Request for Proposals for the North of Broad/Downtown ... · City of Richmond, VA Request for Proposals for the North of Broad/Downtown Neighborhood Redevelopment Project Issued:

CityofRichmond,VA

RequestforProposalsfortheNorthofBroad/Downtown

NeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject

Issued:November9,2017Duedate:February9,2018,5p.m.Eastern

November9,2017DearRespondent:TheCityofRichmond(the“City”)ispleasedtoreleasethisRequestforProposals(“RFP”)fortheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject,anopportunitytoredevelopamajorportionoftheCity’sdowntownarea.TheCityhasreceivedanumberofaccoladesoverthelastfewyearsandisemergingasaleaderamong medium-sized cities such as Jacksonville, Louisville, Nashville, and Raleigh-Cary.Richmondiswithinoneday’sdriveofhalfoftheU.S.population,andtheareaisexperiencingatremendousdemographicshiftwithamedianageof34andanexpectedpopulationgrowthtoover1.5millionwithinthenext20years.AsRichmondpreparestogrow,wehopeyouwillconsiderjoiningtheCityonthatjourneyasaRespondenttotheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectRFP.TheNorth of Broad/DowntownNeighborhood Redevelopment Project ismore than a real estateproject. It isanopportunity tohelp transformourCityandmoveuscloser toOneCity,OneRichmond.ThegoalsofNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectarelofty, and the City desires a Respondent that has an equally enthusiastic vision for our City.Together,wecanreshapeourdowntownforthefuture.PleaseknowtheCityisenthusedaboutyourinterestinjoiningusinourworkandwelookforwardtoreviewingyoursubmission.Sincerely,LevarStoneyMayorCityofRichmond

i

TableofContents

Page

1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 11.1 Proposed Opportunity ...............................................................................11.2 Development Objectives ............................................................................31.3 Selection Criteria .......................................................................................51.4 Development Team ....................................................................................51.5 Reserved Rights and Options ....................................................................51.6 Costs of Proposal Preparation ..................................................................61.7 Accuracy of the RFP and Related Documents ........................................61.8 Legal Issues .................................................................................................6

1.8.1 No Suspension or Debarment .......................................................61.8.2 Compliance with Applicable Law ................................................71.8.3 Non-Collusion Affidavit ................................................................7

1.9 Submission Fee and Ability to Secure Letter of Credit ..........................71.10 Withdrawal .................................................................................................8

2 RFP Process ........................................................................................................................ 82.1 Respondent Registration ...........................................................................82.2 Data Room ..................................................................................................82.3 Inquiry and Communications Restrictions .............................................92.4 Other Discussions .......................................................................................92.5 Schedule ......................................................................................................92.6 Submitting Responses ..............................................................................102.7 Confidential Information ........................................................................112.8 City Review ...............................................................................................122.9 Presentations ............................................................................................122.10 Selection and Negotiations ......................................................................122.11 Selection Non-Binding .............................................................................122.12 Notifying Unsuccessful Respondents ......................................................13

3 Project Overview and Development Objectives ............................................................... 133.1 Overview ...................................................................................................133.2 Richmond Coliseum Replacement ..........................................................133.3 Convention Center Hotel .........................................................................14

ii

3.4 Blues Armory Building ............................................................................153.5 Repurpose of City Sites ...........................................................................153.6 Area Compatibility ..................................................................................163.7 Third-Party Ownership of Sites .............................................................163.8 Revenue Generation .................................................................................173.9 Housing .....................................................................................................173.10 Parking ......................................................................................................183.11 Local Job Creation and Local Hiring ....................................................193.12 GRTC Transfer Station and Assets/Public Transportation ................19

4 Response Format ............................................................................................................... 194.1 General ......................................................................................................194.2 Proposal Format .......................................................................................204.3 Specific Proposal Format and Content ..................................................20

4.3.1 Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................204.3.2 Table of Contents .........................................................................204.3.3 Executive Summary .....................................................................204.3.4 Respondent Qualifications ..........................................................214.3.5 Detailed Pro Forma ......................................................................224.3.6 Project Financing Supported by Incremental Revenues ..........224.3.7 Revenue Generation .....................................................................234.3.8 Market/Feasibility Study .............................................................234.3.9 Organization and Management ..................................................244.3.10 Project Concept and Development Plan ....................................244.3.11 Environmental Benefits ...............................................................254.3.12 Community and Stakeholder Outreach .....................................254.3.13 Impact on Schools ........................................................................254.3.14 Impact on GRTC Transfer Station ............................................264.3.15 Proposed Transition Plan and Schedule ....................................264.3.16 Concept Plans/Renderings ..........................................................26

5 Exhibits and Appendices ................................................................................................... 26

1

1 Overview1.1 ProposedOpportunity

A. TheCityofRichmond(the“City”)issolicitingProposalstospurtheredevelopmentofasignificantportionoftheCity’sdowntown,whichwillleadtotransformationalchangefor the area aswell as the broader community (referred to herein as the “North ofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject”orthe“Project”).TheProjectisgenerallyboundedonthewestbyNorth5thStreet,onthenorthbyEastLeighStreet,ontheeastbyNorth10thStreetandonthesouthbyEastMarshallStreet(the“ProjectArea”).AlthoughtheseboundariesdelineatethegeneralareaanticipatedfortheProjectand theCity’sgoal is tomaximize thehighestandbestuseofpropertieswithinsuchboundaries,theCitydoesnotexpectthatallpropertieswithintheProjectAreawillbeincluded in theProjectandRespondentsneednot includeall suchproperties in theirProposals. Moreover, the City is open to receiving Proposals for the Project thatencompassalargerarea,withotherboundariesasexpanded.TheultimatescopeoftheProjectandtheultimateboundariesoftheProjectAreawillbedeterminedbaseduponthe Proposal chosen and any resulting contract and legislative action resultingtherefrom.ThisRequestforProposals(the“RFP”)doesnotrepresentaprocurement.Therefore,theprocessdescribedhereinisnotsubjecttoChapter21oftheCityCodeoranyotherpublicprocurementlaw.Inaddition,noCity-ownedpropertieslocatedwithintheProjectAreahavebeendeclaredsurpluspursuanttosection8-60oftheRichmondCityCode(2015)andaccordinglythisRFPdoesnotrepresentasolicitationforofferstopurchaseanyofsuchpropertieswithinthemeaningofsection8-62oftheRichmondCityCode(2015).

B. The City is interested in receiving Proposals that (a) meet the Project DevelopmentObjectivesregardingtheProjectAreaorotherboundariesasexpanded,(b)providethemosttransformativeopportunityfortheProjectAreaandtheCity,and(c)delivertheoptimalreturnoninvestment. Inaddressingtheabove,Respondentsshouldalsotakeintoconsiderationandpayparticularattentiontothefollowing:

• HistoricPreservation–TheProposalshoulddiscusspreservationandadaptivereuseofanyhistoricsitessuchastheBluesArmoryBuilding(seeSection3.4);

• InstitutionalorNon-TaxableOwnership/UseofFacilities-WhiletheCityisopentothe concept of ownership or leasehold arrangements thatmeet governmental orinstitutional needs in the Project Area, the City has a preference formaximizingtaxablevaluation.TheProposalshouldbalancethispreferencewithmaintainingortherepurposingofexistinggovernmentalusesintheProjectArea(seeSection3.5);

• Housing–TheProposalshouldoutlinehowtheRespondentplanstomeettheneedsof the full spectrum of Richmond residents with respect to housing, includingresidentialownership(seeSection3.9);

2

• NewTaxBase/RevenueGeneration–TheProposalshouldaddressthepotentialroleofnewretailactivity.IfnewretailactivityisincorporatedintheProposal,addressinthebasisforsuchretailintheMarket/Feasibilitystudytobeprovided(seeSection4.3.8);

• CommunityandStakeholderOutreach–TheCitydesires tomaximize communitystakeholderengagementbothduringtheperiodofresponsepreparationandaftersubmissionofProposals. Respondentsareencouragedtoprovidedetailsontheircommunity outreach and to provide a plan for describing how communitystakeholders would continue to be engaged during the development effort (seeSection4.3.12).

C. TheCitywillnotincuranymoralobligationorgeneralobligationorprovideanyothertypeofcontingentsupportrelatedtotheProject.RespondentsshouldassumethatanyproposeddebtissuedtofundanycomponentoftheProject,whichistobesupportedbyandrepaidfromincrementalrevenuesgeneratedbytheProject,willnothavethemoralobligation,generalobligationorcontingentbackingof theCity. TheCity iswilling toconsidertax incrementfinancingpursuanttoTitle58.1,Chapter32,Article4.1oftheCodeofVirginiaorasimilarfinancingmethodbasedonincrementtaxesandrevenuesgeneratedby theProject; the creationof any special taxdistricts and theuseof theEconomicDevelopmentAuthorityoftheCityofRichmond(the“EDA”)orotherissuingentities.

D. TheCitywillentertainsubmissionsfromqualifiedfirms,partnerships,jointventuresoranyothersuchcombinationofentitiesthatchoosetorespondtothisRFP.

E. RespondentsshouldcarefullyreviewtheRichmondDowntownPlan(July2009),whichwasofficiallyadoptedintothe2001MasterPlan,tobetterunderstandtheCity’svisionforthissignificantareainourcommunity.RespondentsshouldalsocarefullyreviewtheCity’sPulseCorridorPlan.(AllofthesematerialshavebeenplacedintheProjectDataRoom,which is described inmoredetail, below). Respondents should address issuessuchaslanduse,density,walkability,connectivityandotherelementscommoninNewUrbanism environments in ways that are compatible with City’s existing plans. If aproposedelementisnotcompatiblewiththeCity’sexistingplans,Respondentsshouldaddresstheareasofincompatibility.

F. ForpurposesofthisRFP,theterm“AssociatedEntity”referstoanyoneofthefollowing:

1. TheRichmondRedevelopmentandHousingAuthority,apoliticalsubdivisionoftheCommonwealthofVirginiathatisindependentoftheCity;

2. TheAdvantageRichmondCorporation,aVirginianonstockcorporation;

3. FestivalDiogenesCorporation,aVirginianonstockcorporation;

4. EconomicDevelopmentAuthorityoftheCityofRichmond,apoliticalsubdivisionoftheCommonwealthofVirginiathatisindependentoftheCity;

3

5. Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority, a political subdivision of theCommonwealthofVirginiathatisindependentoftheCity;and

6. GreaterRichmondTransitCo.(“GRTC”),aVirginiapublicservicecompany.

1.2 DevelopmentObjectives

The Proposal for the North of Broad/Downtown Neighborhood Redevelopment Projectshouldproposetoaccomplishthefollowingkeyeconomicdevelopmentobjectives:

SupportofCity’sMasterPlanningEfforts -Theredevelopmentof thedelineatedProjectAreashouldcomplementtheCity’sMasterPlanningefforts.TheCityiscurrentlyrevisingitsCityMasterPlan,whichwillcreateacitywidevisionforgrowth.TheProjectAreaisidentifiedasaneconomicopportunityareainthePulseCorridorPlan,whichwasrecentlyadoptedbyCityCouncilaspartoftheCity’sMasterPlan. NewTaxBase-TheCitywantsProposalstoleverageasignificantportionoftherealestatein the Project Area or other boundaries as expanded and to drive important economicdevelopmentoutcomesincludinggeneratingnewrevenue.Povertymitigation-TheCitybelievestheredevelopmentintheProjectAreacancreatejobsofalllevelsofskillsandabilitiesforCityresidents.Jobtrainingopportunities-TheCityexpectsthatadense,urban,mixed-usedevelopmentwillinvolveanumberofusesthatcreatelocaljobopportunities.TheCityalsoseekstocreateopportunitiesforinternshipsandon-the-joblearningexperiencesforstudentsofallagesinconjunctionwiththeredevelopmentoftheProjectArea.Community Revitalization - The Project Area consists of many properties that are notcurrently utilized to their full market potential. The Proposal should include aredevelopmentplanthatsupportstheMasterPlan,utilizesasignificantportionoftherealestate properties in the Project Area in their highest and best uses, and creates addedtaxablevalueinboththeProjectAreaandsurroundingproperties.Infrastructure Improvements - The Proposal should include plans for financing theconstructionofanynewfacilitiesornewinfrastructureimprovementsnecessarytosupportthenewtrafficpatterns,increasedpedestrianandbicycleactivity,andchanginglandusesassociatedwith theredevelopmentof theProjectArea. To theextent that theProposalproposes that any debt be issued for new facilities or infrastructure improvements, theProposal shouldalso identifyandquantify the incremental revenues thatwillbeused torepaysuchdebt.AllProposalsinvolvingdebtmustconformtosection1.1(C)ofthisRFP.SustainableDevelopment-TheredevelopmentofCity-ownedpropertiesshallsupporttheMayor’sRVAgreen2050,abold initiativetodevelopadeepcarbonemissionsreductionsroadmaptoreducecommunity-widegreenhousegas(GHG)emissions80%by2050using

4

2008asthebaselineyear.RVAgreen2050isacomprehensiveplanningefforttocreateahealthier, more vibrant, economically competitive and resilient community. It will alsoincreasecleanenergyresources,enhancethereliabilityandresiliencyofourenergysystems,andpromotemoreefficientandaffordableenergyuseforourcommunity.RichmondPublicSchools–ItisimportantthattheProjectbeanetpositiveforRichmondPublicSchools.Therefore,submissionsshoulddescribewaysthatRichmondPublicSchoolswillbepositivelyimpactedbytheProject.EnhanceCityBrand-Theredevelopmentshouldsupport,enhanceandelevatetheCity’simageandbrandonaregional,nationalandaninternationalbasis. MinorityBusiness support - TheProposal should support theCity’smission to facilitate,produce,andadvanceopportunitiesforminoritybusinessenterprises(eachan“MBE”)andemerging small businesses (eachan “ESB”) to successfullyparticipate in the full arrayofcontractingopportunitiesavailableinthecityofRichmond.MBEandESBhavethemeaningssetforthinsection21-4oftheRichmondCityCode.Inaddition,theRespondentshouldincorporatethefollowingspecificprojectdevelopmentobjectiveswhicharediscussedingreaterdetailhereafter.

ProjectDevelopmentObjective Section• NewArena: 3.2• ConventionCenterHotel: 3.3• BluesArmoryBuilding: 3.4• RepurposeofCitySites: 3.5• AreaCompatibility: 3.6• InclusionofThirdPartySites: 3.7• RevenueGeneration: 3.8• AffordableHousing: 3.9• Parking: 3.10• LocalJobCreationandLocalHiring: 3.11• GRTCTransferStationandAssetsandPublicTransportation 3.12

While the City hopes to receive Proposals from Respondents that accomplish all of theobjectives contained herein, it recognizes that there may be competing priorities incompleting the North of Broad/Downtown Neighborhood Redevelopment Project. IfRespondentsdonotbelievethatitispossibletomeetalloftheobjectivesdescribedinthisRFP,theyarenonethelessencouragedtosubmitaresponseaddressingtheobjectivestheybelieveareachievable.TheCityreservestherighttodeterminewhetherasubmissionthatdoesnotaddressalloftheCity’sobjectiveswillbeconsidered.Likewise, ifaRespondentbelieves that theCity shouldbemade awareof important tradeoffs that affectmultipleobjectives,itshouldclearlydescribethosetradeoffsintheProposalresponse.

5

1.3 SelectionCriteria

WhiletheCity’s reviewwillencompasstheentiretyof thesubmissions, inevaluatingtheProposals,theCitywillfocusonthefollowingkeyfactors:

A. ThefinancialcapacityoftheRespondentanditsdevelopmentteam;B. TheRespondent’sdemonstratedandsuccessfulexperiencewithprojectsofcomparable

sizeandcomplexity;C. TheneteconomicbenefittotheCity;andD. WhethertheProposalisintheoverallbestinterestsoftheCity.While theCitywill endeavor toadhere to the scheduleoutlined inSection2.5, theCityreservestherighttoamendordeviatefromthattimelineforanyreason.

1.4 DevelopmentTeam

TheCitybelievestheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectwillbetransformativeforthecommunityandchallengingtoimplement.Assuch,theCitywillrequireahighdegreeofconfidenceinthedevelopmentteam.TheCitywillnotbeamemberoforparticipantintheRespondent’sdevelopmentteam.

Respondentsmustaddresseachoftheareassetforthinsection4.3.4ofthisRFPforeachmemberofthedevelopmentteam.

Respondentsshouldprovideasmuchinformationaspossibleabouttheirdevelopmentteamand members of the development team. The City seeks a strong understanding of thecapabilitiesofthedevelopmentteam.

1.5 ReservedRightsandOptions

TheCityreservesandholdstheright,atitssolediscretion,to:

A. AcceptanyProposal;B. RejectanyorallProposals;C. NotenterintoatransactionwithanyRespondent;D. TerminateconsiderationorevaluationofanyProposalatanytime,foranyreason;E. Suspend,discontinueorterminatetheRFPprocessforanyreason;F. Negotiate with a selected Respondent without being bound by any provision in a

Proposal;G. RequestorreceiveadditionalinformationregardinganyProposal;H. Revise,supplement,withdraworcancelallorpartofthisRFPforanyreason;I. Conduct investigations with respect to the qualifications and experience of

Respondents;J. ChangeordeviatefromtheschedulefordatesspecifiedinthisRFP;K. Evaluatealternativeoperationalandfinancialmodels;

6

L. Requestclarifications;andM. TakeanyotheractionaffectingtheRFPortheprocessthatisintheCity’sbestinterest.

1.6 CostsofProposalPreparation

Proposalsare tobepreparedat thesolecostandexpenseof theRespondents,with theexpressunderstandingthattheremaybenoclaimswhatsoeverforthereimbursementofanycosts,damages,orexpensesrelatedtothisRFPfromtheCityoritsofficers,employees,advisors,orrepresentatives,oranyotherpartyforanyreason.

1.7 AccuracyoftheRFPandRelatedDocuments

A. The City assumes no responsibility for the completeness or the accuracy of specifictechnicalandbackgroundinformationpresentedinthisRFPorotherwisedistributedormadeavailableduringthisRFPprocess.NopersonhasbeenauthorizedbytheCitytogiveanyinformationotherthantheinformationcontainedinthisRFPand,ifgiven,suchotherinformationshouldnotberelieduponashavingbeenauthorizedbytheCity.Theinformation set forthhereinhasbeenobtained fromsources thatarebelieved tobereliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. The informationcontainedhereinissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.

B. Respondents are responsible for reviewing and becoming familiar with all available

documentspertainingtotheProjectandtheProjectArea.Specifically,itistheobligationandresponsibilityofeachRespondentsubmittingaProposalto:

1. ReviewthetermsofthisRFPsothatitisfamiliarwithallaspectsofit;2. Analyzeallapplicablefederal,stateandlocallaws,regulations,ordinances,permits,

approvalsandorders thatmayaffect thecost,performance,or furnishingof thedevelopmentsetforthintheRespondent’sProposal;and

3. NotifytheRFPProcessLeadContact,priortothesubmissionofresponsestothisRFP, of any conflicts, errors, omissions, or discrepancies herein. It is theRespondent’sresponsibilitytoensurethatitproactivelyaddressesanyquestions,issues,orconcernsrelatedtotheRFPortheRFPprocess.

1.8 LegalIssues

1.8.1 NoSuspensionorDebarment

By submitting the information called for by this RFP, the Respondent submitting theinformationcertifiesthatneitheritnorthosewithinitsorganization(includingpartnersandsubcontractors) are under suspension or debarment by any governmental entity,instrumentality,orauthority.

7

1.8.2 CompliancewithApplicableLaw

A. Respondents are responsible for ensuring that their Proposal, as submitted, is incompliancewithallpotentiallyapplicablelegalrequirements.Inaddition,thesuccessfulRespondent shall furnish theCityupon request anyandall documentation regardingnecessarylicenses,permits,certificationsorregistrationsrequiredbythelawsorrulesand regulations of the City, other units of local government, the Commonwealth ofVirginia,andtheUnitedStates.BysubmittingitsProposal,theRespondentcertifiesthatitisnowandwillremainingoodstandingwithsuchgovernmentalagenciesandthatitwillkeepitslicenses,permits,certificationsandregistrationsinforceduringthetermofanycontractitentersintofordevelopmentoftheProject.

B. All of the responsibilities that the Respondent and its approved partners and

subcontractors perform under any resulting agreements must be performed inaccordancewithapplicablelaw(includingallapplicablegovernmentalapprovals).TheRespondentshall immediatelyremedyanyfailuretocomplywithapplicablelawatitsexpenseandshallpayanyfinesandpenaltiesrelatedthereto.

1.8.3 Non-CollusionAffidavit

Each respondent must certify that it has not participated in collusion or otheranticompetitivepractices in connectionwith theRFPprocessbyexecutingand returningwithitsProposaltheNon-CollusionAffidavitintheformofExhibitA,attachedhereto.

1.9 SubmissionFeeandAbilitytoSecureLetterofCredit

A. EachProposalmustbeaccompaniedbyasubmissionfeeinimmediatelyavailablefundspayabletotheCityofRichmondintheamountof$50,000.AllsubmissionfeeswillbeheldbytheCityduringtheProjectevaluationprocess.

IfaRespondentisnotselectedbytheCitytoenterintofinalcontractnegotiations,thesubmissionfeewillbereturnedtotheRespondent.ThesubmissionfeeaccompanyingtheselectedProposalwill,uponnotificationbytheCityoritsagentsthattheRespondenthasbeenselectedtoenter into finalcontractnegotiations,bedeposited in theCity’sbank account, become non-refundable, and be applied toward City costs and feesassociatedwiththeProject.AnyunusedportionofthesubmissionfeeshallbereturnedtotheRespondent.

B. If a Respondent’s Proposal is selected and any contract is entered into between theRespondent and the City for the Project, the City may in any such contract, in itsdiscretion, require the Respondent provide a standby, irrevocable letter of credit orsomeotherformofsuretydeemedsufficientbytheCityforthepurposeofensuringtheRespondentperformsas requiredby suchcontract. Asevidenceassuring theCityofRespondents’abilitytosecuresufficientsuretyifselected,eachRespondentshallsubmitwith its Proposal a letter executed by a reputable financial institution authorized to

8

conductbusinessintheCommonwealthofVirginiastatingthefinancialinstitutionhasreviewed theRespondent’s financial capacityanddetermined that theRespondent iseligible to be issued a standby, irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of at least$500,000bysuchfinancialinstitutionfortheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject.

1.10 Withdrawal

A. Respondentsmay,atanytimeafterProposalsubmissionandbeforetheCityhasnotifieda selected Respondent, withdraw its Proposal for the Project. To withdraw, theRespondent must convey its intention to withdraw in writing to the Process LeadContact.ThenoticetowithdrawmustbesignedbythesameentitythatsubmittedtheProposalandbedeliveredtotheRFPProcessLeadContactviaemail,courierorhanddelivery.

B. The City will return to Respondent the submission fee that was included with the

Proposalwithin45daysafterwithdrawal.TherestoftheProposalmaterials,however,willremainthepropertyoftheCityandwillnotbereturned.

2 RFPProcess

2.1 RespondentRegistration

No later than 20 (twenty) days after the City’s issuance of this RFP, all Respondentsconsidering the submission of a Proposal that wish to be included in all interimcommunications concerning this RFP processmust become a Registered Respondent bysubmittinginwritingthename,title,company,address,phonenumber,andemailaddressof the primary point of contact for the Respondent to the RFP Process Lead Contact(MatthewA.Welch,SeniorPolicyAdvisor,[email protected],(804)646-5874).

2.2 DataRoom

A. TheCityhasestablishedavirtualDataRoom(anonlinedocumentmanagementsystem)foruseonlybyRegisteredRespondents.AfterbecomingaRegisteredRespondent,theRFPProcessLeadContactwillemailcredentialstoeachRegisteredRespondenttoenabletheprimarycontacttoaccesstheDataRoom.ARegisteredRespondentmayrequestthatareasonablenumberofadditionalrepresentativeshaveaccesstotheDataRoombysendingthename,titleandemailaddressofeachsuchadditionalrepresentativetotheRFPProcessLeadContactandrequestingaccess.

B. In addition, requests for additional documentsmaybe sent to theRFPProcess Lead

Contactviaemail. TheCity,atitsdiscretion,willdeterminewhethersuchdocumentsare reasonably available andwhether theywill be added to theDataRoom. To the

9

extentthattheCitychoosestomodifyoramendtheRFPortoprovideadditionaldata,theCitywillprovidenoticetoallRegisteredRespondentsofsuchchangesandwillplacetherelevantmaterialsintheDataRoom.TheobligationtoperiodicallychecktheDataRoomforanynewinformationoraddendatotheRFPrestssolelywiththeRegisteredRespondent.

2.3 InquiryandCommunicationsRestrictions

A. TheCityunderstandsthatRespondentsmayhavequestionsregardingtheRFPandthisprocess.Allquestionsmustbeinwrittenformandreceivedviaemailbefore5:00p.m.EasternTimeonorbeforeDecember8,2017,bytheRFPProcessLeadContact.

B. All emailed questions must contain the phrase “Submitted Questions for North of

Broad/Downtown Neighborhood Redevelopment Project” in the subject line. Allquestions received and corresponding answers will be distributed to all RegisteredRespondents,eitherindividuallyorpostedtotheDataRoom,priortothedeadlineforsubmittingProposals.TheCitymaychoosetoanswerquestionsastheyarereceivedormayprovideasingleconsolidatedresponse.

C. TheCityseekstoconductatransparent,fair,andhighlycompetitiveRFPprocessfreeof

conflictsofinterest.Therefore,duringthetimeperiodtheRFPisavailableforresponseaswellasduringtheCity’sdeliberativeprocessfollowingsubmission,communicationsregarding the North of Broad/Downtown Neighborhood Redevelopment ProjectbetweenpotentialRespondents,includingtheiragentsorrepresentatives,andanyoneassociatedwiththeCity,includingemployees,electedofficials,agents,representatives,andindividualsemployedbyanAssociatedEntity,areprohibitedwiththeexceptionofcommunications with the RFP Process Lead Contact as set forth in this RFP andcommunications approved in advance by the RFP Process Lead Contact. PotentialRespondentsmaycommunicatewiththeRFPProcessLeadContactasoutlinedinthisdocument to request information or to facilitate direct communication with anAssociatedEntity.TheCity,atitssolediscretion,willfacilitatethosediscussions,iftheyaretooccur.

2.4 OtherDiscussions

The RFP Process Lead Contact may facilitate conversations between the City andRespondents for the purpose of clarification to ensure full understanding of, andresponsiveness to, the RFP. Further, the RFP Process Lead Contact may, at his solediscretion,includeotherAssociatedEntitiesinthosediscussions.

2.5 Schedule

10

ThetentativescheduleforthemajoractivitiesincludedintheoverallRFPprocessisshownbelow.TheRespondentsshouldanticipatethatthesedatesmaybeamendedfromtimetotimeasneeded.

Date Activity

November9,2017 RFPpubliclydistributedviamultiplechannels

November29,2017 DeadlineforbecomingaRegisteredRespondenttothisRFP

December8,2017 Writtenquestions fromRespondentsdueto theRFP Process Lead Contact by 5:00 p.m. EasternTime

December18,2017 The City distributes responses to questionsreceivedfromRespondents,ifapplicable

February9,2018 CompleteresponsesduetotheCity

March9,2018 CityteamtoreviewandevaluateresponsesanddeterminenextstepsbyCity

March9–April24,2018 Selection and preliminary negotiations withRespondents

April24–September30,2018 ContractnegotiationandCityCouncilapproval

2.6 SubmittingResponses

A. Five (5) paper copies and one electronic copy (on an unencrypted, non-passwordprotectedthumbdrive)ofthecompleteresponseshouldbedeliveredtothefollowingaddressnolaterthan5:00p.m.EasternTimeonFebruary9,2018:

MatthewA.Welch,SeniorPolicyAdvisorRFPProcessLeadContact1500E.MainStreetStation,Suite400Richmond,Virginia23219

11

B. Sealedenvelopesorboxesmustbeclearlymarked“SealedResponsetoRequestforProposals–NorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject”.

C. Nolateresponseswillbeacceptedandresponsesreceivedafterthedeadlineorata

locationotherthanthatstatedabovewillnotbeconsidered.

2.7 ConfidentialInformation

A. AllresponsesandrelatedmaterialsarethepropertyoftheCityandwillnotbereturned.At the conclusion of the process, the Citymay retain ormay dispose of any and allmaterials received fromRespondentsconsistentwith theCity’sobligationsunder theVirginiaPublicRecordsAct,Va.Code§§42.1-76et.seq.InnoeventwilltheCityassumeliability for any loss, damage or injury thatmay result from any disclosure or use ofproprietaryinformation.RespondentsshouldbeawarethatrecordsoftheCityincludingrecordssubmittedbyRespondentsinresponsetothisRFParesubjecttoallprovisionsoftheVirginiaFreedomofInformationActregardingaccesstopublicrecords.(SeeVa.Code§§2.2-3700et.seq.)

B. Bysubmittingaresponse,eachRespondentacknowledgesandagreesthatany ideas,

intellectual property, improvements or other suggestions will not be subject to anyrestrictionsonusebytheCityoranyotherentityandwillbecomeapublicrecordunderVirginialaw.Exceptasotherwiserequiredbylaw,noneoftheresponseswillbemadeavailabletothepublicuntilaftertheCitydeterminestoenterintoaspecificcontractortonotenterintoanycontractasaresultofthisRFP.

C. If Respondents provide information that they believe is exempt from mandatory

disclosureunderVirginialaw,Respondentsshallincludethefollowinglegendonthetitlepageoftheresponse:

“THISPROPOSALCONTAINSINFORMATIONTHATISEXEMPTFROMMANDATORYDISCLOSURE.”

Inaddition,oneachpagethatcontainsinformationthatRespondentsbelieveisexemptfrommandatorydisclosureunderVirginialaw,Respondentsshallincludethefollowingseparate legend: “THIS PAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROMMANDATORYDISCLOSURE.”

Oneachsuchpage,RespondentsshallalsoclearlyspecifytheexemptinformationandshallstatethespecificCodeofVirginiasectionandexemptionwithinwhichitisbelievedtheinformationfalls.

D. Although the City will generally endeavor not to disclose information designated by

Respondentsasexemptinformation,theCitywillindependentlydeterminewhetherthe

12

information designated by Respondents is exempt from mandatory disclosure.Moreover, exempt informationmaybedisclosedby theCity, at itsdiscretion,unlessotherwiseprohibitedbylaw,andtheCityshallhavenoliabilityrelatedtosuchdisclosure.

E. Inallcases,theCitywilladheretotheVirginiaFreedomofInformationAct(Va.Code§

2.2-3700et.seq).

2.8 CityReview

TheCity,atitsdiscretion,mayestablishareviewcommitteecomprisedofCityemployeestoevaluatetheProposals.TheCitywillthendeterminetheappropriatenextsteps,ifany,fortheprocess.

2.9 Presentations

After the initial review of the Proposals, the Citywill begin the process of selecting theProposalthatismostfavorabletotheCity.Aspartofthatprocess,oneormoreRespondentsmay be asked to (a) submit additional information, (b) review and comment on drafttransactiondocuments, (c) provide revisedor finalpricing, (d) appearbefore theCityorotherorganizationstomakepresentations,(e)conductotherdiscussionswiththeCity,oritsrepresentativesforRFP-relatedpurposes,or(f)takesuchotheractionastheCitydeemshelpfultotheevaluationandselectionprocess.

2.10 SelectionandNegotiations

Followingthefinalreviewandpresentations,ifany,theCitywillmakeitsdeterminationastothemostappropriateresponsetotheProposalsandmayenterintoacontractwiththesuccessfulRespondent,mayrejectanyorallProposals,ortakeanyotherappropriateaction.If unable to complete and execute a contract with the selected Respondent within areasonableperiod,theCityreservestherighttoextendorsuspendthenegotiations,beginnegotiationwithanotherRespondent,orterminateallnegotiations.

2.11 SelectionNon-Binding

The City’s selection of a preferred Respondent indicates only that the City’s intent is tonegotiatewiththeRespondent,andtheselectiondoesnotconstituteacommitmentbytheCity to execute a final contractwith theRespondent. Respondents therefore agree andacknowledgethattheyarebarredfromclaimingtohavedetrimentallyreliedontheCity,itsemployees,agentsorrepresentatives’actionsforanycostsorliabilitiesincurredasaresultofrespondingtothisRFP.Further,Respondentsacknowledgethatwhileemployees,agentsorrepresentativesoftheCitywillbeinvolvedinnegotiationwiththeRespondent,notallactionsrequiredoftheCitywillbeaccomplishedadministrativelyandwillbesubjecttotheapprovaloftheRichmondCityCouncil,andsomeapprovals,actions,anddeterminationswillbeundertakenbyotherentities.

13

2.12 NotifyingUnsuccessfulRespondents

TheyCitywillnotifyunsuccessfulRespondentsatatimetheCitydeemsappropriate.

3 ProjectOverviewandDevelopmentObjectives3.1 Overview

A. TheCityhasidentifiedaroughly10-blockareaeastoftheRichmondConventionCentertoberedeveloped.ThisProjectAreaisboundedonthewestbyNorth5thStreet,onthenorthbyEastLeighStreet,ontheeastbyNorth10thStandonthesouthbyEastMarshallStreetandisillustratedinExhibitB.TheCityofRichmondandAssociatedEntitiesownorcontrolmostofthepropertieswithinProjectArea.AlistingofallpropertieswithintheProjectAreaisoutlinedinExhibitC.ThoughExhibitClistsallpropertieswithintheProjectArea for informationalpurposes, theCitydoesnotnecessarilyexpect thatallpropertieswithintheProjectAreawillbeincludedintheProjectandRespondentsneednotincludeallsuchpropertiesintheirProposals.

B. WhiletheRFPenvisionsworkwithintheProjectArea,theCityisopentoProposalsthat

might be larger in scope, with other boundaries as expanded. For example, if aRespondentwanted to include theCity-ownedparkinggaragesouthofEastMarshallStreet,theCityiswillingtoconsideraProposalthatincludesthatproperty.

3.2 RichmondColiseumReplacement

A. TheexistingRichmondColiseumnolongermeetstheneedsofthecommunity.Openedin1971,itisagedandinpoorcondition.ArejuvenatedornewColiseum,however,hasthepotentialtocreatesignificanteconomicdevelopmentinadjacentareas.

B. The Proposalmust include the demolition and replacement, or rehabilitation, of the

RichmondColiseumwithin theProjectAreawith,oras,anentertainmentvenue (the“NewArena”)thatenhancestheattractivenessandeconomicdevelopmentpotentialofRichmond.TheNewArenashouldbeamulti-usefacilityandshouldnotcontemplateananchortenant.TheNewArenashouldhaveapproximately17,500seatsinatleastoneseatingconfiguration.TheColiseumcurrentlyhas$2.9millionofoutstandingdebt(seeExhibitCfordetailsofthedebt).RespondentsmustoutlineaplantodefeasethedebtaspartoftheProposal.

C. IftheNewArenawillbeplacedonthesiteofthecurrentColiseum,Respondentsshould

provide a tentative construction schedule, specifically highlighting when currentoperationsintheexistingColiseummustend,andwhentheNewArenawillopen.Theexisting Coliseum has known environmental issues and a plan for identifying andaddressingtheseissuesshouldbeincludedinanyProposal.

14

D. Additionally, Respondents are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible

regarding their concept for a New Arena. Specifically, the City is interested inunderstanding:

1. HowmanydaysofusecanbeexpectedattheNewArena;

2. IfrebuildingontheexistingColiseumsite,howmuchoftheexistingfacilitywillbepreservedorreused;

3. Does the Respondent’s preferred location for the New Arena have any siteconstraints;

4. WhoisproposedtohavenamingrightsfortheNewArena;

5. WhataretheparkingrequirementsfortheNewArenaandhowwilltheybemet;

6. WhatistheproposedownershipandoperatingstructurefortheNewArena;and

7. Howwillonsiterevenues(i.e.,parking,concessions,advertising,suitesandspecialtyseats,etc.)beallocated?

3.3 ConventionCenterHotel

A. TheGreaterRichmondConventionCenterbringsasignificantnumberofindividualsintotheCitythroughouttheyearandaddstothevibrancyofourcommunity.RecenthotelprojectsneartheGreaterRichmondConventionCenterhavebeensuccessful,anditisbelievedthatthemarketcansupportmorehotelroomsincloseproximitytotheGreaterRichmondConventionCenter.

B. Therefore, the Proposalmust include a hotel component. The hotel shall include a

minimumof400roomsandbeincloseproximitytotheGreaterRichmondConventionCenter. The hotel should be a full-service property (in line with generally acceptedelementsof thehospitality industry) andprovide for requiredonsite conferenceandmeeting space. The hotel is expected to further the City’s growing and dynamicconventionindustry;therefore,Respondentsmustindicatehowtheyenvisionthehotelwill assist in those efforts, including whether it will commit to making available toRichmondRegionTourismblocksofroomsforadvanceconventionbookingandunderwhatterms.

C. Respondents are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible regarding their

conceptforanewhotel.Specifically,theCityisinterestedinunderstanding:

1. Whenwouldconstructionbeginandendforthefacility

2. Howmuchmeetingspacewillbeincluded;

3. Whatbrandorflag(ifany)hasbeenidentifiedforthefacility;and

15

4. Whatistheexpectedoccupancyrate12monthsafteropening?

3.4 BluesArmoryBuilding

A. TheBluesArmory,ownedbyRichmondRedevelopmentandHousingAuthority,isoneofRichmond’sarchitecturaltreasures,butithasfallenintodisrepair.WhilethebuildingislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesandwithinvestmenthasthepotentialtobeakeypartoftheCity’sdowntownlandscapeaspartofanadaptivereuseeffort,itisnotincludedinanyCityhistoricpreservationoverlaydistrictsandthereforedoesnothaveanyspecificredevelopmentconstraints.

B. The Proposal must include the redevelopment of the Blues Armory Building for an

adaptivereuseinamannerthataddstothevibrancyofdowntownwhilepreservingitshistoricnature.TheCitypreferstheentirestructureberehabilitatedandreusedandisnotseekingProposalsthatcallforonlypreservingthebuilding’sfacade.

C. Respondents are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible regarding their

concept for the Blues Armory Building. Specifically, the City is interested inunderstanding:

1. Whatistheproposeduseofthebuildingfollowingrehabilitation;

2. Whatisthespecificplanfortheiconicdrillfloorwithinthefacility;

3. What environmental concerns do the Respondents expect to face within thebuilding;and

4. WhatotheroutstandingissuesorliabilitiescantheRespondentexpectinanadaptivereuseofabuildingsuchastheBluesArmoryBuilding?

3.5 RepurposeofCitySites

A. TheCityorAssociatedEntitiesownthemajorityofthepropertyintheProjectAreaandiswillingtoconsidertheuseorreuseofanyofitspropertiesinaProposal.Infact,severalofthelocalgovernmentfacilities,suchasthePublicSafetyandSocialServicesbuildings,arenolongerwell-suitedtotheirfunctionandarenotoptimallylocatedforresidents.TheSocialServicesbuilding,ownedbyAdvantageRichmondCorporation,currentlyhas$3.2millionofoutstandingdebt(SeeExhibitCfordetailsofthedebt).

B. To the extent that the Proposal seeks to utilize properties owned by the City or an

AssociatedEntityforredevelopment,itmustclearlyidentifythosepropertiesandofferaprocesstoaddressanylossofrevenue(e.g.,fromparkingassets)oruse(e.g.,officespace)aswellasestimatethecostofrelocatingCityoperations.Totheextentapropertyowned by the City or an Associated Entity is incorporated into the Proposal, theRespondentmustalsoaddresshowanyassociateddebt, ifany, is tobedefeased.To

16

assistRespondentsintheiranalysis,alistingofallpropertiesownedbytheCityoranAssociatedEntity,withrevenuesorfunctions(asappropriate)andoutstandingdebtcanbefoundaspartofExhibitCandintheDataRoom.

C. Respondents can provide Proposals that replace existing City facilities with more

efficient facilities that more closely reflect current needs, recent technologyimprovementsandothermodernbuildinganddesignfeatures.ProposalstorelocateCityoperationscan includeproperties insideoroutsideoftheProjectAreaso longasthelocationsmeettheneedsofemployeesandresidents.Additionally,theCityiswillingtoconsideraleaseholdarrangement.AnyproposedpropertiesforCityoperations,eitherinsideoroutsideoftheProjectArea,mustbeonaGRTCroute.

3.6 AreaCompatibility

TheProjectAreahasfourdistinctusesonitsborders:

A. R&D(AltriaCenterforResearchandDevelopmentandVABio+Tech);

B. VirginiaCommonwealthUniversity;

C. TheRichmondConventionCenter;and

D. Governmentoperations.

TheProposalshouldrecognizethenatureoftheseusesand,totheextentfeasible,seektoenhancetheseactivities.TheCityisnotwilling,however,tosupporttherelocationofnearbycommercialactivityfromoutsidetheProjectAreatoinsidetheProjectArea.Thatformofeconomiccannibalizationisnotanadditiveelementtotheproject;therefore,allestimatesofexpectedeconomicactivityassociatedwiththeNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectmustbecertifiedasnetnewtothedowntownarea.

3.7 Third-PartyOwnershipofSites

Many,butnotall,propertiesintheProjectAreaareownedbytheCity.SomeareownedbyAssociated Entities, and some are owned by third parties. In responding to the RFP,RespondentsmayincludepropertythatisnotownedbytheCityoranAssociatedEntity.Ifsuch properties are included in a Proposal, the Proposal should describe how theRespondentproposestosecurecontrolovereachsuchpropertynotownedbytheCity,howtheexistingusesofeachsuchpropertywouldberelocatedtofacilitateredevelopment,andhowfailuretosecuretheinclusionofanyofsuchpropertieswouldimpacttheProposal.TheCityisinwayexpressingthewillingnessofanysuchthirdpartytoincludeit’spropertyintheProjectandtheCityinnowayintendsdictateanythirdparty’suseofitsproperty.Moreover,acquiringownershiporcontrolofanysuchpropertywillbetheresponsibilityofRespondent.ForanysuchpropertytheRespondentincludesintheProposal,theRespondentshouldalsoincludeawrittenstatementfromtheownerofanysuchpropertyexpressingthattheownerofsuchpropertydoesnotobjecttotheinclusionofpropertyintheProposal.

17

3.8 RevenueGeneration

A. TheCityacknowledgesthatthecostofmeetingtherequirementsoftheRFPmayexceedtherevenue-generatingcapacityoftheoverallProject–particularlyintheearlyyears.Itishopedthatsite-specificsubsidieswillbesufficienttomeettherevenueneedsofthesuccessful Proposal. Proposals must conform to section 1.1(C) of this RFP. TheRespondent should identify the assumed borrowing mechanism for any project-supporteddebtsuchastheEDA,orotherpoliticalsubdivisionwiththeauthoritytoissuesuchdebt.

B. TheCityispreparedtodiscuss,evaluate,and,potentially,utilizeanumberoftoolsatits

disposal in support of the Project. These tools could include tax increment projectfinancing supported by new incremental revenues generated by the Project, groundleases,or land transfers.Proposals thatexpect toutilizeanyof theseavailable tools,including any not specificallymentioned here,must identify the revenue generationmechanisms that areneeded, including those to supportProject financing, andmustestimate the valueof thesemechanisms in theProposal response. While theCity iswilling to consider all requests, it is not committing to the use of any particularmechanism.

C. IfthecostoffullymeetingtheobjectivesoftheRFPwillexceedtheincrementalrevenue-

generating capacity of the proposed plan within the footprint of the North ofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProject,theCityiswillingtoconsiderexpandedboundariesfortheProjecttosupporttheproposedredevelopmentplan.

D. IfaProposalrequeststheuseofalargerareabeyondthefootprintoftheProjectArea,

theProposalmustincludeadetailedestimateoftherequestandjustifytheuseofthelargerarea.WhiletheCityiswillingtoconsiderawide-rangeofadditionalsupportsfortheProject, it is not committing to the availability of any additional non-site specificsupport.

E. The City is also interested in Respondents offering strategies bywhich the North of

Broad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectcanaddvaluetootheraspectsofCitylife.Forexample,Richmondschoolshavesignificantfacilityneeds.RespondentscansuggestwaysinwhichrevenuesassociatedwiththeProjectmightbeusedtoassistRichmond’sschools.

3.9 Housing

A. TheProposalshouldcontainameaningfulhousingcomponentthatrespondstothefulldiversity of housing needs in Richmond, including residential homeownership.Specifically,theProposalshouldoutlinehowtheRespondentplanstomeettheneedsofthefullspectrumofRichmondresidentswithrespecttohousing.TheCityseeksProposalsthatincludecurrentbestpracticesforurbanhousing,suchasamixof

18

unitstargetingdifferentincomelevelswithinadevelopmentandavarietyoffloorplansdistributedthroughouttheProjecttargetingdifferentincomelevels.

B. Respondents are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible regarding their

concept for housing in the Project Area. Specifically, the City is interested inunderstanding:

1. What is the proposed unit mixture of rental versus home ownership in thedevelopment;

2. Whatistheproposedunitmixture(i.e.,unitsizeandincomerequirements)ofthedevelopment;

3. Will the development seek to serve all individuals along a continuum of incomeeligibility;

4. DoestheRespondentexpecttoutilizeLowIncomeHousingTaxCredits(“LIHTC”)aspartofthehousingdevelopmentand,ifso,whatisthestatusofthatprocess;

5. Will the Respondent commit to preserving the number of units serving the fullspectrumofhousingneedsforaperiodoftime,andifso,howlong;and

6. Does the Proposal require the use of any of the City’s U.S. Housing and UrbanDevelopmententitlementfundstosupportthedevelopmentoftheProject?

3.10 Parking

While theProjectArea currently includesbothon-streetandoff-street (i.e., twoparkinggarages)parkingelements, it isexpected thatan increase inoffice, retail and residentialdensitywithintheareacouldrequireadditionalparking.RespondentsshouldoutlinetheexpectedparkingneedfortheProjectArea,thelocationofcurrentandfutureparkingandthecostsassociatedwithdevelopingtheparking.Thetwoparkinggaragesareasfollows:

FY2017(1) FY2017(1) Annual Annual Debt Revenue Expenses(2)Facility Address Spaces ($millions) ($millions) ($millions)ColiseumParkingGarage 501N7thSt. 921 $2.1 $1.4 $0.41MarshallStreet 500EMarshall 1,000 $27.4 $2.2 $0.58(1) Unauditedactualfigures.(2) Excludesrelateddebtservice(seeExhibitCforoutstandingdebtanddebtservice)AdditionaldetailsconcerningthefinancialstatusofparkingoperationsareavailableintheDataRoom.

19

Totheextentthatexistingparkinggaragesormeteredon-streetparkingspotswillbetakenoutofservicetemporarilyorpermanently,providenumberofspaceslost,bylocation,andtheduration(startandenddate)forwhichtheywillbeoutofservice.

3.11 LocalJobCreationandLocalHiring

A. The Proposal shall, to a meaningful degree, endeavor to provide a portion ofconstructionandend-userjobsforRichmondresidents.

B. TheCityhasacommitmenttothedevelopmentof itsMBEandESBcommunitiesand

encouragestheuseofMBEsandESBsontheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopment Project to the fullest extent reasonably possible. Prior projects inRichmondhaveusedMBE/ESBparticipationgoalsashighas40%.AfterreviewingtheProposals, theCitywillworkwith the successfulRespondent toestablish thehighestreasonable goals (as contrasted with formal requirements) given the availability ofminority and emerging small businesses for the scope of work envisioned by theProject.TheCity’sOfficeofMinorityBusinessDevelopmentisavailableat804-646-3985toserveasaresourceinidentifyinglocalMBEsandESBs.

C. Withrespect toend-user jobs forRichmondresidents, theProposal shall identify the

training opportunities that will be created and the job-training partners that will beinvolvedintheProject.

3.12 GRTCTransferStationandAssets/PublicTransportation

A. TheCityrecognizesthe integral roleof transit indevelopmentandeconomicgrowth.ThePulseBRT(busrapidtransit)isoneexampleoftheCity’sacknowledgementoftheroletransitplaysinmoderncities.TheCityexpectstheProjecttoincorporatethebestpracticesofNewUrbanismandtransitconnectivityintothedevelopmentplan.Indoingso,itshouldconsidertwoGRTCassetsinthevicinityoftheProjectArea:thebustransferstation and the GRTC Pulse BRT line. Proposals shall address and incorporate bothassets.

B. The City believes that including the GRTC transfer station in the Project offers an

opportunitytofullyincorporatetransit-orienteddevelopmentbestpractices.TheGRTCdesirestoreplacethecurrenttransferstationintheProjectAreawithafacilitythatwillbetterservetheGRTC’sridershipandmorefullyincorporatetransitintothefabricoftheCity.

4 ResponseFormat4.1 General

20

A. Respondentsshouldclearlycommunicate in theirProposal themanner inwhich theypropose to develop the Project Area included in the North of Broad/DowntownNeighborhood Redevelopment Project. Proposals must address all of the elementsrequired from the RFP and any amendments. Respondents are encouraged to beconcise,responddirectlytotheRFPrequirements,andaddresstheobjectivesoftheRFPprocess.

B. Proposalsmustnotexceedeighty(80)pagesinlength,excludingappendices.Tabsused

toseparatesectionswillnotcountagainstthepagelimit.Pagesshouldbenumberedconsecutivelyfromone(1)througheighty(80). Resumesofkeystaff,asdescribedinmoredetailbelow,shouldbeplacedinanAppendix,andwillnotcounttowardsthepagelimit.

4.2 ProposalFormat

Proposalsmustbeinan8½”x11”formatwithstandardtextnosmallerthan11point.Themarginsoneachpageshouldnotbelessthan1inchandthelinespacingshouldnotbelessthan1.1,excludingchartsandgraphics.Thefive(5)papercopiesoftheProposalshouldbethree-holepunchedandplacedinseparate3-ringbinderswithidentifyingcovers.Proposalsshouldbeorganizedandoutlined intheformatdescribedbelow, includingmajorsectiontitles.

4.3 SpecificProposalFormatandContent

4.3.1 LetterofTransmittal

A. TheletteroftransmittalshouldincludetheRespondent’sname,contactpersonfortheProposal(withname,address,telephonenumber,andemailaddress),signatureoftheauthorizedrepresentative,andadesignationoftheresponsiblelegalentitythatwouldsignacontractwiththeCityiftheProposalisaccepted.

B. Intheletteroftransmittal,theRespondentshouldalsoconfirminwritingthat:

A. ItisalegalentityandisregisteredtodobusinessintheCommonwealthofVirginiawiththeStateCorporationCommission(the“SCC”);

B. TheProposalisgenuineandwithoutcollusioninallrespects;C. ThatthecontactpersonisauthorizedtoactontheRespondent’sbehalf;andD. That the Proposal shall remain valid for at least 180 days unlesswithdrawn by

RespondentaspermittedbythisRFP.

4.3.2 TableofContents

IndicatesignificantelementsoftheProposalbysubjectandpagenumber.IftheProposalcontainsappendices,includealistingoftheitemsincluded.

4.3.3 ExecutiveSummary

21

ProvideanexecutivesummaryofthekeyelementsoftheProposal,focusingontheCity’sobjectivesasdescribedinthisRFP.

4.3.4 RespondentQualifications

DescribetheRespondent’sgeneralqualificationsrelatedtothisproject,includingseparatedescriptions of the qualifications for any partners or subcontractors participating in theProposal.Theinformationshallinclude,ataminimum,thefollowing:

A. DescriptionofRespondent:ProvideadescriptionoftheRespondent,includingadescriptionofallRespondentMembersandtheanticipatedlegalrelationship(governance and capital structure) among the members (e.g., partners,shareholders,client-consultants,subcontractors,etc.)asappropriate.Allequityinvestorsmustbeidentified.

B. RolesofRespondentMembersandKeyPersonnel:BrieflyoutlinetherolesoftheRespondentMembersandkeypersonnel.

C. DescriptionofOperator(s): Specifically identify theentityor entities thatwillhave ongoing day-to-day operational control of the elements of thedevelopmentproject.

D. ContactPerson:Provideasinglecontactpersonforall futurecommunicationbetween the City and the Respondent. Please identify the contact person’sname, title,organization,address, telephonenumber, faxnumber,andemailaddress.

E. ControllingInterestofRespondent:IdentifytheindividualsorcompanieswhoholdamajororcontrollinginterestineachRespondentMember.

F. ExpectedAdvisors:Identifythecompaniesandindividualswhoareexpectedtoactaslegal,financial,orotheradvisorsfortheRespondent.

G. Comparable Projects: Provide a list of projects comparable in size andcomplexityinwhichRespondentMembersandanyexpectedsiteoperators,ifdifferent,haveparticipated.Respondentshouldspecifyhowthesecomparableprojectsrelatetotheproposedproject.

H. FinancialCapabilities:Provideevidenceoffinancialcapabilitiestoundertakeandcomplete the proposed Project (or any relevant element) and demonstrateabilitytoaccessnecessaryfinancingwithoutanycontingencies.

I. References:ProvidealistofRespondentMemberreferences.Thesereferencesshould be able to describe the relevant qualifications and capabilities ofRespondentMembersseekingtotakealeadingroleinthedevelopmentoftheProject.

22

WhiletheRespondentisfreetoutilizeanypartnersorsubcontractors,theRespondentmustassume responsibility for the entire project, including the work of any partners orsubcontractors.

4.3.5 DetailedProForma

Includeaproformamodel(inanunlockedExcelformatwithunderlyingformulasincludedand accessible) showing all revenue and expense calculations and supporting detail forrevenuesthatprovidethebasisfortheProjectplanandanyproposedfinancingthatistoberepaidfromincrementalrevenuesgeneratedbytheProject.TheProformashouldincludetheProject’srevenueprojectionsandunderlyingassumptions,andataminimum:

A. NewArenarevenues(basedonproposeduseoffacility);

B. Parkingassumptionsandnew incrementalparking revenues,overandaboveanyexistingparkingrevenuesrelatedtoexistingparkingfacilitiesandcurrentlybeingcollectedintheProjectArea;

C. Newincremental revenues (realestate,BPOL,PersonalProperty,Admissions,others);

D. SpecificityastoanyproposedtaxincrementdistrictnecessarytosupportanyProject-relatedfinancingfortheNewArenaandotherrelateddevelopment,ifany;

E. Estimatedbudgetforongoingprojectoperations,withdelineationofexpecteddutiesandspecificallynotinganyongoingneedorbudgetaryexpenserelatedtothedeliveryofnewCityservices;

F. Otherrevenues, ifany,thatresultfromtaxincreases,specialassessments,orpotentiallegislativechanges,ifcontemplatedbytheProposal;and

G. Otherassumedrevenuesnotlistedabove,butassumedintheProFormamodelandMarket/FeasibilityStudyrequiredbysection4.3.8.

4.3.6 ProjectFinancingSupportedbyIncrementalRevenues

IncludeanoutlineofthefinancialcapabilitiesoftheRespondentandotherproposedProjectFinancing elements of the Proposal that are to be repaid from incremental revenuesgeneratedbytheProject.Specifically,Respondentsshouldaddress:

A. AmountofRespondent’sequity;

B. ProjectbudgetforNewArenaandotherrelatedcomponentsdetailingthehardand soft costs to be financed based on industry standards or site specificestimates;

C. SourcesandUsesofFunds–Delineationofequity,totalsourcesoftax-exemptortaxabledebtandusesoffundsforNewArenaandotherrelatedcomponents;

23

D. Upfront funding to be provided to the City in exchange for access to Cityproperties;

E. Detaileddiscussionontheproposedstructuralcomponents,marketingplanandpotential investors for any tax-exempt or taxable debt to be issued for theproposed New Arena and other related components and secured by newincrementaltaxrevenues;

F. Costof issuanceassumptionsbycomponent(i.e.bondcounsel,underwriter’sfees,otherlegalcounsel,etc.);

G. Developerfeesandotheroverheadcostsincludedintheproposedfinancing,ifany;

H. ExpectedCityprocedural participation in any requireddebt financing for theProject(i.e.CityCouncilactions,useofEDA,etc.).Cityfinancialsupportislimitedassetforthinsection1.1(C)ofthisRFP.Citynon-financialsupportmayconsistofpotentialzoningorlandusechangesthatmayfacilitatetheproposedProjectorothernon-financialmeansofsupport;and

I. RoleofEDAorotherissuingbodyintheissuanceofproposedProjectDebt.TheProposalshoulddescribethenatureoftheinvolvementrequiredbytheEDAandoranyotherpoliticalsubdivisionnecessarytofacilitatetheissuanceofproposedProjectdebt.

4.3.7 RevenueGeneration

Include a detailed description of any requested City assistancewith revenue generationtools, both for the Project Area, and, as needed, for other areas within the immediatecommunitytosupporttheProject.

4.3.8 Market/FeasibilityStudy

TheProposalshouldincludeamarket/feasibilitystudydemonstratingthattheelementsoftheProposalcanbesupportedbyandareviablewithinthemarket.Themarket/feasibilitystudyshouldbeperformedbyanationallyrecognizedentity,notaffiliatedinanywaywiththeRespondent,aspartofanarm’s-lengthtransaction.Themarket/feasibilitystudyshouldalsoincorporatetheDetailedProFormarequiredbysection4.3.5andshowthatthattheproposeddevelopmentplancansupportProjectfinancingasdiscussedpursuanttosection4.3.6,ifany,whichistoberepaidsolelybyincrementalrevenues.TheRespondentshouldhavethemarket/feasibilitystudypreparedwiththeunderstandingthatitwillbeusedasthebasisforafinalreportforthepurposeofobtainingtheproposedProjectfinancing,ifany.TheRespondentshallbearallcostsassociatedwiththemarket/feasibilitystudy.Elementsinthestudyshouldinclude:

A. Data andanalysis for a 17,500 seat arenaasoutlined in Section3.2 that canbeoperatedwithoutCitysubsidy;

B. Demandmodelsforresidential,retailandofficeuses;

24

C. Rentmodelsandsurveysdemonstratingmarketsupportforproposedoffice,retailandhousingrentstructures;

D. Estimatedratesofabsorptionforresidential,retailandofficespace;

E. Estimatedhoteloccupancyrateafter12monthsofoperation;

F. Estimatedlocaleconomicimpactofproposeddevelopment;and

G. PhasingoftheProjectandimpactonincrementalrevenuestreamandrelateddebttobeissuedandsupportedbysuchincrementalrevenues.

It isunderstoodthatresultsfromthemarket/feasibilitystudywillbepreliminarypendingthecompletionofallProjectcomponents.Further,itispossiblethemarket/feasibilitystudymaydemonstratethatoneormoreelementsoftheCity’sdesiredoutcomefortheNorthofBroad/DowntownNeighborhoodRedevelopmentProjectarenottenablewithinthecurrenteconomicenvironment.Inthatcase,RespondentsshouldoutlineintheirProposalswhatthemarket/feasibilitystudydoessupportinrelationtotheCity’sgoals.

4.3.9 OrganizationandManagement

Provideadescriptionof the legalorganizationof the legalentity thatwillenter intoanycontractwiththeCity.Further,provideadescriptionofrelatedorunrelatedentitiesthatmaytakeaprimaryroleinanelementoftheoverallProject.Detailsshouldinclude:

A. DescriptionofLegalEntity

B. RolesofEntityMembersandKeyPersonnel

C. ContactPerson

D. ControllingInterestofLegalentity

E. ExpectedAdvisors

F. FinancialCapabilities

G. Projectscomparableinsizeandcomplexity

H. References

TheProposalmustalsoprovideaone-pagestafforganizationchartindicatingkeystaffwhowillworkonthisProject.Keystaffshouldincludemanagersandleadoperationalstaffwhowill be interacting with the City staff on a frequent basis. Provide in the Appendixprofessionalresumesforkeystaffthatdescribeeachperson’seducationalbackground,workexperience,registrationsandcertificates,clientreferencesandrolesinprojectssimilartothisone.

4.3.10 ProjectConceptandDevelopmentPlan

25

ProvidetheRespondent’svisionfortheredevelopmentoftheProjectArea.Outlinewhetherthe Project would be broken into smaller phases and if so, describe each. IncludeRespondent’sperspectiveontheCity’sexplicitconstructionandpolicygoalsforthearea.Describehow theProjectwoulddevelopover time, notingpotentialmilestones theCitycouldexpecttoseeduringtheprocess.

4.3.11 EnvironmentalBenefits

TheCityhasastrongcommitmenttosustainabilityandrequiresthatthedevelopmentofCity-ownedpropertiessupporttheRVAgreen2050initiative,whichseekstoreducecarbonemissionsby80%by2050.Inadditiontoreducingcarbonemissions,itseekstoincreaseclean energy sources, enhance the reliability and resilience of the energy system andpromote more efficient and affordable energy. Respondents shall describe how theredevelopmentplanwillincorporateRVAgreen2050andmeettheCity’ssustainabilitygoals.

4.3.12 CommunityandStakeholderOutreach

A. TheCityiscommittedtomaximizingcommunitybenefitsforitsresidentsandexpectsRespondentstoconsiderstakeholderandcommunitypreferencesfortheProject,totheextentpractical.Duringtheperiodofresponsepreparation,RespondentsshouldengagewithcommunitystakeholderstohelpinformthedevelopmentoftheProposal.Further,Respondents are encouraged to provide information regarding their communityengagement (e.g., meeting dates, locations, attendee lists, etc.) and demonstratecommunitysupportfortheirProposalasapartofthesubmission.

B. Additionally,RespondentsmustincludeintheProposaladetailedplandescribinghow

communitystakeholderswouldcontinuetobeengagedduringthedevelopmenteffort.Possible engagement techniques could include (but are not limited to): communitymeetings,openhouses,charrettes,andwebsiteandsocialmediaoutreach.

4.3.13 ImpactonSchools

A. Richmond schools are a critical element of the fabric of the City, and they have asignificantneedforfundingtoaddressfacilitychallengeswithinthesystem.Whilethisissue transcends the scope of the Project, the opportunity presented by thisredevelopment is an important one. Therefore, Respondents shall include in theirProposalsanyconceptstheywishtoadvanceforestablishinglong-termfundingstreamsforRichmondPublicSchools. Thefundingstreamscanberelatedtoelementsof theredevelopment.

B. The Project Area currently does not include a Richmond Public Schools facility.Therefore,Respondentsshouldalso identitypotential locations inorneartheProjectAreathatmightbesuitableandappropriateata futuredate foruseasaneducationfacility.

26

4.3.14 ImpactonGRTCTransferStation

A. TheCityhasincreasinglyrecognizedtheintegralandvitalroleoftransitindevelopmentandeconomicgrowth.TherecentapprovalofthePulseBRTisanacknowledgementofRichmond’scommitmenttotransitandconnectivity.Inrecognitionoftheimportantroleoftransitintheproject,theRespondentshallincludeareplacementfortheexistingbustransferfacility.TheRespondentshouldprovidefortheinclusionofabustransferfacilityintothegroundfloorofaproposedbuilding,whichwillsubjecttodetailedcoordinationwithGRTCasfacilitatedbytheCity.

B. Thebustransferfacilitywillrequireapproximately65,000squarefeetwithaceiling

heightof,atleast,22feet.WhiletheCityandGRTCwillconsideranyproposedsiteforthebustransferstation,sitesthatprovidethebestconnectiontothePulseBRTandBroadStreetwillbepreferred.

C. TheGRTCwillberesponsiblefordevelopingtheon-siteimprovementsandalreadyhas

over$9millioninfederalfundingtosupportthatdevelopment.

D. ThebustransferfacilitywillbebuiltinaccordwithFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)regulations.ItwillbetheresponsibilityofGRTCtosecurefederalapprovaloftheprojectandtominimizetheregulatoryimpactofthatprojectontheoveralldevelopment.

4.3.15 ProposedTransitionPlanandSchedule

Provide a transition plan and schedule describing how the Respondent will ensure theorderlycompletionoftheproject.TheplanshouldidentifytheRespondent’splanneddate(expressed as days from executing a contract with the City) for achieving significanttransactions milestones. The schedule should include the dates for all key plannedactivities, includinganyactionsneeded tobe takenbyCityCouncilorotherauthorizingbodiesandtheEDAorotherpoliticalsubdivisionsneededtoeffecttheissuanceofproposedProjectdebt.

4.3.16 ConceptPlans/Renderings

Asapartoftheresponse,Respondentsshallprovideapplicablesiteplans,projectrenderings,trafficstudiesandanyothermaterialsthatwillaidtheCityinitsreviewofthesubmission.

5 ExhibitsandAppendices

27

28

ExhibitA

NON-COLLUSIONAFFIDAVIT

STATEOF______________________ ))

______________________COUNTY )

TheundersignedauthorizedrepresentativeofRespondent,beingdulyswornonoath,statesthathe/sheisdulyauthorizedtoactonbehalfofRespondentandhasnot,norhasanyotheremployee,member,representative,oragentofthefirm,company,corporationorpartnershiprepresentedbyhim/her,enteredintoanycombination,collusionoragreementwithanypersonrelativetothetermstobeofferedbyanypersonnortopreventanypersonfrommakingaProposalnortoinduceanyonetorefrainfromsubmittingaProposalandthatthisofferismadewithoutreferencetoanyotheroffer.

Further,theundersigned,onbehalfoftheRespondent,statesthatheorshehasnot,norhasanyotheremployee,member,representative,oragentofthefirm,company,corporationorpartnershiprepresentedbyhimorher,engagedinanyunauthorizedcommunicationswithanyoneassociatedwiththeCity,includingbutnotlimitedtoCityemployees,electedofficials,agents,representatives,orindividualsemployedbyAssociatedEntities.

Respondent(NameofFirm) SignatureofRepresentative/Agent PrintedNameofRepresentative/Agent Title

Subscribedandsworntobeforemethis______dayof________________,2018.

MyCommissionExpires: NotaryPublic CountyofResidence

29

ExhibitB

AREAMAP

400 ftN

Broad

Marshall

Clay

Leigh

Broad

Marshall

Clay

Leigh

Jackson

Duval

Grace

Franklin

Fous

hee

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

6th

5th

7th

8th

9th

14th

10th

11th

12th

Broad

Marshall

Clay

Leigh

Broad

Marshall

Clay

Leigh

Jackson

Duval

Grace

Franklin

Fous

hee

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

6th

5th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

14th

95

64

CityHall

MarriottHotel

Blue’sArmory

Capitol

Coliseum

ConventionCenter

PublicSafety

Building

Dept. ofSocial

Services VCU Health

CircuitCourt

Library ofVirginia

FederalCourthouse

IRS

CityHall

MarriottHotel

Blue’sArmory

Capitol

Coliseum

ConventionCenter

PublicSafety

Building

Dept. ofSocial

Services VCU Health

CircuitCourt

Library ofVirginia

FederalCourthouse

IRS

Aerial Map - General Project Area

General Project Area

30

ExhibitCLISTINGOFPROPERTIESINAREAINCLUDINGDESCRIPTIONOFUSEOFCITYPROPERTIES,REVENUEASSOCIATEDWITHPROPERTIES(IFANY)ANDOUTSTANDINGDEBTASSOCIATEDWITHPROPERTIES

(IFANY)

Exhibit C

Source:CityofRIchmond PageC-1

ProjectAreaPropertyListing

PropertiesOwnedbytheCityoranAssociatedEntityRelatedDebt

TaxID# Address Description/Use Acres S.F. Land Improvement Total Ownership Asof8/1/20171 N0000007001 601E.LeighStreet RichmondColiseum 7.36 179,870 $12,343,000 $35,613,000 $47,956,000 City $2,859,7862 N0000008001 501N.7thStreet ParkingDeck 1.94 236,600 $3,251,000 $10,934,000 $14,185,000 City $2,100,5743 N0000011002 500BEastMarshallSt PartofColiseumTunnel 0.01 NA $1,859,000 -- $1,859,000 City NA4 N0000009001 808E.ClayStreet SurfaceParking 1.71 NA $2,868,000 $111,000 $2,979,000 City NA5 N0000009002 800E.ClayStreet SurfaceParking 0.37 NA $616,000 $19,000 $635,000 City NA6 E0000235003 900E.MarshallStreet Soc.Serv.Bldg.(MarshallPlaza) 1.64 39,156 $2,750,000 $10,545,000 $13,295,000 Adv.RichmondCorp(City) $3,235,4067 N0000004002 400N.9thStreet JohnMarshallCourts 1.08 99,785 $1,818,000 $9,494,000 $11,312,000 City NA8 N0000006004 406N.7thstreet VacantLand 0.57 NA $950,000 $4,000 $954,000 RRHA NA9 N0000006025 408AN.7thStreet VacantLand 0.43 NA $689,000 -- $689,000 RRHA NA

10 N0000011032 550E.MarshallStreet Atrium 0.40 10,000 $678,000 $108,000 $786,000 RRHA NA11 N0000011033 500E.MarshallStreet ParkingGarage 1.58 244,608 $2,650,000 $11,210,000 $13,860,000 City NA12 N0000011034 530E.MarshallStreet 6thStreetMarketplace 0.22 20,304 $369,000 $265,000 $634,000 RRHA $27,380,46313 N0000006025B 411N.6thStreet BluesArmory 0.49 40,194 $397,000 $1,676,000 $2,073,000 RRHA NA14 E0000235001 500N.10thStreet PublicSafetyBuilding 3.01 147,399 $4,038,000 $10,372,000 $14,410,000 City NA15 N0000007003 500AEastMarshallSt. CommonArea 0.05 NA $100,000 -- $100,000 City NA

PropertiesNotOwnedbytheCityoranAssociatedEntity1 N0000006018 612E.MarshallStreet ParkingGarage 0.30 87,242 $494,000 $2,019,000 $2,513,000 Seventh&MarshallCorp. NA2 N0000006021 610E.MarshallStreet HospitalityHouse 0.10 16,013 $168,000 $244,000 $412,000 Hosp.HouseOfRichmond,Inc NA3 N0000003001 400N.8thStreet FederalBuilding 2.13 323,439 $3,576,000 $32,396,000 $35,972,000 GSAU.S.Govt NA4 N0000004003 825E.ClayStreet JohnMarshallCourtsPlaza 0.40 NA $662,000 $29,000 $691,000 JohnMarshallFoundation NA5 N0000004001 808E.MarshallStreet JhnMarshallHouse 0.333 14,503 $558,000 $382,000 $940,000 AssociationforthePreservationof

VAAntiquities

Valuation

Exhibit C

Source:CityofRichmond;OfficialStatements PageC-2

OutstandingDebt(AsofOctober1,2017)

RichmondColiseum(2010C,2012C,2015AGOBondAllocations)

FY Maturity Principal Coupon Principal Coupon Principal Coupon Principal Interest DebtService

2018 - 54,487.87 54,487.872019 7/15/18 354,100.00 3.00% 107,078.00 1.81% 461,178.00 102,695.18 563,873.182020 7/15/19 354,100.00 4.00% 115,778.00 2.06% 469,878.00 88,140.11 558,018.112021 7/15/20 354,850.00 4.00% 118,459.00 2.35% 473,309.00 71,377.30 544,686.302022 7/15/21 354,850.00 5.00% 125,871.00 2.34% 480,721.00 52,545.06 533,266.062023 7/15/22 354,850.00 5.00% 125,944.00 2.75% 480,794.00 31,598.77 512,392.772024 7/15/23 354,850.00 5.00% 139,056.00 2.34% 493,906.00 10,498.21 504,404.21

2,127,600.00 467,259.00 264,927.00 2,859,786.00 411,342.50 3,271,128.50

CallDate: 7/15/2020at100% Non-Callable Non-Callable

2010CRefundingBonds 2012CRefundingBonds(Taxable) 2015ATax-ExemptRefundingLoan TotalDebtService

Exhibit C



ColiseumParkingGarage (1)

(2012CGOBondAllocation)

FY Maturity Principal Coupon Interest DebtService

2018 - 23,113.13 23,113.132019 7/15/18 528,597.00 1.81% 41,442.45 570,039.472020 7/15/19 540,665.00 2.06% 31,089.80 571,754.822021 7/15/20 513,127.00 2.35% 19,494.29 532,621.312022 7/15/21 518,185.00 2.60% 6,733.81 524,918.84

2,100,574.00 121,873.48 2,222,447.57

CallDate: Non-Callable

(1)BoundedonthewestbyNorth7thStreet,northbyEastLeighStreet,eastbynorth8thStreetandsouthbyEastClayStreet.

Exhibit C



5th&MarshallParkingGarage (1)

(2017B,2017CGOBondAllocation)

FY Maturity Principal(2) Coupon Principal(2) Coupon Principal Interest DebtService

2018 - - - 410,399.34 410,399.34

2019 7/15/18 241,645.24 5.00% 1,375,321.34 1.15% 1,616,966.58 802,314.65 2,419,281.23

2020 7/15/19 254,498.71 5.00% 1,395,886.89 2.00% 1,650,385.60 768,044.09 2,418,429.69

2021 7/15/20 267,352.19 5.00% 1,424,164.52 2.00% 1,691,516.71 726,797.30 2,418,314.01

2022 7/15/21 280,205.66 5.00% 1,452,442.16 2.00% 1,732,647.81 684,342.29 2,416,990.10

2023 7/15/22 295,629.82 5.00% 1,488,431.88 3.00% 1,784,061.70 633,095.50 2,417,157.20

2024 7/15/23 311,053.98 5.00% 1,532,133.68 3.00% 1,843,187.66 572,619.92 2,415,807.58

2025 7/15/24 326,478.15 5.00% 1,575,835.48 2.58% 1,902,313.62 513,371.34 2,415,684.96

2026 7/15/25 344,473.01 5.00% 1,619,537.28 2.65% 1,964,010.28 454,810.41 2,418,820.69

2027 7/15/26 362,467.87 5.00% 1,663,239.07 2.75% 2,025,706.94 392,808.48 2,418,515.42

2028 7/15/27 380,462.72 5.00% 1,709,511.57 2.80% 2,089,974.29 327,432.52 2,417,406.81

2029 7/15/28 401,028.28 5.00% 1,760,925.45 2.90% 2,161,953.73 258,428.66 2,420,382.39

2030 7/15/29 419,023.14 4.00% 1,812,339.33 3.00% 2,231,362.47 187,303.98 2,418,666.45

2031 7/15/30 437,017.99 5.00% 1,868,894.60 3.00% 2,305,912.60 112,779.56 2,418,692.16

2032 7/15/31 455,012.85 3.00% 1,925,449.87 3.125% 2,380,462.72 36,910.35 2,417,373.07

4,776,349.61 22,604,113.11 27,380,462.72 6,881,458.40 34,261,921.13

CallDate: 7/15/2027@100% 7/15/2027@100%

(1)BoundedonthewestbyNorth57thStreet,northbytheColiseum,eastbytheCityCenterBuildingandsouthbyEastMarshallStreet.

(2)Prorataallocationof2017Band2017CBondsapplicabletotherefundingofSeries2010D.Basedonparkingspacesinthe

5th&Marshallgaragedividedbytotalparkingspacesoriginallyfinancedwiththe2010DBonds(1,000/1,945orapproximately51.41%)

2017BRefundingBonds(Tax-Exempt) 2017CRefundingBonds(Taxable) TotalDebtService

Exhibit C



SocialServicesBuilding(MarshallPlaza)(2005ALeaseRevenueBond)

FY Maturity Principal Coupon Interest DebtService

2018 - 84,929.41 84,929.412019 10/1/18 1,022,357.00 5.25% 143,021.95 1,165,379.002020 10/1/19 1,077,478.00 5.25% 87,901.28 1,165,379.332021 10/1/20 1,135,571.00 5.25% 29,808.74 1,165,379.79

3,235,406.00 345,661.38 3,581,067.54

CallDate: