Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District

Transcription

CITY COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
June 14, 2011
FROM:
Jason Hilgers, Assistant City Manager
MEETING:
June 21, 2011
SUBJECTS:
Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District
PRESENTER:
BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2010, the City Commission received a presentation from a class of
Architecture at Kansas State University (KSU) outlining several options for the 4.5 acre
site. At the same time, City Administration gave an overview of the five interested
parties who had submitted letters of interest in developing all or a portion of Lot 9.
Interest submitted consisted of two hotel proposals, one residential, one multi-use
retail/residential/restaurant, and a theater.
On December 14, 2010, the City Commission received another presentation from
members of the KSU Architecture class with a preferred concept including the Colin
Noble two hotel proposal along with a mixed-use building with restaurant, retail, and
housing. The Commission also heard from a couple other interested parties/developers
who were advocating for a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Both developers
expressed interest in other uses for Lot 9 including retail, residential, theaters, and
restaurants. The Commission directed City Administration to prepare a draft Request for
Proposals (RFP) soliciting proposals from developers as to the development of Lot 9.
On February 8, 2011, the City Commission received a presentation from City
Administration on the draft RFP for the development of Lot 9 within the South
Downtown Entertainment District. In addition, the City Commission also heard a
presentation from John Conderman representing Flint Hills Square, LLC (FHS). Mr.
Conderman reiterated the Noble proposal of two hotels within Lot 9 along with a mixeduse building consisting of a restaurant, retail, and residential uses.
Upon hearing both presentations, the Commission gave direction to City Administration
to work with FHS, to draft development agreements for the proposed two hotels and
mixed-use building on Lot 9.
On March 8, 2011, the City Commission held a work session on Lot 9 and received an
overview of the general sections of the draft agreement. FHS representatives also made a
brief presentation of their commitment to the project and reviewed the concept of two
hotels and a mixed-use building.
On May 10, 2011, the City Commission held another work session relative to Lot 9 and
again received an overview of the draft agreement. FHS reiterated their position on the
purchase price at $500,000 for three lots consisting of private development at 1.33 acres
(57,755 sq. ft.). This purchase price equates to an investment by FHS at $8.66 per sq. ft.
In addition to the purchase price for the land, FHS has agreed to submit benefit district
petitions to finance 75% of the publicly dedicated parking lots (3) within the proposed
Lot 9. The parking lots are estimated at $1,400,000 with private financing covering
$1,050,000, resulting in $350,000 (25%) to the City.
Although the parking lots will be owned by the City and available for both public and
private use, the draft agreement sets forth responsibility of maintaining the public parking
lots by FHS or the assigned owners of the three private lots. Major reconstruction work
is scheduled to be shared 75% (FHS) and 25% (City). This is similar to the relationship
the City shares with Manhattan Town Center.
DISCUSSION
On May 16, 2011, City Administration provided the City Commission with a financial
analysis in regard to revenues anticipated from FHS in comparison to what was
forecasted by Real Estate Research Consultants (RERC), the firm that completed the
revenue forecast for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Sales Tax Revenue (STAR)
bond issues. As a result of this analysis, annual revenues for STAR bonds are reduced by
$214,874 annually primarily due to the reduction of retail and an increase in hotels, while
TIF revenues would increase by $254,822 annually, primarily due to the property tax
increase with the addition of the hotels.
Also as a result of the May 10, 2011, work session, the City Commission gave City
Administration direction to hire Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) to complete a market
analysis with respect to adding two hotels to the Manhattan market, and how these two
hotels located in close proximity would impact the use and success of the Manhattan
Conference Center and the Manhattan Hilton Garden Inn. SAG will be in attendance to
make a presentation to the City Commission on their findings.
The draft agreement is attached. Key points for consideration continue to revolve around
timing of improvements and sequencing of approvals from the City Commission.
The draft agreement is written in a way that will rezone the entire Lot 9 to a Preliminary
PUD consisting of two hotels, one mixed-use building, and three parking areas. The
rezoning would also include a Final Development Plan for the Candlewood Inn and
Suites. The draft agreement would transfer all three private lots at the completion of the
rezoning as described above, with only one property in a Final Development Plan for the
first hotel. Before the other two properties could be developed, the Developer would
have to obtain financing and those lots would have to have a Final Development Plan
approved for each lot. In order to ensure these lots would actually be developed within
the required time frames, there are liquidated damages provided, beginning in 2015, and,
in addition, the City has the option of getting the properties back, through a reversionary
clause. City Administration is seeking feedback specifically on the timeframe that should
be inserted to allow the developer to construct an improvement on the property. While
liquidated damages will begin in 2015, which implies the project hasn’t been completed
sometime in 2014, there is currently a blank in the agreement that indicates how long the
City will allow the developer to pay liquidated damages before the property actually
reverts to the City. Under the above described scenario, the property will have set vacant
for 2.5 years after this agreement is entered (June 2011 until December 2014). City
Administration would suggest a limited amount of time be allowed; perhaps a year or
two, then the property would revert either January 1, 2016, or January 1, 2017.
FINANCING
To date, discussions have centered on a negotiated purchase price and participation in
public infrastructure in and near Lot 9. As stated in the May 16, 2011, analysis, the FHS
proposal is anticipated to generate less revenue for STAR bonds annually, but about an
equal amount as projected to TIF revenues annually.
ALTERNATIVES
It appears the Commission has the following alternatives concerning the issue at hand.
The Commission may:
1. Authorize City Administration to finalize and the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the Development Agreement, and associated
documents with Flint Hills Square, LLC, et. al. for the redevelopment
of Lot 9.
2. Do not approve the measure.
3. Modify or develop alternatives if other concerns or factors arise.
4. Table the request.
RECOMMENDATION
City Administration recommends the City Commission provide feedback and direction
on any pertinent issues regarding the negotiations for the draft development agreement
for Lot 9 with Flint Hills Square, LLC. Options for the Commission include considering
this item a discussion item and postponing the action until a future date, or reaching a
consensus based on the findings of the SAG report and authorizing City Administration
to finalize the agreement and the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement when
complete.
POSSIBLE MOTION
Authorize City Administration to finalize and the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Final Development Agreement and associated documents with Flint Hills Square, LLC,
et. al. for the redevelopment of Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District.
JH
11102
Enclosures:
1. Draft Agreement
2. May 16, 2011, Financial Analysis
3. Executive Summary
4. Power Point Presentation
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on
this ______ day of ________________, 2011, by and between the City of Manhattan, Kansas, a
Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as “City”), Flint Hills Square, LLC, a Kansas
limited liability company (“Developer”), and Noble Hospitality of the Flint Hills, LLC, Noble
Hospitality, Inc., and GJL Real Estate, LP, (“Assignees”);
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District, a
Commercial Planned Unit Development, in the City of Manhattan, Riley County, Kansas
(hereinafter the “Project Site”); and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to develop the Project Site and is prepared to solicit
proposals from developers as to such development; and,
t
f
a
r
WHEREAS, prior to the City’s solicitation of such proposals, Developer has requested
that the City forego any such solicitation and to enter into an agreement with Developer and
Assignees for the development of the Project Site, giving Developer and Assignees the exclusive
opportunity, as more specifically set forth in this Agreement, to actively participate with the City
in the development of the Project Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
WITNESSETH:
I.
DEFINITIONS:
D
As used in this Agreement, the following terms, when having an initial capital letter in the text of
this Agreement, shall have the following meaning:
THE ACT: K.S.A. 12-1770, et.seq.
AGREEMENT: This Development Agreement, taken and construed as a whole; as amended
from time to time.
ASSIGNEES: Noble Hospitality of the Flint Hills, LLC; Noble Hospitality, Inc.; GJL Real
Estate, LP.
CITY: The City of Manhattan.
DEVELOPER: Flint Hills Square, LLC
PROJECT: The construction of two hotels, consisting of an 84 room Candlewood Suites
Extended Stay Hotel (the “Candlewood Project”) and a 76 room Holiday Inn Express (the
1
“Holiday Inn Project”); the construction of a locally owned concept restaurant, coffee
shop/bakery, and loft apartments (the “Mixed Use Project”); and, the construction of the
necessary public improvements (the “Public Projects”), such as parking lots, landscaping, travel
ways, sewer, water, storm sewer infrastructure, and a sidewalk which is located within the public
park that abuts Lot 1 and Lot 4. The Candlewood Project, Holiday Inn Project and the Mixed
Use Project are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Private Projects”.
PROJECT SITE: Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District, a Commercial Planned Unit
Development, in the City of Manhattan, Riley County, Kansas
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: An area, including the Project Site, created by the City by
Ordinance No. 6512 , pursuant to the Act.
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: A Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 6612 of the City, pursuant to
the Act.
II.
GRANT/COMPENSATION
A.
GRANT.
t
f
a
r
The City hereby grants the Developer and Assignees, under and pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, the exclusive right to develop the Project Site. The Grant set forth herein shall be
deemed to expire at the time this Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms.
B.
COMPENSATION
D
The Developer hereby agrees to pay to the City the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000), as, and for, the Grant. Said sum shall be paid to the City within 30 days of the date of
this Agreement and shall be non-refundable, even in the event this Agreement is terminated by
its terms.
III.
CONCEPT SITE PLAN; SALE/PURCHASE OF PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT
SITE; ASSIGNMENT OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO ASSIGNEES.
A.
CONCEPT SITE PLAN.
The parties have mutually agreed to a Concept Site Plan as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. The purpose of the Concept Site Plan is to identify the
private and public areas to be developed as the Project for the purposes of this Agreement. The
parties understand, and agree, that the Concept Site Plan will be replaced by the final plat created
by the zoning process, as outlined hereinafter. Any references within the terms of this Agreement
to either the Concept Site Plan, and/or the Lots within the Concept Site Plan, shall be deemed to
coincide with the corresponding areas identified on the final plat.
2
B.
SALE/PURCHASE OF PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE.
The City agrees to sell, and Developer agrees to purchase, Lots 1, 2 and 3, identified on the
Concept Site Plan. The purchase price for such sale shall be the sum of Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($500,000). Such sale and purchase shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and
further subject to the terms of a Real Estate Sale Contract (the “Contract”) which shall be entered
into by and between the parties hereto simultaneous with the execution of this Agreement. The
Closing of such sale shall take place pursuant to the Contract but not before the approvals
required by Sections IV and V of this Agreement.
C.
ASSIGNMENT OF LOTS TO ASSIGNEES
The Developer, prior to closing, shall assign its rights hereunder: regarding Lot 1 to Assignee
Noble Hospitality of the Flint Hills, LLC (“Noble LLC”); regarding Lot 2 to Noble Hospitality,
Inc. (“Noble Inc.”); and, regarding Lot 3 to GJL Real Estate, LP (“GJL”). The City shall execute,
and deliver, deeds to the respective Assignee, all pursuant to the Real Estate Contract. Noble
LLC shall construct the Candlewood Project on Lot 1 and the necessary Public Projects on Lot 4,
including the sidewalk within the Park abutting Lot 1, all pursuant to the provisions set forth
hereinafter. Noble Inc. shall construct the Holiday Inn Project on Lot2 and the necessary Public
Projects on Lot 5, all pursuant to the provisions set forth hereinafter. GJL shall construct the
Mixed Use Project on Lot 3 and the necessary Public Projects on Lot 6, all pursuant to the
provisions set forth hereinafter.
IV.
t
f
a
r
D
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE PROJECT:
A.
Developer agrees to provide the City with a preliminary design (the “Preliminary
Design”) of the Project, certified by an architect licensed in Kansas, as soon as practical after the
execution of this Agreement. The Preliminary Design shall be in a form adequate to be used to
satisfy all requirements necessary in order to amend the zoning of the Project Site to allow the
construction of the Project as a commercial planned unit development under the Zoning
Regulations of the City of Manhattan.
B.
The Preliminary Design shall be subject to the approval of the governing body of the
City, in its capacity as the owner of the Project Site and unrelated to its function as a
governmental entity. Such approval shall rest within the total discretion of the governing body
and may be based upon any factor such governing body deems appropriate, and including but not
limited to: 1) compliance with any requirements of the state of Kansas associated with the City’s
issuance of STAR Bonds pursuant to the Act; 2) compliance with any requirements of the
Redevelopment Plan; 3) compliance with Design Guidelines, previously adopted by the City and
applicable to the Project Site; and, 4) compliance with recommendations of professional staff.
Developer agrees to continue to modify, and amend, the Preliminary Design of the Project until
it is acceptable to the governing body of the City, acting as a party to this Agreement, and not in
its governmental capacity. The governing body’s approval of the Preliminary Design shall be
3
expressed in writing. The governing body’s approval shall be determined by a simple majority of
the body.
C.
The Preliminary Design shall include the identification of the Public Projects..
D.
The Preliminary Design shall also include an estimate, certified by the architect, of the
cost to construct the Project, including an estimate of the cost to construct the Public Projects.
The Developer shall also propose the minimum investment (the “Minimum Investment”) that
Developer and all Assignees will make related to all costs necessary to construct the Project and
any necessary public infrastructure.
E.
Developer shall be responsible for all costs related to the Preliminary Design, except as
specifically set forth herein, and shall hold the City harmless there from. In the event the
Preliminary Design has not been approved by the Governing Body of the City on or before
________________, 2011, this Agreement shall be deemed to be null and void and of no further
force or effect and all parties shall be released from the terms hereof. The parties may extend
such time by mutual agreement.
V.
t
f
a
r
FINANCIAL INFORMATION:
A.
On, or before approval of the Preliminary Design, Noble LLC shall make available to the
City such books, accounts, records, reports, financial statements or other such documents, in a
form and manner reasonably requested by the City, in order for the City to determine whether or
not Noble LLC has the adequate financing to fund its obligation to construct the Candlewood
Project within the time frames set forth below. On, or before approval of the Preliminary Design,
Noble Inc. shall make available to the City such books, accounts, records, reports, financial
statements or other such documents, in a form and manner reasonably requested by the City, in
order for the City to determine whether or not it is likely that Noble Inc. will be able to acquire
the adequate financing to fund its obligation to construct the Holiday Inn Project within the time
frames set forth below. On, or before approval of the Preliminary Design, GJL shall make
available to the City such books, accounts, records, reports, financial statements or other such
documents, in a form and manner reasonably requested by the City, in order for the City to
determine whether or not it is likely that GJL will be able to acquire the adequate financing to
fund its obligation to construct the Mixed Use Projct within the time frames set forth below. The
phrase “make available” as used in this paragraph, shall mean that the applicable Assignee is
obligated to allow the City to view, and have access to, the documents set forth herein, but shall
not permit the City to take possession of such documents.
D
B.
The evidence of the applicable Assignee’s financial ability, as set forth above, and the
Minimum Investment shall all be subject to the approval of the governing body of the City. In
the event such matters have not been approved, in writing, by the Governing Body of the City
on, or before, ________________, 2011, this Agreement shall be deemed to be null and void and
of no further force or effect and each party shall be released from the terms hereof. The parties
may extend such time by mutual agreement.
4
VI.
REZONING OF
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE
PROJECT
SITE:
PRELIMINARY
AND
FINAL
A.
Once the Preliminary Design has been approved pursuant to Section IV above, and the
financial matters have been approved pursuant to Section V above, Developer agrees to submit
an application for the rezoning of the Project Site in compliance with the Preliminary Design and
in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, statutes, laws and ordinances. The City, as
the owner of the Project Site, hereby authorizes Developer to submit such application.
B.
The parties shall jointly cooperate in the rezoning of the Project Site; however, nothing
contained within this Agreement shall be deemed to obligate the City, or any of its boards or
agencies, acting within its, or their, governmental capacities, to approve such rezoning.
C.
Developer shall be responsible for all costs involved and related to such rezoning.
t
f
a
r
D.
It is anticipated that Developer will submit a preliminary\final development plan for Lots
1 and 4, and a preliminary development plan for Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6.
VII.
CLOSING; ESCROW OF DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS
A.
Once the Project Site has been rezoned, the Real Estate Contract may proceed to closing.
As a condition to closing, each Assignee shall have executed and deposited with Charlson &
Wilson, Bonded Abstractors, as Escrow Agent, the following documents:
D
i. Public Project Development Agreement for the applicable Public Projects (Attached
as Exhibits B, C and D)
ii. Petition for the applicable Benefit District (Attached as Exhibits E, F and G)
iii. The applicable Parking Area Agreement (Attached as Exhibits H, I and J)
These documents shall be held in escrow and dealt with pursuant to the provisions of Section
VIII (B), X, and XI below.
B.
Rezoning of the Project Site shall not be deemed to have occurred until the statutory time
for a challenge to the reasonableness of such zoning has passed without any such challenge; or,
any challenge has been successfully resolved.
VIII. CONDITIONS TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
A.
FINAL DESIGN OF THE APPLICABLE PRIVATE/PUBLIC PROJECTS:
Prior to commencement of construction of the applicable Private Project on any lot, each
Assignee, agrees to complete the final construction design of the Applicable Project. The final
design shall be completed in two separate parts. One part shall consist of the final design of the
Applicable Private Project (the “Applicable Private Final Design”) and the second part shall
consist of the final design of the Applicable Public Projects (the “Applicable Public Final
5
Design”). The Applicable Private Final Design and the Applicable Public Final Design shall
collectively be referred to as the “Applicable Final Designs”. The Applicable Final Designs shall
be completed, and certified, by an architect, licensed in Kansas. Such Applicable Final Designs
shall include an estimate, by the architect, of the costs to construct the Applicable Private Project
and the Applicable Public Projects.
The Applicable Final Designs, and the estimated costs thereof, shall be subject to the reasonable
approval of the governing body of the City. Such approval of the Applicable Final Design shall
be limited to the following factors: 1) compliance with the approved zoning; 2) compliance with
any requirements of the state of Kansas associated with the City’s issuance of STAR Bonds
pursuant to the Act; 3) compliance with any requirements of the Redevelopment Plan; 4)
compliance with Design Guidelines; and, 5) a total estimated cost equal to, or greater than, the
applicable portion of the Minimum Investment. The parties agree to continue, in good faith, to
modify, and amend, the Applicable Final Designs of the Applicable Project until all such
matters are acceptable to the governing body of the City.
B.
t
f
a
r
FINANCING OF PUBLIC PROJECTS:
The parties agree that the Public Projects shall be financed through the creation of benefit
districts, pursuant to K.S.A. 12-6a01, et. seq. In order to create such benefit districts, each
Assignee agrees to execute the applicable petitions (the “Petitions”) in the form attached as
Exhibits E, F and G. Such Petitions shall be executed prior to Closing of the Contract regarding
the Lots within the Concept Site Plan (the “Property”) and shall be deposited with the Escrow
Agent identified in the Contract. The Closing shall be contingent upon the execution and
delivery of the Petitions. The Escrow Agent shall be directed to deliver the Petitions to the City
at Closing.
D
Upon delivery to the City, the City Clerk shall hold such Petitions, in escrow, until the applicable
Assignee submits its application for a building permit to construct the applicable Private Project,
at which time the Applicable Petitions shall be deemed to have been submitted to the City for
action.
When submitted, the City agrees to accept the Petitions and approve Benefit Districts pursuant to
the Petitions, and pursuant to K.S.A. 12-6a01, et seq. The City, following acceptance of the
Petitions, agrees to follow its normal business process concerning the issuance of temporary
notes, which presently results in an issue every quarter of the year. Developer, and Assignees,
agree to accept creation of the Benefit Districts, pursuant to the petitions, and to pay any, and all,
assessments against the Benefit Districts, levied as a result of such action. Assignees further
hereby waive any right of protest, or right to challenge, any such assessments. Assignees agree
that their obligations set forth in this subparagraph shall run with the applicable property and be
binding upon the successors and assigns of each Assignee. In the event any Assignee sells, or
transfers, all, or any portion, of the Property, prior to the acceptance of the Petitions by the City,
said Assignee agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement to the purchaser, or transferee, of such
property, and to specifically notify said person, or entity, of the provisions of this section.
6
IX.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE PROJECTS; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES;
REVERSION
A.
Once title to the Property is transferred to each Assignee, said Assignee shall, at its
expense, construct or cause to be constructed, the Applicable Private Project, in accordance with
the Applicable Final Design and in the following sequence:
i. The Candlewood Project shall be constructed by Noble LLC and shall commence not
more than ___ months after Closing and shall be completed no longer than 15 months
after commencement of construction.
ii. The Holiday Inn Project shall be constructed by Noble Inc., and shall commence no
later than 15 months after Closing and shall be completed no longer than 15 months
after commencement of construction.
t
f
a
r
iii. The Mixed Use Project shall be constructed by GJL and shall commence no later than
____ months after Closing and shall be completed no longer than 15 months after
commencement of construction.
B.
The parties agree that if any Assignee, after receiving title to the Property, fails to
construct the Applicable Private Project within the time frames set forth above, the City will be
damaged and that damage is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. In order to establish such
damage as a liquidated amount, and not as a penalty, and in order to provide security for each
Assignee’s performance of its obligations to construct the Applicable Private Project within the
time frames set forth above, the parties agree, as follows: For each year, subsequent to December
31, 2014, each Assignee agrees to pay to the City an amount equal to the difference between the
ad valorem taxes actually assessed against its Lot, and all improvements located thereon, and the
amount of such taxes that would have been assessed if the said Lot, and all improvements
located thereon, were valued, as follows: Lot 1----$4,633,384; Lot 2----$_______; and Lot 4---$_______. Such amount shall be due on June 1 of each applicable year and shall accrue interest
at the rate of 8% per annum if not paid within 30 days of the due date. The provisions of this
subsection shall be deemed to run with, and be a first and prior lien, upon the Applicable Lot and
be binding upon each Assignee, its successors and assigns. The provisions of this subsection may
be reflected in the deed of conveyance between the City and Developer concerning the Property.
D
C.
In the event any Assignee fails to commence substantial construction of the Applicable
Private Project on, or before _______________, title to the Applicable Lot shall revert to the
City free and clear of all encumbrances, at the City’s option. In order to exercise such option, the
City shall provide written notice to the Applicable Assignee declaring the date upon which such
reversion shall become effective, which shall not be sooner than 90 days following delivery of
such Notice, unless said Assignee commences substantial construction before such date. For the
purposes of this paragraph, substantial construction shall mean the following: a) Assignee has
provided the City with a written commitment from a lender, authorized to do business in Kansas,
showing that Assignee has sufficient funds to complete the construction; b) Assignee has applied
for, and been issued, a building permit to construct the Applicable Private Project; and c)
7
Assignee has provided written evidence to the City showing the Assignee has entered into a
contract with a contractor, licensed by the City, to construct the Applicable Private Project within
the required time frames. The provisions of this subsection shall be deemed to run with, and be a
first and prior lien, upon the Applicable Lot and be binding upon each Assignee, its successors
and assigns. The provisions of this subsection may be reflected in the deed of conveyance
between the City and Developer concerning the Property.
X.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC PROJECTS:
The parties agree that the Public Projects shall be constructed pursuant to the terms of the Public
Project Development Agreements, the form of which is attached as Exhibits B, C and D. The
Public Project Development Agreements shall be executed prior to Closing of the Real Estate
Contract and shall be deposited with the Escrow Agent identified in the Contract. The Closing
shall be contingent upon the execution and delivery of said Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall
be directed to deliver the executed Agreement to the City at Closing, said Agreement to become
effective at the time that such Assignee submits its application for final design for construction
of improvements on its lot and obtains City approval.
XI.
t
f
a
r
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE PARKING AREAS:
The City agrees that the parking areas constructed upon Lots 4, 5, and 6 as shown on Exhibit A
shall always remain public parking areas and each Assignee agrees to provide all maintenance
and repair of the parking areas, all pursuant to the terms of Parking Area Agreements, the form
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H, I and J. The Parking Area Agreements shall be
executed prior to Closing of the Real Estate Contract and shall be deposited with the Escrow
Agent identified in the Contract. The Closing shall be contingent upon the execution and
delivery of said Agreements. The Escrow Agent shall be directed to deliver the executed
Agreements to the City at Closing.
D
Upon delivery to the City, the City Clerk shall hold such Parking Area Agreements until each
such Assignee submits its application for final design for construction of improvements on its lot
and obtains City approval, at which time the City Clerk shall record the Applicable Parking Area
Agreement with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Riley County, Kansas.
XII.
GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A.
No delay or omission to exercise any remedy or power accruing upon any default shall
impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right or
power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient.
B.
Whenever the Developer, Assignees or the City shall default under this Agreement and
the non-defaulting party shall employ attorneys or incur expenses for the collection of payments
due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation or
agreement on the part of the defaulting party, the Developer, Assignees and the City agree that it
8
shall, upon demand therefore, pay to the non-defaulting party the reasonable fees of such
attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the non-defaulting party.
C.
This Agreement shall be binding on the parties and their successors and assigns.
D.
In the event that any party hereto shall be delayed or hindered in, or prevented from, the
performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strikes, lock-outs, labor troubles,
inability to procure materials, failure of power, riots, insurrection, war, or other reason of a like
nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing work or doing acts required under the
terms of this Agreement, the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the
delay, and the period of the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period
equivalent to the period of such delay.
E.
This Agreement shall be deemed to be entered into in the state of Kansas, and shall be
enforceable under the laws of that state. The parties agree that the Riley County District Court,
located in Manhattan, Riley County, Kansas, shall have sole jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
this Agreement.
t
f
a
r
F.
Any notice required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses as noted below. Any party to this Agreement may
change its address for notice specified hereunder by sending written confirmation of such change by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the other party to this Agreement. The addresses for the
purpose of notice and other communication are as follows:
D
9
If to Developer:
With copy to:
Flint Hills Square, LLC
Attn: Gwyn Riffel
1109 Hylton Heights Road
Manhattan, KS 66502
John D. Conderman
William J. Bahr
Arthur-Green, LLP
801 Poyntz Avenue
Manhattan, KS 66502
Attn: Colin Noble
1641 Anderson Avenue
Manhattan, KS 66502
If to City:
With copy to:
t
f
a
r
City of Manhattan, Kansas
1101 Poyntz Avenue
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Attention: Ron Fehr, City Manager
If to Assignee Noble Hospitality of the Flint
Hills, LLC
William Frost
Morrison, Frost, Olsen & Irvine, LLP
323 Poyntz, Suite 204
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
D
Noble Hospitality of the Flint Hills, LLC
Attn: Colin Noble
Manhattan, KS 66502
If to Assignee Noble Hospitality, Inc.
Noble Hospitality Inc.
Attn: Colin Noble
Manhattan, KS 66502
If to Assignee GJL Real Estate, LP
GJL Real Estate, LP
Attn: Gwyn Riffel
1109 Hylton Heights Road
Manhattan, KS 66502
10
G.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns. Except with the written consent of the other party hereto or as
expressly permitted by this Agreement, no party to this Agreement shall take any act which would
allow any right hereunder to be assigned or held by any other person without the written consent of
the other party hereto, provided however that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
H.
This Agreement and the Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the Developer,
Assignees, and the City with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the Developer, Assignees and the City
with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended,
modified or altered unless by written agreement signed by the Developer, the Assignees, and the
City.
I.
Every representation, covenant, warranty or other obligation within this Agreement shall
carry with it an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
t
f
a
r
J.
The parties agree to conform to the requirements of the applicable City ordinance in effect
from time to time.
K.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement, and all provisions of this Agreement relating to
the time of performance of any obligation under this Agreement shall be strictly construed.
D
L.
Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in the undertakings contemplated by this
Agreement and shall share and exchange necessary reports and documents as required and when
reasonably requested by the other party to this Agreement. Whenever the consent or approval of
any party is required under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed as of the date and year first above written.
“CITY”
City of Manhattan, Kansas
By:__________________________________
_____________________, Mayor
By:__________________________________
Gary S. Fees, City Clerk
11
“DEVELOPER”
By:___________________________________
“ASSIGNEES”
Noble Hospitality of the Flint Hills, LLC
By:____________________________________
Noble Hospitality, Inc.
t
f
a
r
By:____________________________________
GJL Real Estate, LP
D
By:____________________________________
12
TRANSMITTAL NOTE
======================================================
DATE:
May 16, 2011
TO:
City Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT: Financial Analysis of Revenues for Flint Hills Square
The City is conducting an analysis of revenues anticipated from the two hotel and mixed
use proposal of Flint Hills Square (FHS). FHS is proposing two hotels, an 84 room
Candlewood Inn, and a 76 room Holiday Inn Express. Based on comparables in
Manhattan, we have valued the construction of each room at $75,000. We have also
assumed an average daily rate of $80 at 65% occupancy for 365 days with regard to
annual sales. Both of these valuations have been confirmed by FHS. Based on these
assumptions, the forecasted taxable sales per room on an annual basis equal $18,980.
Annual Sales
Taxable Sales Per Room
Appraised Value per Room
Candlewood Inn
$1,594,230
$18,980
$75,000
Holiday Inn Express
$1,442,480
$18,980
$75,000
The mixed use building is comprised of 4,000 sq. ft. of retail and 6,000 square feet of
restaurant space. There are forecasted to be 12 residential units. The retail investment is
valued at $120 per sq. ft. or $480,000, and the restaurant investment is valued at $300 sq.
ft. or $1,800,000. The residential is valued at $85,000 per unit for a total of $1,020,000.
Retail sales per sq. ft. have been forecasted at $170 for retail and $340 for restaurants.
These are consistent throughout the RERC report as well. Taxable sales per square foot
have been discounted by 15% due to non-taxable sales that are made in retail and
restaurants. This is a consistent variable we have utilized throughout the project and with
RERC’s projections.
Annual Sales
Taxable Sales Per Sq. Ft.
Appraised Valued
Retail
$800,000
$170
$90/sq. ft.
Restaurant
$2,400,000
$340
$160/sq. ft.
Residential
$85,000/unit
Based on State of Kansas and City of Manhattan sales tax rates, the following table
represents the annual revenues forecasted for the FHS proposed development for both
STAR and TIF Bonds. Keep in mind the State sales tax rate is currently 6.3% - but for
comparison purposes to the 2009 RERC report, 5.3% was utilized. Annual revenue
generated for STAR Bonds is estimated at $380,237 while the annual revenue generated
for TIF Bonds is $370,979.
STAR Annual Revenue
State Sales Tax
City Sales Tax
City Share of County
Total
Sales Tax Rate
5.3%
1.0%
0.305%
6.605%
TIF Annual Revenue
Property Tax (2011 Mill Levy)
Total
$305,110
$57,568
$17,558
$380,237
$370,979
The 2009 RERC report forecasted a total of 25,000 sq. ft. of retail and 14,000 sq. ft. of
restaurants for Lot 9. The report reflected a $120 per sq. ft. investment for retail resulting
in a total investment of $3,000,000. It also reported a $300 per sq. ft. investment for the
restaurants totaling an investment of $4,200,000. The report also forecasted $170 per
sq. ft. for retail sales and $340 per sq. ft. for restaurant sales. This resulted in a total of
$5,000,000 in annual sales for retail and $5,600,000 for restaurants. Annual revenue for
STAR bonds totals $595,111 and the 2011 annual property tax generated equaled
$116,157.
STAR Annual Revenue
State Sales Tax
City Sales Tax
Total
Sales Tax Rate
5.3%
1.0%
0.305%
6.605%
TIF Annual Revenue
Total
$477,530
$90,100
$27,481
$595,111
$116,157
The City received serious interest and started negotiations with Warren Theaters to locate
within Lot 9 in 2008. They had proposed a 50,000 sq. ft. theater and had planned to
invest $300 per sq. ft. This would have resulted in a total investment of $15,000,000.
Annual sales were forecasted by RERC at $75 per sq. ft. for annual total of $3,750,000.
RERC also valued the property at $90 a sq. ft. for a total valuation of $4,500,000.
Annual revenues for STAR bonds totaled $247,688 while annual property tax totaled
$116,416.
2
STAR Annual Revenue
State Sales Tax
City Sales Tax
Total
Sales Tax Rate
5.3%
1.0%
0.305%
6.605%
TIF Annual Revenue
Total
$198,750
$37,500
$11,438
$247,688
$116,416
In comparison, FHS will generate $214,874 less in STAR revenue and $254,822 more in
TIF revenue annually than the retail and restaurant space forecasted in the 2009 RERC
report.
STAR
TIF
FHS
$380,237
$370,979
2009 RERC
$595,111
$116,157
Warren Theater
$247,688
$116,416
In reviewing the debt schedules for both STAR and TIF bonds, STAR is forecasted to
retire in 2020 if revenues are generated as anticipated. Reducing the annual revenues in
STAR by $214,874 reduces the debt coverage ratio anticipated from 140% coverage to
135% coverage. Ultimately this could retire less principle on an annual basis and may
push the retirement out a year or two. The reduction in sales tax on the South end would
also impact TIF bonds in the out years. After the retirement of STAR bonds, local sales
tax from the South will transfer to assist with the retirement of the TIF bonds. As you
can see above, it is a difference of approximately $117,581 annually in local sales tax in
the 2009 RERC report, compared to the estimated $75,126 from the FHS proposal, or a
difference of $42,455.
TIF bonds are structured a little different due to the nature of the “B” bonds. With
additional revenue anticipated ($254,822) from the property taxes generated in the South
end it will assist in the creation of additional revenues in the short term and provide a
benefit back to the bond holders on the North end – including the City and Dial Realty. It
will be offset slightly due to the reduction in local sales tax ($42,455) mentioned in the
previous paragraph ($117,581 - $75,126) that will be dedicated to the TIF bonds after the
retirement of STAR bonds.
Enclosures:
1. Financial Summary of Lot 9
2. TIF and STAR Flow of Funds
3
South End Redevelopment Lot 9 Analysis
Investment
Scenario #1 - 2009 RERC Report
Scenario #2 - Warren Theater
Scenario #3 - Flint Hills Square Development
Retail
3,000,000
480,000
Restaurants
4,200,000
1,800,000
Residential
1,020,000
Hotel
12,000,000
Theater
15,000,000
-
Total
7,200,000
15,000,000
15,300,000
State Sales Tax
$477,530
$198,750
$305,110
City Sales
Tax*
$90,100
$37,500
$57,568
County Sales
Tax*
$27,481
$11,438
$17,558
Total STAR
Revenue
$595,111
$247,688
$380,237
Property
Tax
$116,157
$116,416
$370,979
Total TIF
Revenue
$116,157
$116,416
$370,979
Revenue Projections
Impact to Bonds
--------STAR Bonds-------Projected
Retirement
Date
Coverage Ratio
2020
140%
2022
131%
2022
135%
-----------------------------TIF Bonds----------------------------Average Return South Sales
Projected
Tax to TIF
Retirement
to City 'B'
Bonds*
Date
Coverage Ratio
Bonds
2026
125%
$208,000
$117,581
2026
125%
$208,000
$48,938
2026
140%
$289,543
$75,126
*The South City and County sales tax dedicated to STAR Bonds will be allocated TIF Bonds upon the retirement of STAR Bonds
Downtown Redevelopment TIF Bonds
Downtown Redevelopment STAR Bonds
Flow of Funds Flow of Funds Property Tax
City Sales Tax North & South
North (1%)
City's Portion of County's Sales Tax North (0.3%)
TIF A Bonds
$21.22M
Redemption Account
Utilized for special redemptions or debt service shortfall
If needed, reimburse City for any annual appropriation 32%
City Reimbursables
Reimburse excess TIF expenses financed by City; reserve for debt service shortfall $3.136M
43%
Dial TIF B Bonds
Reimburse Dial for outstanding TIF eligible expenses beyond TIF A bond proceeds
$4.16M
Note: After the retirement of STAR bonds, the City will dedicate the South City and City's portion of the County sales tax to North TIF bonds. Example of Excess Revenues After Debt Service
Redemption Account
25%
City Reimbursement
32%
South (1%)
Once annual debt service is satisfied, any excess revenues will be disbursed to the following fund:
Any excess revenues remaining after the preceding reimbursements will be split as follows:
25%
City Sales Tax North & South
STAR Bonds
$50M
Once annual debt service is satisfied, any excess revenues will be disbursed in the following order:
If needed, reimburse DSRF to meet Debt Service Reserve
State Sales Tax
TIF B Reimbursement
43%
Special Mandatory Redemption Fund
Utilized for special principal redemption in order to 'supersink' the STAR Bonds for early retirement.
ti
t
City's Portion of County's Sales Tax South (0.3%)
Conference Center & Hotel
HOTEL MARKET ASSESSMENT
Manhattan, Kansas
June 2011
1
Original Study Goals in 2005:
To Create a Facility that will:
– Be of a Size that will Enable Manhattan to Host
Large Events (multiple medium events)
events), and
– Be of a Quality that will Allow Manhattan to
Become Competitive, and
– Be Financially Self-sustaining on Ongoing
Annual Basis, and
– Be Cost Efficient with Public Sector Resources
2
What to do with Lot 9 in 2011?
CONFERENCE
CENTER
Discovery
Center
Lot 9
3
Today’s Discussion:
Does Manhattan’s
h
’ Conference
f
Center need
d
additional hotel rooms to be effective?
Can Manhattan’s hotel market even
support more rooms?
Will proposed new rooms negatively impact
the Hilton G
Garden Inn?
4
Question #1
Are additional hotels within
walking distance needed to make
the Conference Center successful?
5
What Factors are Important? (2005)
Nat’l Meeting Planner Survey: 12 Most Important Destination Selection Factors
Least Important - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SCALE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Most Important
Source: Successful Meetings Magazine
6
“How important
p
is it that the bulk off your
y
hotel rooms be within walking distance
to the meeting facility? (2005)
100%
Kansas Meeting Planners
75%
69%
50%
25%
28%
3%
0%
0%
Definitely Not Important
Somewhat Not
Important
Somewhat Important
Definitely Important
7
Industry
I d t R
Rule
l off Thumb
Th
b
Conference Center Hotels typically support at
least 75 to 100 +/- net SF of function space per
guestroom
8
C f
Conference
C
Center
t Hotels
H t l
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Property
Location
Chaminade at Santa Cruz
Marriott Conference Center Burkshire Hotel
Radisson Hotel & Conference Center
Hilton Garden Inn Riverfront Conference Center
Chauncey Conference Center
Hilton Garden Inn Conf Center at Univ. of Wyoming
M i tt C
Marriott
Conference
f
C
Center
t Ki
Kingsgate
t
Xanterra Parks & Resorts Arbor Day Farm
Hilton Garden Inn & Conference Center
Innsbrook Conference Center
The Founders Inn
New England Conference Center
Center For Executive Education
MANHATTAN HGI & CONFERENCE CENTER
North Maple Inn Basking Ridge
Hamilton Park
Maritime Institute
Dana Conference Center
Desmond Hotel
Tarrytown House
Hilton Garden Inn Hotel & Conference Center
Hilton Garden Inn & Reardon Conference Center
Oak Ridge Conference Center
Heritage Inn & Conference Center
Doubletree Conference Center
Emory Conference Center Hotel
Harrison Conference Center
R David Thomas Center
Lakeway Inn
Northland Inn & Conference Center
Santa Cruz, CA
Towson, MD
Plymouth, MN
Suffolk, VA
Princeton, NJ
Laramie, WY
Ci i
Cincinnati,
ti OH
Nebraska City, NE
Kalispell, MT
Wright City, MO
Virginia Beach, VA
Durham, NH
Wellesley MA
Wellesley,
MANHATTAN, KS
Basking Ridge, NJ
Florham Park, NJ
Linthicum Heights, MD
Toledo, OH
Malvern, PA
Tarrytown, NY
Columbia, MO
Kansas City, KS
Chaska, MN
Southbury, CT
Chesterfield, MO
Atlanta GA
Atlanta,
Glen Cove, NY
Durham, NC
Austin, TX
Brooklyn Park, MN
Total
Rooms
Total
Space
RATIO
152
136
243
150
100
135
206
144
144
100
240
115
211
134
171
219
232
213
194
212
151
147
147
163
223
198
151
113
239
231
12,000
11,000
21,000
14,000
9,500
13,000
20 000
20,000
14,000
14,000
10,400
25,000
12,000
22 500
22,500
14,500
20,000
27,000
29,100
27,300
27,200
30,000
21,500
21,000
22,000
25,000
36,000
32 000
32,000
25,000
20,300
44,000
46,000
79
81
86
93
95
96
97
97
97
104
104
104
107
108
117
123
125
128
140
142
142
143
150
153
161
162
166
180
184
199
9
“What is your typical peak-night
peak night room block?” (2005)
19
20
21
22
100
18
100
80
17
80
16
80
15
80
14
80
13
75
12
75
11
75
10
60
9
60
50
8
24
25
150
440
355
6
50
5
50
4
50
20
3
0
50
20
30
90
100
110
130
145
HGI (134) can accommodate at least 70% of Market
150
200
200
220
HGI plus Fairfield (232)
Can accommodate at least 85% of Market
250
450
Number of Hotel Rooms
250
300
7
23
26
27
28
29
10
Question #1
Are additional hotels within
walking distance needed to make
the Conference Center effective?
Conclusion:
No.
11
Question #2
Can the Manhattan hotel market realistically
support the two proposed Lot 9 hotels?
12
D
Demand:
d Projected
P j t d v. A
Actual
t l
250 000
250,000
Occupied
p
Room Nights
g
in Manhattan
200,000
2005 SAG Projections
150,000
Actual
100,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
13
O
Occupancy:
P j t d v. A
Projected
Actual
t l
100%
Market-wide Occupancy
p
y in Manhattan
80%
60%
Actual
40%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
14
R
Room
R
Rates
t
$90
Market-wide Average
g Daily
y Rate in Manhattan
$80
$
$70
$60
Actual
$50
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
15
O
Occupancy:
P j t d – No
Projected
N New
N
Supply
S
l
100%
Market-wide Occupancy: Without 2 proposed Lot 9 Hotels
SAG Projections
Actual
80%
60%
40%
16
O
Occupancy:
P j t d - 2 New
Projected
N
H
Hotels
t l
100%
Market-wide Occupancy: With 2 proposed Lot 9 Hotels
SAG Projections
Actual
80%
60%
40%
17
Question #2
Can the Manhattan hotel market realistically
support the two proposed Lot 9 hotels?
Conclusion:
Yes. Although the market would be stronger
iff new supply were delayed, opening the
Candlewood in 2012/13 and the Holiday Inn
Express
p
in ~ 2014 would not materially
y deteriorate
the market (assuming status quo).
18
Question #3
Will the two proposed Lot 9 hotels impact the
operations of the Hilton Garden Inn?
19
Survey: 100 Convention Attendees
d
20
Brand Preference:
“We'd like to understand your general preferences for hotel brands. If location was taken out of
consideration, and the only factor was your own experience with the brands themselves, which
off hotels
h t l would
ld likely
lik l b
be iin your top
t
three
th
choices
h i
i which
in
hi h tto stay?”
t ?”
100 Responses from Individual Conventioneers
21
Brand Preference:
“Which hotel would be your top choice in which to stay?”
22
“Please assume that your convention or event has selected the new Conference Center in
Manhattan Kansas to be its host facility,
Manhattan,
facility and that you are free to select from among any of
the hotels within the City. Suppose the hotels above in box "A" represent the hotels that are
within close walking distance to the conference center, and the hotels in box "B" represent
those that are located beyond walking distance (from 1 to 3 miles of the center). Considering
the location, and given what you know about typical hotel rates for the various brands,
would you be more likely to select one of the hotels from within box "A" or box "B”?”
23
Preference for Walking Distance Hotels
100%
90%
80%
86%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
14%
Box “A”
Walking
Distance
Box “B”
Non-Walking
Distance
24
CONFEREN
CE
CENTER
Discovery
Center
25
Ultimate Choice:
“Now assume that the Hilton Garden Inn is physically attached to the Conference Center that
will be hosting your event. The Fairfield Inn by Marriott, the Candlewood Suites, and the Holiday
Inn Express are all just a few steps away from the Center. Given this, and based
on what
h you know
k
about
b
the
h rates typically
ll charged
h
d ffor these
h
b
brands,
d which
h hh
hotell would
ld
likely be your first choice in which to stay?”
47%
Hilton Garden Inn
23%
Holiday Inn Express
17%
Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott
9%
Candlewood Suites
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
26
P i S
Price
Sensitivity:
iti it
N
Non-HGI
HGI Guests
G
t
“The Hilton Garden Inn is the only hotel physically attached to the Center, the only full-service
hotel among the four properties, and will offer the best hotel guest amenities package currently
l bl in Manhattan.
h
Although
lh
h you've
' indicated
d
d a choice
h
for
f one off the
h other
h three
h
hotels,
h l
available
which of the following statements most closely characterizes your feelings regarding
the Hilton Garden Inn's ability to draw you to that property via competitive pricing?”
30%
25%
22%
20%
24%
15%
15%
10%
9%
9%
None
$5 More
13%
9%
5%
0%
$10 More
$15 More
$20 More
$25 More
$30 More
27
Price Sensitivity: HGI Guests
“Given that the Hilton Garden Inn is the only full-service hotel among the four, the only hotel
physically attached to the Center, and will likely offer the best hotel guest amenities package in
y that its room rates will be at least as high
g iff not higher
g
than the other
Manhattan,, it is likely
three properties. Although you've indicated the Hilton to be your first choice, which of the
following most closely characterizes your feelings about price discounts and
their ability to draw you away from the Hilton Garden Inn?”
30%
28%
25%
20%
18%
15%
12%
10%
12%
12%
12%
5%
0%
0%
0%
$5
Less
$10
Less
$15
Less
5%
0%
0%
$20
Less
$25
Less
$30
Less
$35
Less
$40
Less
$45
Less
$50
Less
None
28
H
How
Can
C
Rates
R t b
be that
th t Different?
Diff
t?
Source: InterContinental Hotels Group
29
H
How
Can
C
Rates
R t b
be that
th t Different?
Diff
t?
On
O average, a C
Candlewood
dl
dS
Suites
it costs
t
approximately $35,000 less per key than a
standard Hilton Garden Inn
On average, a Holiday Inn Express costs
approximately
i
l $25,000
$25 000 lless per key
k than
h
a
standard Hilton Garden Inn
Source: “HVS U.S. Hotel Franchise Development Cost Guide”
30
Question #3
Will the two proposed Lot 9 hotels negatively impact
the operations of the Hilton Garden Inn?
Conclusion:
Yes.
31
R
Reasons ffor L
Lostt B
Business
i
Prefer Other Destination
Location
Other
Insuff. Meeting Space
Dates Unavail.
2011
2010
Hotel Rates
2009
2008
Insuff. Rooms & Meeting Space
Insuff. Sleeping Rooms
0
5
10
Source: Manhattan CVB.
15
20
25
30
32
What to do with Lot 9 in 2011?
CONFERENCE
CENTER
Discovery
Center
Lot 9
33
Conference Center & Hotel
HOTEL MARKET ASSESSMENT
Manhattan, Kansas
June 2011
34

Lot 9, Downtown Entertainment District

Transcription

Similar documents

Rochester NY Area Dance-O

Holiday Inn Tour

Tip-A-Cop

choice hotel pages

Print - Seaside Realty

Holiday Inn Express Fact Sheet - Q3 2014

Diversity Incentive Fact Sheet

Parents Day 2014 Flyer

Mount Airy, North Carolina - Greater Mount Airy Chamber of

Join the Choice Privileges rewards program today