buffalo Niagara.” Hadad, F., Kaminski, D., Romano, T., and Ruth, M. 2010. “Buffalo Harbor Bridge (Outer Harbor Access S. Michigan Ave. Bridge Replacement.” Litman, Todd. 2015. “Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits.” American Public Transportation Association. www.vtpi.org Pickrell, Don H. “Estimates of Rail Transit Construction Costs.” Pranalli, Steven P. 2009. “Buffalo Harbor Bridge.” Reconnecting America. Hercules Aerial Tram/Mobility Study & Report. Stump/Hausman Partnership; Bermann Associates. 2008. “New York State Route 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study.” New York State Department of Transportation. 2014. Plausibility Review for Removal of the Buffalo Skyway.” Weaver, R.C., and Knight, Jason. 2012. Land Use, Society, and Evolutionary Mismatch: A Case Study of the Buffalo, NY outer Harbor Parkway Project. Middle States Geographer 45: 57-66.

146