Mark David Richards
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14
Government and People
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Boards and Com
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
Elections and Ethics
Housing and Community Dev.
Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Public Service Commission
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Issues in DC Politics
DC General, PBC
Public Benefit Corporation
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
What Is DCWatch?
Washington, DC Economic Development Organization Review
Presented to the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development
March 15, 2007
International Economic Development Council
734 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Development Organizations (EDOs) in the United States
3. Washington DC Economic Development Framework
4. The National Capital Revitalization Corporation
5. The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
6. Interview Findings
7. Case Study Overview & Comparison
8. Scenarios For NCRC and AWC Restructuring
Appendix I: List of Organizations Interviewed
Appendix II: Economic Development Tools In Washington, DC
Appendix III: Sample Of NCRC Projects
Appendix IV: Sample Of AWC Projects
Appendix V: Interview Highlights By Group
Appendix VI: Case Studies
IEDC Expert Panelist
Dr. Mulugetta Birru
Dr. Mulugetta Birru serves as the CEO of Greater Wayne
County Economic Development Corporation and Director of Wayne County’s
Economic Development Department. Dr. Birru has approximately 25 years of
progressive experience in the fields of development banking,
manufacturing enterprises and economic development both in the United
States and overseas. He was the Executive Director of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority in Pittsburgh from 1992 to July 2004, where he
assumed a dual position with Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh
as Executive Director of the Allegheny County Department of Economic
Dr Birru was an Adjunct Professor at Carnegie Mellon
University and the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and
Management from 1993 to 2004, teaching two graduate Financing Community
Economic Development courses. His academic credentials include a Ph.D.
in Public and International Affairs, an MBA in Corporate Finance, an MA
in Economics, and a BA in Management and Accounting.
Jeff Finkle, IEDC President/CEO
Jeffrey Finkle has been a leader in economic development
for more than 20 years. In 2001 he became the president and CEO of the
International Economic Development Council, following IEDC’s birth
through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED)
with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the
merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. Before
assuming leadership of CUED, Finkle was the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development's (HUD) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Community
Planning and Development for program management.
Ed Gilliland, IEDC Vice President
Ed Gilliland is Vice President and Senior Director of
Advisory Services. He has seventeen years of economic consulting
experience with cities, counties, quasi-public agencies, and private
clients. He specializes in strategic planning, organizational
development, real estate and brownfields development, commercial
revitalization, financial analysis, and program development.
Advisory Services & Research
Swati A. Ghosh
Services & Research
IEDC wishes to thank all who participated in meetings and
interviews and contributed
their opinion, expertise and time to complete this study.
ACED Allegheny County Department of
AHILP Allegheny Home Improvement Loan
AWC Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
AWI Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
BID Business Improvement District
BOS Business in Our Sites
BRA Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
BRC Business Resource Center (BRC)
CAS Commercial Area Stabilization
CCRLF Commercial Capital Revolving Loan
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CDC Community development corporations
CDDH Development Corporation of Columbia
DBRA Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment
DCED Department of Community and
DCPS DC Public School
DDA Downtown Development Authority
DEGC Detroit Economic Growth Corporation
DMPED Deputy Mayor for Planning and
DOES DC Department of Employment
DOT Department of Transportation
DURA Denver Urban Renewal Agency
EDC Economic development corporation
EDO Economic development organization
GSA General Services Administration
HELP Home Ownership Equity Loan Program
IDAG HUD Urban Development Action Grant
IEDC International Economic Development
IRB Industrial Revenue Bond
LDFA Local Development Finance Authority
LSDBE Local, small, disadvantaged
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCR National Capital Region
NCRC National Capital Revitalization
NDC Neighborhood Development Corporation
PART Pre-apprenticeship Readiness
PDA Priority development area
PDC Portland Development Commission
PIDG Philadelphia Industrial Development
PILOT Payment in Lieu of Taxes
RAAC Redevelopment Authority of
RLA Redevelopment Land Authority
RLARC RLA Revitalization Corporation
RRLF LARC Rehabilitation Loan Fund
TIF Tax Increment Finance
TIFA Tax Increment Finance Authority
The Government of the District of Colombia announced an
initiative in January of 2007 to examine alternatives for the structure
of two city planning and economic development organizations: the
National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) and the Anacostia
Waterfront Corporation (AWC). This initiative falls into Mayor Adrian M.
Fenty’s list of goals for his first 100 days in office (approximately
January through March, 2007). The related objective for that time period
is to issue a report analyzing alternatives for the structure of NCRC
District of Colombia Councilmember Evans introduced a
bill in early January to dissolve the NCRC and the AWC and to transfer
their responsibilities and functions to the Mayor, under the Office of
the Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development. This bill is
cited as the “NCRC and AWC Reorganization Act of 2007”. The
councilmember who introduced the bill indicates the organizations have
not met anticipated expectations, and the bureaucratic structure of
these organizations and disagreements between them hold up development
efforts in the city and increase costs. The DC Council held public
hearings in March to review the legislation.
On February 28, 2007 the International Economic
Development Council (IEDC) was contracted to review NCRC and AWC. The
contract was organized through is with the Washington, DC Economic
Partnership, under oversight of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for
Planning & Economic Development.
The International Economic Development Council (IEDC), a
501 (c)(3), is the leading association serving economic development
professionals and those in allied fields. IEDC’s 4,200 members are
committed to building local and regional economies worldwide. For more
than 30 years, IEDC has been providing quality services that help find
solutions to the complex and varied issues of economic development.
IEDC’s technical assistance ranges from helping counties develop
economic development strategic plans to assisting at-risk urban
neighborhoods with small-scale revitalization and development efforts.
IEDC has extensive experience assisting communities with program
evaluation and strategic planning.
The IEDC membership includes many types of organizations:
city departments, development authorities, regional economic development
organizations, utilities, consultants, neighborhood groups and nonprofit
organizations. IEDC members direct nationally recognized programs in
large metropolitan areas, smaller cities, and rural communities.
B. Goals of the Project
The objective of this project is to analyze alternatives
for an efficient and effective structure for economic development in the
District of Colombia.
The IEDC report assesses the current economic development
structure in Washington, DC with a focus on the activities and functions
of NCRC and AWC, presents findings from targeted interviews, introduces
examples of comparative city economic development organizations, and,
based on this information, puts forth and assesses scenarios of future
economic structures for Washington DC.
This IEDC report is presented to the Office of the Deputy
Mayor for Planning & Economic Development and the Office of the
The project does not seek to closely scrutinize
organizations or conduct an audit of activities, projects, or spending.
The goals and scope of work for the project were developed in
coordination with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning &
Economic Development and the Office of the Mayor.
C. Methodology & Report Structure
The IEDC study consisted of four components: 1)
information gathering and targeted interviews, 2) two-day working
sessions with member experts, 3) comparable and competitive city
evaluations, and 4) final report.
1. Information Gathering and Targeted Interviews
The information in this report results from information
gathering and targeted interviews. IEDC engaged in intense research to
create a review for both AWC and NCRC. A majority of input and
information was collected through conducting interviews, which capture a
wide-range of data and viewpoints. The list of interviewees was reviewed
by the Office of the Deputy Mayor.
From February 23, 2007 through March 13th, 2007, IEDC met
with over fifty (50) individuals representing twenty (20) agencies or
organizations. Appendix I of this report lists the agencies represented.
Section 6 includes highlights of interview findings, which also draw on
the March 13th, 2007 public hearing on the “NCRC and AWC
Reorganization Act of 2007”.
2. Two-day working sessions with member expert
Drawing from IEDC’s membership of over 4,200 economic
development professionals, the project team identified Dr. Mulugetta
Birru to serve as the project expert. Dr. Birru is an economic
development practitioner with experience in assessing and leading
economic development organizations. IEDC prepared and presented Dr.
Birru a background report prior to the working session
The two-day working session was organized around a series
of high-level interviews and meetings with NCRC, AWC and other key
stakeholders including Community Development Corporations, real-estate development
industry representatives, federal and local agencies, City Council
members, and more. At the end of the working session the IEDC team
presented preliminary findings to the Deputy Mayor for Planning &
3. Comparable and Competitive City Evaluations
The IEDC project team evaluated four comparable cities or
regions, their economic development organizations, areas of focus, key
programs, relations among organizations, and implications for
Washington, DC. The four cities or regions and corresponding
institutions include, (i) Alleghany County, PA and the Redevelopment
Authority of Alleghany County, (ii) Detroit, MI and the Detroit Economic
Growth Corporation, and, (iii) Portland, OR and the Portland Development
Commission, (iv) Phoenix, AZ and the City of Phoenix Downtown
4. Final Report Structure
This final report is based on the findings from
information gathering, interviews, meetings, as well as the two-day
Following this section, Section 2 of the report reviews
economic development organizations in the United States, including
common structures, objectives and activities. The next section discusses
the Washington, DC economic development framework through a review of
resources, tools, land possession and federal transfers. Sections 4-5
focus on NCRC and AWC, including history, structure, and activities. A
list of strengths and challenges for each organization is presented. The
next sections draw on interviews and case study research to present a
summary of major interview findings, followed by an overview of economic
development organizations highlighted in three case-studies. Detailed
interview findings and complete case studies are located in the
Appendix. Finally, the report presents seven scenarios for restructuring
Washington DC economic development organizations, with the pros and cons
of each scenario.
Economic development is comprised of efforts to improve
the quality of life of a community by creating or retaining jobs and
supporting or growing incomes and the tax base. Tools to promote
economic development can include government policies such as monetary
policy to improve the economy or infrastructure projects to stimulate
job development. For example, street improvements primarily address
transportation objectives but also fuel existing businesses to expand
and new industries to emerge. Other actions that local economic
development organizations focus on to attract and retain jobs often
- Business retention and expansion
- Business attraction, marketing, and
- Business finance
- Entrepreneurial and small business
- Real estate development and
- Workforce development
- Technology led development
Local economic development historically focused on grants
and infrastructure enhancement for business recruitment, industrial
development, and incentives. With a changing international economic
context and increased national competition, the function of economic
development organizations has evolved to include more of a focus on
business retention and expansion, workforce development, neighborhood
revitalization, technology transfer and entrepreneur development.
Business retention and expansion has proven to be among the most
important economic development functions since most jobs are created
from existing businesses.
Many municipalities are responding to a consistently more
competitive environment through diversifying their scope of services,
linking economic development and community development goals, and
altering the economic development organization structure. Local economic
development has traditionally been approached through a city or county
government economic development office. Non-profit or quasi-public
economic development organizations (commonly called economic development
corporations or EDCs) have become increasingly common in the United
States to meet new economy challenges and dynamics.
Real estate development is a key economic development
function since it overlaps with most of the other functions mentioned
above and acts as a catalyst for business creation, retention and
expansion, especially in disinvested neighborhoods. Many economic
development organizations incorporate the facilitation or initiation of
real estate development as an integral part of their mission.
Organizations that may do so include local government agencies or
departments, nonprofit EDOs, redevelopment agencies and authorities
(including downtown development authorities and port authorities),
business improvement districts (BIDs), chambers of commerce, and
community development corporations. The following vignettes illustrate local
organizations involved in real estate development to spur job growth and
Local government is the central initiator of economic
development programs through public spending, regulatory powers, and
promotion of policy objectives such as downtown housing and brownfields
redevelopment. Government economic development may take the form of an
economic development department, part of a planning or community
development department, or part of the office of a mayor or other
administrator. It may be set up as a separate organization, with the
city council comprising the board of directors. Real estate is typically
part of an overall economic mission, which may include business
attraction and retention, small business development, and neighborhood
Private Nonprofit EDOs
Similar to local government economic development
organizations, private nonprofit economic development organizations can
have a broad mission or one more focused on real estate. Controlled by a
private or public-private board, they have more autonomy than local
government EDOs, but still need government approval on major projects
and statutory changes. They both utilize public and private funds for
the creation of new jobs, expanded tax base, a stronger local economy.
NCRC is an example of a private nonprofit EDO.
Redevelopment Agencies and Authorities
Redevelopment agencies and authorities are more
geographically specific than other EDOs. Typically, they are involved in
activities related to improving a specific area, such as a central
business district or port. Authorities and agencies often include both
public and private board members, making them somewhat autonomous from
local government. They are often set up to serve designated
‘blighted’ areas. AWC is an example of a redevelopment agency or
Business Improvement Districts
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) focus on a limited
geographic area, primarily commercial in nature, designated to provide a
range of enhanced services to improve the local business climate. This
process is managed by an organization of local businesses. A BID
coordinates and directly enacts specific activities and programs, such
as promotion, cleaning, and security. While BIDs are not commonly
involved in real estate development in the same way as other EDOs, they
can help foster the environment essential to a successful project.
Special Assessment Districts
Special assessment districts are separate units of
government that manage specific resources within defined boundaries.
They can be established by local governments or by voter initiative,
depending on state laws and regulations. As self-financing legal
entities, they have the ability to raise a predictable stream of money,
such as taxes, user fees or bonds, directly from property owners who
benefit from the services. These districts are often set up to fund
major transportation projects, such as light rail.
Chambers of Commerce
Chambers of Commerce are often active in business
recruitment, attraction and retention, entrepreneurial assistance, and
tourism. Chambers of Commerce have often played a key role in
development by providing a leadership role and, in some cases, financial
Community Development Corporations
Community development corporations (CDCs) are usually
for-profit or nonprofit organizations that focus on the development or
revitalization of a declining community or neighborhood. Traditionally,
CDCs focus on housing issues, but are becoming more involved in other
economic development activities, such as commercial development. Because
they are governed by neighborhood representatives, they play an
important role in facilitating community involvement, feedback, and
support for real estate development.
Other Nonprofit Organizations
Other nonprofit organizations can play active roles in
redevelopment projects. These nonprofits may be affiliated with
religious organizations and traditionally deal with issues such as
housing or other community-based initiatives.
Like NCRC and AWC, nonprofit EDOs and redevelopment
authorities & agencies discussed above are transaction-driven
organizations. That is, they stimulate real estate development through
proactive tasks such as land assembly, feasibility studies, project
financing, regulatory approvals, infrastructure improvements, and
private sector participation. They can be funded by a combination of
government, private sources, foundation donations, tax increment
financing, and from internally generated funds. Their development deals
can range from simple to complex. Deals could be a simple sale of excess
city property to a developer for the redevelopment of a large area with
multiple properties, a joint-venture in which the EDO (via the city)
maintains an ownership stake and is a partner in redevelopment, as well
as dozens of other deal-structures based on diverse funding sources and
Many large cities and many medium sized cities have one
or more nonprofit economic development organizations or corporations:
- Kansas City: The Kansas City
Economic Development Corporation
- Los Angeles: The Los Angeles
- Philadelphia: The Philadelphia
Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC)
- Detroit: The Detroit Economic Growth
Most of economic development and real estate deals in
Chicago and Phoenix are done by city government staff.
- Chicago: Planning and Development
- Phoenix: City of Phoenix Downtown
The Portland Development Commission (PDC) presents an
example of a city-government agency with a private sector board and
Cities often have various agencies of differing
structures and focus that work together to implement economic
development. For example, The Denver Urban Renewal Agency (DURA) is
responsible for conducting urban revitalization activities throughout
the City and County of Denver. Denver also set up the Stapleton
Development Corporation to focus on a high priority opportunity, the
redevelopment of the closed Stapleton Airport. This is somewhat similar
to the current Washington, DC framework, with NCRC focusing on city-wide
neighborhood revitalization and AWC honing in on the Anacostia
Common Characteristics of Nonprofit EDOs
Independent or "quasi-public" EDOs are
distinguished from local government agencies or other economic or
business development entities in various ways:
- Administrative autonomy combined with some degree of
political accountability. Quasi-public EDOs generally employ full-time
professional staffs which are usually not on public payrolls, but which
are responsible indirectly to local policy-makers via an appointed
governing board and annual contract reviewers. Boards usually are
appointed partially by the chief elected official, but enjoy an
independent staff hired by a professional executive director and an
administrative budget which is assisted partially by outside revenues
and/or long-term grants.
- Legal status. As quasi-public entities, most EDOs are
considered legally to be private, nonprofit corporations which differ
from municipal corporations, or government agencies. This allows EDOs to
utilize many important development powers that are often prohibited
otherwise to municipalities under most state constitutions.
- Mixed public/private governing boards. Most EDO boards
must be composed of business, labor, and civic group representatives, as
well as ex-officio members from local government agencies. These boards
provide a useful institutional setting for improving coordination
between public and private sectors. This provides additional capital
commitments from the local business community resulting in more capital
- Staffed by professionals with real estate development
and transaction experience. To compete with the private sector, the
staff is typically higher paid than comparable level positions in the
local government. Like real estate developers, they are very
From: The International Economic Development Council, EDC
Strengths & Challenges of a nonprofit EDO
Some commonly cited strengths and challenges of a
private, non-profit economic development organization include the
Strengths of a successful nonprofit EDO
- High value placed on acquiring and
maintaining top quality staff
- Strong community leadership
component on the board
- Ability to follow market
- Requires close collaboration with
the city but allows staff autonomy to be entrepreneurial
Challenges of a nonprofit EDO
- Potential lack of political, and
thus, financial resources to carry out proposed projects
- Some dependence on the city
bureaucratic process for the release of funds, delaying the ability to
pay contracts and slowing project implementation
Strengths & Challenges of a government EDO
Economic and real estate development that is carried out
by a city agency or department also has unique strengths and challenges.
Strengths of a successful government EDO
- Increased link between local
government and the business community through a single staff person or
- Integration of economic development
objectives and strategies with other municipal plans or policies.
- Increased accountability for
economic development activities.
Challenges of a government EDO
- Potential for political interests to
interfere with the process.
- Historical reluctance for the
private sector to engage with the city for development projects or work with city staff to resolve an issue.
- Direct input and participation of
the business community is threatened
- Bureaucratic red tape may stifle
responsiveness to opportunities and issues
- City staff salaries may not be
attractive to skilled economic development and real estate professionals accustomed to working in the
high-paying private sector
The signs of economic development are evident in every
neighborhood in Washington, DC. Since 2001 over 450 development projects
have been completed, with many more in the pipeline.2
A. City Visions and Plans
Washington, DC is planning for future development, and a
number of planning initiatives will transform neighborhoods and create
new opportunities for retail. Below is an outline of some of the
District’s key planning initiatives that will occur in the next decade3:
The Washington National’s ballpark is being developed
in the Southeast quadrant of the city, an area of disinvestment along
the Anacostia River. The 41,000-seat stadium will contain 78 luxury
suites, 3,000 club seats and 1,100 parking spaces (and nearly 6,000
parking spaces near-by). Other components include 30,000 sq. ft. of
office space, a 6,000 sq. ft. conference center, 28,000 sq. ft. of
concession stands, a 10,000 sq. ft. circle-shaped center field
restaurant, a plaza and 10,000 sq. ft. of family picnic area.
Surrounding development will include up to 3,000 residential units and
1,250 hotel rooms.
AWC Involvement: The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC)
is working with private developers and architects on this estimated $611
million project. The targeted delivery is 2008.
Downtown Action Agenda
The Downtown Action Agenda establishes a clear direction
for future growth, so that emerging areas near downtown Washington may
build their own unique identities. The Agenda also recognizes that all
downtown neighborhoods need to be strengthened as vital and vibrant
places. The Downtown Action Agenda has already resulted in the
construction of several thousand new residential units in the downtown
H Street, NE Strategic Development Plan
The goal of the plan is to help reestablish H Street as a
safe, attractive destination offering a unique combination of
neighborhood goods and services; places to live, work, shop, and eat;
and settings for cultural enrichment and entertainment. Projects that
have already taken place include restoration of the Atlas Theater, the
redevelopment of the former Capital Children’s Museum into 474
condominiums and the enhancement of transportation and pedestrian
NCRC’s Involvement: R. L. Christian Library Site (from
RLA). Proposed development of mixed use residential and retail project
with a larger library.
Old Convention Center Site
The 10-acre site of the former Convention Center will be
redeveloped by the development team of Hines Interests. The scale of the
site provides for up to 400,000 square feet of retail, over 770 units of
market rate and affordable housing, 300,000400,000 square feet of
office, one acre of public space and 1,920 underground parking spaces.
The core uses of the site will be retail, residential and open space.
Southeast Federal Center
The Anacostia River will serve as a backdrop to the 42
acre Southeast Federal Center. The Center will be a mix of condominiums,
office and retail. Once an annex to the historic Washington Navy Yard,
this site contains several historic industrial structures that will be
transformed into living and commercial space. It will also be home to
the Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters and its 7,000
Mount Vernon Triangle Action Agenda
Current plans call for the Triangle to become home to
more than 6,000 residents, approximately 7,000 employees in two million
square feet of office space, more than 500 hotel rooms and approximately
160,000 square feet of retail space. The Mount Vernon is an emerging new
NCRC’s Involvement: CityVista (closed) – a mixed use
development to include a grocery store, neighborhood retail,
condominiums and rental apartments with affordable and workforce
housing. This project is highlighted in Appendix III.
The Anacostia Framework Plan envisions Poplar Point as a
great cultural park within the Anacostia River Park system. The vision
includes diverse public uses, waterfront activities and a 70 acre park.
The site will serve as a catalyst for neighborhood economic development,
and include housing retail, commercial and residential activities.
AWC’s Involvement: AWC is currently working with the
National Park Service and the U.S. Congress on transferring the
ownership of Poplar Point from the federal government to AWC.
The vision for the Southwest Waterfront is a true urban
waterfront where commercial, cultural, residential and neighborhood life
come together. The proposed development will include 800 mixed-income
residential units; 233,000 square feet of retail; a 400 room hotel;
85,000 square feet of office; 200,000 square feet of cultural space; 200
parking spaces; and 14 acres of open space.
AWC’s is the lead agency in developing the Southwest
NCRC’s Involvement: Waterfront/Waterside Mall (under
negotiation). Mixed-use development to include neighborhood retail,
office and residential in a long-abandoned building complex.
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
The vision of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI)
is to create a new commercial, retail, residential and office
destination with an attractive and highly active waterfront.
The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC) is overseeing
this initiative, and intends to coordinate the development of more than
three million square feet of new office space, 4,500 units of new
housing, 32 acres of new public parkland and a 20-mile “riverwalk”
along both sides of the Anacostia River.
The Comprehensive Plan
The DC City Council adopted the recent 2006 revised
Comprehensive Plan in December 2006 and has forwarded it to the National
Capital Planning Commission and to the District Committee of the US
House of Representatives for their review. The revised plan becomes
effective upon completion of federal review.
This version of the Comprehensive Plan contains 25
chapters including an introduction, 13 "citywide" elements, 10
"area" elements, and an implementation element. The area
elements replace the ward plans of the previous plan, which was adopted
in 1984 and amended most recently in 1998. The citywide elements include
framework, land use, transportation, housing, environmental protection,
economic development, parks, recreation and open space, urban design,
historic preservation, community services and facilities, educational
facilities, infrastructure, and arts and culture.
Because of the District’s role as the nation’s
capital, the Comprehensive Plan includes two components: the Federal
Elements, which address federal lands and facilities, and the District
Elements, which address all other lands.
B. Federal Building and Real Property Disposal
Being a federal city, Washington DC has special
resources, as well as unique challenges. First among these is the amount
of federal land within the city and adjacent to city sites. City
development agencies and city government must face considerable land
acquisition challenges. When Home Rule came into effect in 1973, a large
amount of land was left uncared for by the federal or city government.
Ownership was not always well documented, and much of the development
that takes place in Washington, DC today must first pass through an
onerous process of establishing and then transferring ownership.
The General Services Administration is responsible for
disposing of surplus or excess property for federal agencies. The
process for federal agencies to declare and dispose of federal real
estate is mandated by federal laws. The law that governs the General
Services Administration (GSA) and all federal property management,
procurement and disposal is the Federal Property & Administrative
Services Act of 1949.4 The law was amended in 2000.
The GSA Office of Property Disposal works with partner
federal agencies, state and local governments, non-profit organizations,
business groups, and citizens to make excess government real estate
available for numerous public purposes. The GSA National Capital Region
(NCR) serves federal agency clients located throughout Washington, DC
and certain areas of Maryland and Virginia. A majority of space managed
by NCR is in the District of Columbia.
Negotiated Sales to State and Local Government
A negotiated sale is a transaction in which the Federal
Government offers State or local governments the right of first refusal
on a property before it is offered to the general public. There is no
restriction on the use of this property. Washington DC, for example, can
receive a land transfer to be used to foster economic development or
address community social needs. The city, in turn, can transfer that
land to an entity to meet public goals. The National Capital
Revitalization Corporation and the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation were
set up to be such entities.
NCRC was created to manage designated development
projects in the District of Columbia, primarily in priority development
areas (PDAs). It can both initiate new real estate development projects
through partnerships with the private sector, and provide real estate
consultant services for parcels controlled by the District. Likewise,
the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation is tasked with implementing the
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which includes developing a large tract
of land, neighborhoods, and enhancing the environment. The fact that the
federal government owns substantial tracts of land in PDA areas
throughout the city and in Anacostia, which are administered by GSA,
there are significant opportunities not only for retention and expansion
of the federal government, but for adaptive reuse and infill development
in NCRC and AWC territory.
Recently, in December of 2006, President Bush signed H.R.
3699, the "Federal and District of Columbia Government Real
Property Act of 2006", into law.5 This Act authorizes the exchange
of several specified parcels of land between the Federal Government and
the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia has a network of agencies and
organizations that facilitate economic development. Major actors include6:
- Washington, DC Economic Partnership: A non profit,
public-private partnership dedicated to facilitating economic
development in the District of Columbia.
- Anacostia Waterfront Corporation: An
independent instrumentality of the District of Columbia, charged with
the cleanup and redevelopment along the Anacostia River.
- National Capital Revitalization Corporation: A public development company charged with spurring
revitalization in underserved and emerging neighborhoods throughout
- DC Office of Planning: Focus on the
revitalization of neighborhoods throughout the District in cooperation
with residents and by developing detailed plans to reflect the needs of
- Office of the Deputy Mayor for
Planning and Economic Development (DMPED): The DMPED supports the Mayor
in developing and executing the District’s economic development
- Business Improvement Districts:
Washington DC has Five (5) BIDs - Capitol Hill BID, Downtown BID, Golden
Triangle BID, Georgetown Partnership and Mount Vernon Triangle Community
- Great Streets Initiative: A
multi-year, multiple-agency effort to transform underinvested corridors
into thriving and inviting neighborhood centers using public actions and
tools as needed to leverage private investment. It is under the Office
of DMPED with a budget of $16 million for FY 2006.
- reSTORE DC/DC Main Streets: This
initiative by the Office of DMPED helps revitalize neighborhood business
districts and small businesses through organization, design, promotion,
and economic restructuring of neighborhood commercial areas. It was
launched in January 2002.
Washington DC has various economic development tools,
which include employment tax credits, technical assistance, and
incentives. A complete list of these incentives is included in Appendix
The National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) is
a public/private entity designed to serve as a tool for delivering
economic development services in the District of Columbia. NCRC's
mission is to create jobs, attract businesses, enhance the tax base and
improve economic opportunities for citizens and businesses in the
NCRC was created to use tax exempt financing, real estate
development, capital improvements, and other initiatives. NCRC's
mandate, as proposed by the President and enacted by the Council of the
District of Columbia, is broad, and includes a myriad of incentives and
other economic development tools. NCRC’s broad economic development
mission can be summarized into three major areas of activity: 1) real
estate development, 2) business development, and 3) encouraging an
increase in the District's employment base.7
In the mid 1990’s the Washington DC Council met with
local and national business, labor and political leaders to determine
the most critical needs to address revitalization of the District's
older neighborhoods. Together, they determined that a stronger
partnership between the District and Federal governments would be
pivotal to achieve results. With President Clinton's encouragement and
support, Councilmember Charlene Drew Jarvis prepared and introduced
local legislation. The National Capital Revitalization Corporation Act
of 1998 (NCRC Act of 1998) became effective law in August of 1998.8
DC Agenda, a non-profit organization that sought to
address fiscal, social, and economic issues, worked to help formulate
this partnership. The International Economic Development Council
provided technical support to a steering committee under the direction
of DC Agenda to guide NCRC strategy and investment. DC Agenda no longer
The primary reasons for establishing NCRC, according to
the NCRC Act of 1998 and other documents, include:9
- To create a nimble organization that
can effectively stimulate and manage development projects the increase on the city's
employment and tax base.
- To move city development to an
independent partner that can quickly respond to market opportunities and catalyze development in areas of
- To stimulate a partnership among federal and city
governments and the private sector
Though NCRC was established under law in 1998, it took
some time for the organization to staff-up. The first round of staff was
hired in August of 2001. Also, NCRC did not fully receive the land
portfolio from the City (via RLA) until 2002.
As a publicly chartered real estate company, NCRC has two
major roles. As an initiator, it assembles public/private partnerships
to implement very large-scale real estate projects. As a service
provider, it, on request, provides high-quality transactional and asset
management services for development parcels owned, leased, or financed
by DC. The NCRC was also set up to, "provide services throughout
the District to enhance the quality of life in a diverse array of
The NCRC was designed to be an entrepreneurial real
estate development company that serves the District as a landowner,
investor, and development manager. The NCRC has the capacity to provide
- Project Planning
- Land Disposition
- Project Management
- Developer Selection
- Project Financing
- Lease Administration
- Intergovernmental Relations
- Site Control
The NCRC Act of 1998 required that NCRC create a
revitalization plan, which set forth the Corporation's strategy for
facilitating business investment, employment growth, the development and
renovation of ownership and rental housing, retail and other services,
off-street parking facilities, and public infrastructure improvements
within twelve Priority Development Areas and in neighborhoods throughout
the District. The plan was prepared in consultation with the executive
and legislative branches of the District government, the public, and the
National Capital Planning Commission.
NCRC is structured to work closely with the Office of the
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to coordinate the
activities of District agencies responsible for economic activities. The
nine-member NCRC Board is comprised of four Mayoral appointees, three
Presidential appointees, the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia. The CEO is selected by the board, and
responsible for day-today management of the NCRC and its staff of
professionals dealing with development, design and construction,
finance, and legal matters. NCRC currently has 37 staff.
Under the NCRC Act of 1998, NCRC took over the portfolio
of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. To best
incorporate these projects while insulating NCRC, the RLA Revitalization
Corporation (RLARC) was formed as a subsidiary of NCRC. RLARC is charged
with the management and disposition of a portfolio of more than 80
parcels of real property located in the District of Columbia. RLARC
holds the properties gained through appropriation, and the portfolio
totals about $3-4 million. RLARC has a separate accounting system and a
few dedicated staff. NCRC's Board of Directors also assumes the
functions of the Redevelopment Land Agency's Board of Directors.
The NCRC Board of Directors approved a Revitalization
Plan in January, 2001. The Revitalization Plan is broad in scope and
general in approach. It serves as a framework for the operations of
NCRC.11 The plan, along with the NCRC Act of 1998, set the many
principles and roles for NCRC. Major roles and principals include:
Implement changed physical
conditions in commercial areas of the District.
Enter into strategic cooperative
partnerships with government agencies and instrumentalities as well as nonprofit and for-profit
entities, and not to replicate or duplicate services
Work cooperatively with the District
government to provide business development services that promote business and real estate
Invest in partnerships and service
relationships, be focused on projects, programs and services that result in near-term returns of business
placement and retention, physical improvements, job creation and the expansion of the tax
Be an entrepreneurial corporation,
with a small staff of highly trained professionals
Apply the District's objectives
through a mission, focus and operations linked and consistent with implementation the city’s overall
economic development strategy
Coordinate activities with the
plans, policies and priorities established by the Mayor and Council for
the District of Columbia and, as regards the federal interest, the
President and Congress
Specific to RLARC: select developers
and approve development agreements for property purchased under the
urban renewal program.
Since 2001 NCRC completed an investment plan to guide
real-estate development, which was presented to the City Council.
Financing and Project Funding
The federal government provided initial financing for the
NCRC with an economic development grant of $25 million. This initial
capitalization was to support start-up activities and seed investments.
Fannie Mae committed to invest $75 million in NCRC projects over a
period of several years, but that commitment was never realized. NCRC
also gained asset management and disposition of the Redevelopment Land
Agency's portfolio. NCRC currently gains revenues from investments.
The NCRC Act of 1998 included authorization and
guidelines for the development and use of tools for economic
development. These include:
The use of eminent domain by NCRC
Administration and issuance of tax
increment finance bonds
Establishment of revolving funds for
the administration of capital development, programs, and other
Approval, by resolution of the
Board, the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt revenue bonds, including
refunding revenue bonds at or before maturity to provide assistance in
financing, refinancing and reimbursing development costs of eligible
NCRC was given the power and authority to raise funds
from other sources. The Corporation can receive contributions of funds
and other assets. It can earn fees from financing and service programs.
It has been given the authority to raise capital through the sale of
bonds to support specific project initiatives. Recently, the corporation
created a $150 million strategic equity partnership with Morgan Stanley.
B. Strategic Initiatives
The National Capital Revitalization Corporation follows
strategic initiatives. These include:
Community Outreach Activities
Equity & Dept Capital
Home Ownership Equity Loan Program
Real Estate Development
A snapshot of where the corporation’s progress towards
those strategic initiatives is below.12
Development Financing Programs
Title: NCRC and Morgan Stanley Real Estate Equity
This $150 million strategic equity partnership provides
significant capital to deliver catalytic development throughout the
District of Columbia. With this venture, NCRC has the option to secure
equity and invest into projects that would typically not have access to
institutional equity funds.
LSDBE Access to Capital Programs
Title: Commercial Capital Revolving Loan Fund (CCRLF)
The CRLF created a $3 million revolving loan fund to
finance economic development activities and micro-enterprise assistance,
with emphasis on assisting local, small disadvantaged business
enterprises (LSDBEs) in Washington, DC. NCRC partnered with the
Washington Area Community Investment Fund, Inc. (WACIF) to provide
administration and underwriting services.
Title: RLARC Rehabilitation Loan Fund (RRLF)
This $3 million financing tool provides private
developers and LSDBEs located in Washington, DC with access to capital
as an incentive to encourage the “rehabilitation” of small-scale,
privately-owned affordable housing, low-income public housing,
commercial and industrial buildings, historic properties, and closed and
Affordable Housing Program
Title: Home Ownership Equity Loan Program (HELP)
The HELP Program allows funding to be effectively and
efficiently allocated to qualified home buyers for down payments and
other forms of purchase assistance. To date, eight low-to
moderate-income individuals have been identified and will receive
assistance with the purchase of homes in the Fort Lincoln community.
Title: NCRC/DCPS Home Ownership Initiative
This initiative was designed to help teachers and other
District government employees obtain affordable and workforce housing in
the city. Together, NCRC and the DC Public Schools (DCPS) will identify
joint development opportunities for below market-rate housing on or
adjacent to DCPS and NCRC land parcels. The program was launched in
April of 2006.
Title: RLARC Single and Multifamily Affordable Housing
Under this program, RLARC acquires publicly and privately
owned vacant land, abandoned structures and residential properties in
targeted communities of Wards 7 and 8. Once assembled, RLARC partners
with LSDBE developers to produce residential units that are available to
and affordable by low and moderate income families in Washington, DC. In the past year, sixteen properties have
been acquired in Wards 7 and 8. Construction proposals for two
properties have been developed and provided to developers.
Other Community Based Programs
Title: Pre-apprenticeship Readiness Training Program
The PART program is designed to bridge the skills gap
that prevents most DC residents from obtaining long-term careers in the
building trades. The program has graduated 47 students and placed 40 in
Title: The NCRC/SEU LSBDE Training Institute
This community based program provides assistance to small
businesses that want to do business with NCRC and other District
agencies. Businesses can receive assistance with the LSBDE application
process, and participate in capacity building classes such as proposal
writing, marketing, accounting, project management and relationship
management. NCRC pays up to half the cost of these classes and covers
partial cost for advertising in local newspapers. Fifty small businesses
have participated to date.
C. Project Profiles
Together with its affiliates, NCRC is helping to attract
up to $1 billion in private sector investment to District neighborhoods.
This investment includes the development of more than 3.4 million sq.
ft. of retail and office space, 1,400 new homes and 7,000 jobs.
Rate of Success
The closing time for deals is, on-average, about 2 years
and 2 months. Other project results as reported by NCRC include the
Affordable/Workforce Housing Units
Retail Square Footage
Affordable Retail SF
Overall Development Costs
First Year Tax Benefit to District
LSBDE or Non-Profit Participation
58% of development projects
The NCRC publication, NCRC Project Profile – Projects
and Initiatives for 2002-2007, includes the profiles of 21 closed
projects, 15 projects under negotiation, and seven projects in the
pipeline. The 21 closed projects are listed below by project name and
type. A description of three NCRC projects is included in Appendix III.
||Mixed-Use (Residential and Retail)
|Dance Institute of Washington DC USA
||Mixed-Use (Cultural and Retail)
|Duron Paint and Wallcoverings
||Mixed-Use (Marina, Retail and Office)
| Greater Washington Urban League
| Highland Park
||Mixed-Use (Residential and Retail)
|Hogates Leasehold Acquisition
| Kenyon Square
||Mixed-Use (Residential and Retail)
|Lofts of Columbia
|| Mixed-Use (Residential
| Potomac Place
||Mixed-Use (Residential, Retail, Cultural and Office)
||Mixed-Use (Residential and Office)
| Verona Parc
| Victory Heights
D. Strengths and Challenges
This section draws on input gained through interviews and
meetings to produce a list of NCRC’s strengths and challenges.
- Position as a catalyst, facilitator,
and developer. The Corporation is able to use tools to acquire and
develop land that may not be developed otherwise, which stimulates
- Ability to deploy a wide range of
approaches for property disposition, ranging from straight disposition
to joint-ventures, depending on the needs of the project. In a
straight-disposition approach NCRC is better able to incorporate or
ensure public interest goals such as affordable housing and LSDBE
requirements are met.
- Ability to attract private
investment. NCRC has successfully acquired equity for projects that
would normally require public investment. Such privately funded
developments in turn generate tax revenues for the city.
- City-Federal Partnership. NCRC’s board, comprised
of mayor and federal appointees, has the potential to bring federal and
local credibility to the development process. The private board is an
important conduit to the private sector and communities.
- Quick response to market
opportunities. The turn around time from issuing and RFP to acquiring a
developer and funding is very quick. This means that the period
negotiating with a developer and beginning the project is minimized.
- Federal investments. NCRC does not receive District
of Columbia funds for their operations. They operate the organization
through the initial $25 million federal grant and through revenues
gained in project disposition or joint venture projects.
- Unique powers and responsibilities
for executing real-estate development projects outside the government
system. NCRC was structured to have many of the typical powers of a
city, including the authority to issue bonds and use eminent domain.
Their quasi-public structure allows them to function outside of the
‘red-tape’ and avoid intense oversight and procurement systems.
- Entrepreneurial, professional staff.
As a corporation outside of the city, NCRC is able to hire professional
and experienced staff at all levels of operations. The Corporation has
been successful in attracting staff with required skills through
offering an attractive salary that, though perhaps still somewhat below
privatesector amounts, is combined with a public-interest mission and
- Free of lawsuits. NCRC has never
- Social objectives. NCRC incorporates
local, small disadvantaged businesses in development projects, and has
demonstrated achievements for workforce housing and affordable retail
- Unstable leadership. NCRC has had
three directors and two interim directors since it began staffing in
2000. Leadership changes may be due to the multi-level requirements of
the position, including public sector political skills, real-estate
development experience, and a willingness to work with diverse parties.
Previous directors found this a difficult balance to achieve.
- Limited executive-branch leadership
role. The previous city administration took a ‘hands-off’ approach
to NCRC. Some important issues were left to the board and staff to
resolve, and there was little direction given to activities. Similarly,
NCRC did not find a significant amount of support for its projects or
assistance moving projects forward.
- Unclear strategic plan and mission.
NCRC was developed under a broad city revitalization mandate with high
expectations for performance. In subsequent years a narrowing of
objectives was never fully achieved. NCRC was left open to select
projects and focus. Consequently, stakeholders became confused over the
organization’s mission and questioned if performance goals were being
- Young organization. NCRC did not
begin to fully staff the organization until August of 2001. The
organization received the land transfer from RLA in 2002. As such, the
organization has been operating with staff for less than six years and
able to develop assets for less than five. Given typical start-up times
for economic development corporations, the organization has had little
time to find and grow into its development niche in Washington, DC.
- Lack of transparency,
responsiveness, and communication with the City. NCRC was set up to act
like a private corporation with a social purpose. There is concern that
the corporation has strayed too far from city oversight and
accountability. This may likely be due to lack of direction from the
previous city executive, a lack of a clear strategy and
responsibilities, continual internal leadership shifts, and an
independent and entrepreneurial spirit within the organization.
- Questionable long-term neighborhood
revitalization focus. While NCRC has functioned like a neighborhood
real-estate developer, the organization is perceived to be less focused
on long-term revitalization planning and development. Financial
constraints appear to have forced NCRC to take a shorter-term
- Difficulty acquiring assets from the
City. As part of its establishment, NCRC took over deals in the Regional
Land Authority (RLA) portfolio, which was under the Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD), a recipient of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) funds. The files received from RLA were
disorganized and often missing crucial information, such as ownership.
It took a great amount of effort to not only acquire the files, but to
sort through and investigate missing data to complete the files.
- RLA deals burdensome, requiring a
complex structure. Many deals that came to NCRC from the RLA portfolio
were five or more years old. To accommodate the RLA portfolio, NCRC
created a new entity, the RLARC. Some old RLA deals had been sitting
with the city for more than 10 years with no movement, and some dated
back to land that was part of urban renewal in the 1960’s. When NCRC
took these on, community stakeholders found fault in the Corporation for
the lack of progress even before they were holders of the assets.
- Independence and Self-Sustaining.
The fact that NCRC does not receive dedicated annual operational funds
forces them to be a self-sustaining organization. Their actions to reach
that end have led some to take issue with their position as potential
competitors in the private market and with Community Development
Corporations. Nonetheless, most of NCRC development takes place in
neighborhoods with limited private developer interest or resources for
- Confusion over powers, control, and
flexibility. NCRC was created to have many of the tools for economic
development that the city has. They were charged to use them swiftly and
efficiently. It appears there is a difference of understanding between
many stakeholders, namely the city and the corporation, in terms of how
to interpret and implement the use of tools.
- Low levels of self promotion and
communication. Many are not aware of NCRC’s accomplishments and
activities. There is a perception that they have had few successes and
few projects in general. Major advocates of NCRC are those who are
intimately involved with NCRC and have worked with them on projects.
- Lack of coordination with critical
agencies. NCRC has not taken the lead to engage with city agencies or
partners in development. They do so to accomplish a deal, but have not
realized the full potential of partnerships for neighborhood
- Managing Expectations. With a very broad mandate yet
no clear strategic plan or performance measures, expectations soared for
NCRC. The City and NCRC must work together to develop performance
measures and manage expectations.
The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC) is an
independent instrumentality of the Government of the District of Columbia that is charged
- Coordinating the environmental
restoration of the Anacostia River,
- The revitalization of the lands and
communities along the river, and
- Stewardship of the river
It needs to accomplish these objectives in a manner that
will permit residents and businesses in affected communities to reap the
economic benefits of this restoration and revitalization.
On March 22, 2000, Mayor Anthony Williams brought
together the 20 Federal and District agencies that either owned or
controlled land along the Anacostia river to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that created the historic Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative (AWI). AWI produced the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan
in 2003, in cooperation with citizens and community stakeholders, to
guide the revitalization of the Anacostia Waterfront over the course of
the next several years.
Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan
The Framework Plan outlined a vision for the future of
the Anacostia waterfront to reconnect the diverse neighborhoods to the
river and along the river with the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail. The
guiding principles for the Framework Plan were14:
- CREATE a lively urban waterfront for an international
- PRODUCE a coordinated plan for the waterfront that can
be implemented over time
- RESTORE the Anacostia River’s water quality and
enhance its natural beauty
- DEVELOP a network of distinctive green
parks, varied maritime activities, and unique public places
- CONNECT neighborhoods along the river to each other
and link surrounding communities directly to the water
- PROMOTE sustainable and low-impact development in
- STIMULATE economic development in neighborhoods
through job creation and commercial activity
- ENGAGE all segments of the community as stewards of
the rover and its banks
- ADDRESS community concerns, including those
of residents, property and business owners, and visitors
- PROMOTE excellence in design in all aspects of the
The AWC was established under the Anacostia Waterfront
Corporation Act of 2004 to implement the vision outlined in the
Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan. The city determined, after looking
at best practices in other cities, that the implementation of the
Framework Plan could only be accomplished by establishing a local
waterfront authority – a separate entity exclusively focused and
dedicated to the redevelopment of the Anacostia riverfront.
Following are the basic reasons that the Council formed
- The Council was intent on making the AWI more than
just an economic development plan. The affordable housing and LSDBE
requirements were increased as compared to the vision of the Framework
Plan to equalize the benefits of the revitalization of all District
- Follow best practices in other cities for riverfront
- Independence from the traditional government
bureaucracy. Flexible procurement and processing requirements were
established to allow leveraging of public and private resources for
complex projects with a high social impact. In addition, the city felt
that there was no capacity to implement the vision of the AWI within the
- The scope and scale of the AWI required a single-focus
By enacting the AWC Act of 2004, the DC Council
recognized that the economic revitalization of the District’s long-neglected
waterfront presents a vital opportunity to address the problem of
chronic unemployment among DC residents, especially those who live in
Section 124 of the AWC Act provides that developers,
contractors, and construction managers on projects that are eligible to
receive assistance from the AWC must “engage in good faith efforts to
ensure that at least 51% of the new jobs created in connection with the
project are filled by residents of DC, with a preference for at least
20% of those jobs designated for residents of Ward 8”16.
Section 123 of the AWC Act provides that any project
developed or assisted by AWC must also comply with the First Source
Agreement Act of 1984, DC Code section 2.219.01 et seq., which similarly
requires developers of government-assisted projects to make a “good
faith effort” to ensure that at least 51% of the new employees hired
for the project are DC residents17.
B. Mission and Goals
The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation is responsible for
coordinating the environmental restoration of the Anacostia River, the
revitalization of the lands and communities along the river, and public
awareness and environmental stewardship of the river. AWC will
accomplish these objectives in a manner that will permit residents and
businesses in affected communities to reap the economic benefits of the
restoration and revitalization
The Framework Plan identifies five critical themes
essential to achieving a great urban waterfront. These themes continue
to guide AWC's work today.
- Restore — Charting a Course for a
Clean and Active River
- Connect — Breaking Down Barriers
and Improving Access to Waterfront Lands
- Play — Creating a Great
Interconnected and Continuous Riverfront Park System
- Celebrate — Enlivening the
Waterfront to Celebrate Cultural Destinations of Distinct Character
- Live — Promoting Sustainable
Economic Development by Building Strong Waterfront Neighborhoods
AWC is governed by a Board of Directors with nine (9)
voting members and four (4) nonvoting members. Seven (7) of the voting members are
appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. The
Board has representation from community development corporations (CDCs),
the environment community, labor union and the NCRC. The Mayor and Chief
Financial Officer for the District of Columbia are exofficio voting
members of the board. The four non-voting ex-officio members, invited to
serve at their sole discretion, include The Chairman of National Capital
Planning Commission, Secretary of the United States Department of
Interior, Administrator for the United States General Services
Administration and Secretary of the United States Department of Defense.
The CEO is selected by the Board and is responsible for
the day-to-day functioning of the organization. AWC currently has a
staff of 43 full time employees.
Below is an organizational chart to further explain the
structure of the AWC.
The District of Columbia provided initial funding of $3.8
million in operating expenses for the AWC. The city government still
provides resources for the operating expenses, being an instrumentality
of the city government. AWC receives funds from various sources for
capital projects. It is also a recipient of small federal grants for a
few projects. AWC finances a number of its projects through
public-private partnerships to leverage federal, local and private
C. Key Projects
The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation is leading the
redevelopment efforts of the neighborhoods, roads and parks beside the
long-neglected Anacostia River. The project area covers more than 2,800
acres of land along the river and stretches nearly seven miles from the
Potomac River to the Maryland border.
AWC is currently actively involved with 10 development
and redevelopment projects that are listed below. Many of these projects
have involved community input, LSDBEs and strict environmental standards
for implementation. A sample of their projects is included in Appendix
- Southwest Waterfront: mixed-use
(retail, residential, office, maritime, hotel, park and cultural space)
- South Capitol Waterfront and
Ballpark District: mix of retail, entertainment, residential, and office
- Poplar Point: mixed-use (cultural
park, civic memorials, wetlands, and residential, commercial, and office
- Anacostia Metro Station
Redevelopment: multi-modal transit facility and mixed use hub for shops, apartment residences, and government
- Washington Canal Park: high-density,
mixed-use development with retail, housing and office uses
- Hill-East Waterfront: mixed-use
development including health care, education, employment, government
services and administration, recreation, and housing
- Anacostia Riverwalk: recreational
- Kingman Island: mixed-use with
environmental, education and recreational uses
- Kenilworth/Park Side: mixed-use, mixed-income
- Marvin Gaye Park: recreational
D. Policy Initiatives
AWC has also undertaken various policy initiatives to
guide its development projects. These initiatives include:
Anacostia Waterfront Environmental
Design Standards: The AWC drafted the environmental standards to be
adopted by its development partners and the City in implementing
cutting-edge environmental policies to “green” urban areas to make
neighborhoods more livable and sustainable. The environmental standards
address four (4) areas of opportunity: integrated environmental design,
green building, storm water control, and site planning and preservation19.
Community Grants and Youth
Development Initiative20: AWC’s Community Grants and Sponsorship
Program supports nonprofit organizations that provide quality
programming to connect people to the Anacostia River. The objective is
to engage the communities in the river cleanup, thereby promoting the
reconnection of the community residents – particularly youth and
children – as well as the importance of environmental stewardship.
East of the River Initiative21: AWC
is working with the Fannie Mae Foundation and America’s Promise to
help ensure that East of the River children, youth, and their families
have continued access to services that provide educational
opportunities, quality after-school services, workforce training,
mentoring opportunities, and other quality programming. This is part of
the holistic approach to the redevelopment process along the river.
LSDBE and Workforce Intermediary Initiatives22: AWC has instituted a Workforce Intermediary strategy that
will make it easier to access existing District of Columbia public and
private resources to ensure that District residents know about, train
for, and secure jobs with the development projects in the Anacostia
area. This will also help boost involvement of LSDBEs in the projects.
The Workforce Intermediary will provide training and job placement
services to the residents that once trained will not only provide a pool
of trained workers for the AWC projects but also the LSDBEs working in
The Business Resource Center (BRC)23: The BRC is a partnership between the AWC, DC Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the DC Department of Employment Services (DOES). It is a one-stop business,
education and employment opportunities resource center to heighten
awareness and engage the East-of-the-River community in the restoration
of the Anacostia River and revitalization of its shores by stimulating
economic development in neighborhoods through job creation and
commercial activity. The primary goals of the BRC will be to: increase
the capacity of surrounding communities to create wealth and jobs; link
employment and job training to local residents and new development; and
build the mechanisms to enhance local labor force development through
job training and apprenticeships.
E. Strengths and Challenges
- Focus in mission. The focus afforded
to AWC on the redevelopment of the Anacostia River, guided by the
Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan, helps them develop plans and
projects that support their mission.
- Community involvement and support
for projects. AWC has taken an inclusive approach in the design and
development of their projects along the Anacostia River. Communities
along the river see AWC as a partner in the redevelopment of their long
- Involve Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (LSDBEs). Local businesses have been involved in the
projects amounting to more than $1 million in FY 2005 and approximately
$1.8 million in FY2006.
- Entrepreneurial and professional staff. AWC has been
able to hire and retain professional and experienced staff since its
inception by offering competitive salaries and a challenging and
interesting mission with a public interest.
- Social impact. The AWC Board has
adopted higher than usual affordable housing (30%) and LSDBE (51%)
standards for their projects to demonstrate their commitment to
improving economic conditions in communities along the Anacostia River
- Holistic approach to revitalization along the
Anacostia River. AWC has adopted cutting edge environmental standards
for the cleanup of the Anacostia River and development along the river
to ensure sustainability and integration into long term economic
restoration of the community.
- Availability of necessary tools to
ensure successful implementation of development projects. AWC has the
powers to use eminent domain to condemn land and issue bonds for
financing its projects. It also has the ability to use Payments In Lieu
Of Taxes (PILOTs) when working with government agencies for funding its projects. These tools ensure that the AWC
can provide support to its LSDBEs and other providers in the various
- Coordination and partnership with
various city and federal agencies. AWC works in partnership with various city agencies in its
projects such as the National Capital Planning Commission and the Office
of Planning in the District of Columbia.
- Frequent leadership changes. AWC has
had two CEOs, two interim CEOs and one interim COO in a little over two
years, since inception in 2004. This might be due to the difficult job
of the chief executive to constantly balance the expectations of the
City government with the needs of the community and developers.
- Young organization. AWC became fully
operational only towards the end of FY 2005 when they had an operational
staff and office space. Given the typical startup times for economic
development organizations, AWC has not had the opportunity to establish
- Lack of clear title to land that
they are supposed to develop. Most of the land that AWC is mandated to develop is under federal control.
Parts were also under NCRC control that led to a protracted battle with
NCRC that was recently resolved. Gaining title to land in their area is
integral to their progress in the development of the Anacostia area.
- Marketing and self promotion. AWC
has not done a good job of disseminating information about the progress
of its projects with the City government and public in general. There is
a general lack of understanding and appreciation of how much work has
been accomplished by AWC
- Engagement from the City Council and Executive. There
is need for improving the communications with the City Council and Mayor
to keep them abreast of progress made on projects as well as receiving
The International Economic Development Council Team
interviewed over fifty (50) people representing twenty (20)
organizations. Details about the organizations can be found in Appendix
I. Highlights from interviews by major group categories can be found in
Appendix V. Major groups include CDCs, ANCs, federal and local agencies,
developers and associations, city agencies and NCRC and AWC. Below is a
summary of the major interview findings:
- Concern in removing quasi-independent status from the
NCRC and AWC and bringing them under the city. There is widespread
concern across the board in abolishing the two organizations and
bringing them under the City government. The City government is not
perceived as having the capacity and expertise to take on the complex
projects that both the organizations are involved with. In addition, the
cumbersome procurement and personnel systems of the City would slow the
pace of real estate development deals. Nonetheless, most groups
recognize that the City has improved capacity over the years.
- Lack of clarity and understanding among external
entities about what the organizations have accomplished over the last
few years. Many individuals and organizations were not completely aware
of the projects and initiatives of the two organizations. Most agreed
that the organizations have not done a good job of promoting themselves
and disseminating information about their projects and achievements.
- Leadership is needed at many levels to make the
organizations successful. This starts at the top with an involved Mayor
and City Council that can provide strategic direction to both the
organizations. The City needs to ensure that the organizations do not
drift away from their core missions of improving the economic conditions
in the communities that they work in. In addition, both organizations
need highly effective Chief Executives that can balance the expectations
of the City government and community on one hand with developers and
CDCs on the other.
- Lack of clarity and understanding on the creation of
the AWC. The creation of AWC was opposed by a number of people
interviewed; most felt that there was no need for another entity. It
created confusion as to who is responsible for redevelopment functions
in the City. However, many felt AWC’s holistic planning and
development approach was very positive to Anacostia.
- Concern with the independent status of NCRC and lack
of Council oversight in its direction. Many groups expressed concern
that NCRC has drifted too much from its mission, focusing too much on
deals at the expense of broader neighborhood redevelopment goals. While
it was setup to be an independent corporation, it needs to align its mission with the
broader development goals of the City.
- The land swap between the NCRC and AWC in the
Southwest Waterfront has bruised both the organizations and their image
in the public. This issue was discussed in most interviews and most
considered the drawn out dispute avoidable. In addition, many believed
the roots of the problem to be in the handsoff approach taken by the
previous administration in dealing with the issue. They felt the City
should to play a more active role in providing direction to the two
organizations, especially when there are conflicts with other agencies.
- Transition to another option can potentially be
expensive and cumbersome for the two organizations. A number of groups
expressed concern that the momentum that has been achieved in the
projects, especially those east of the Anacostia River, will be lost in
transitioning the two organizations irrespective of the alternative
chosen. Many groups would like to see the impact of the transition
mitigated through careful planning and implementation.
- NCRC and AWC partners in development projects had a
good experience working with them. A majority of those who have worked
with the two organizations consider them to be easy to work with,
professional and dedicated to their mission. This includes neighborhood
groups, CDCs and developers.
A city government has a number of options to manage its
economic development functions. The International Economic Development
Council reviewed the following structures of economic development
organizations from around the country:
- Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny
County, PA (paper agency)
- Portland Development Commission, OR
(subsidiary City agency)
- City of Phoenix Downtown Development
Office (City department)
- Detroit Economic growth Corporation,
MI (independent non-profit)
Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County is a
“paper” agency under the Economic Development Department of the
county government. Its major functions are to acquire and prepare real
estate, manage finances from public sources, and facilitate the reuse of
vacant, tax-delinquent, or blighted property.
Portland Development Commission is an autonomous
subsidiary of the City of Portland and performs all the economic
development functions for the City of Portland such as commercial real
estate, housing and workforce development, business attraction, and
The Downtown Development Office in the City of Phoenix is
a department within the city government and undertakes real estate
projects for the development in downtown. The Community and Economic
Development Department as well as the Neighborhood Services Department
also perform some economic development functions for the City of
Detroit Economic Growth Corporation is an independent
entity that works in close cooperation with the City of Detroit to carry
out its economic development functions. It is the lead implementing
agency for business retention, attraction and economic development
initiatives, including real estate development, for the City of Detroit.
Below is a brief summary of the case studies. For details
about each case, please refer to Appendix VI A-C.
Type of entity
Sources of Funding
|Redevelopment Authority of
Allegheny County, PA
Authority located under the county Economic Development Department but with a
5-member private Board of Directors, appointed by the County Chief
Executive. 5-year term
- State and Federal grants
- Revolving Loan Fund fees
Portland Development Commission, Portland, OR
Autonomous subsidiary of the city government
All private Board of Directors, nominated by the Mayor and approved
by the Council
Tax increment financing is the primary funding source for the annual operating
budget. Other sources are Federal and other grants and the City of Portland.
City of Phoenix Downtown Development Office
Mayor – Council form of government.
Majority comes from the General Fund. Others include sports facilities and
Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, Detroit, MI
Private-public partnership; private nonprofit corporation
Mostly private sector Board, appointed by the Mayor
Approximately 80% of the annual operating budget comes from the City of
Detroit. The remaining 20% comes from private sources
This section puts forth seven scenarios for restructuring
NCRC and AWC. The scenarios were initially developed at the completion
of the two-day working session and refined after the public-hearing and
further interviews and information gathering. The scenarios draw on
findings from background research, interviews, and meetings conducted
throughout the study process. The seven scenarios presented include:
- Maintain NCRC and put the development activities of
AWC under NCRC. AWC remains as an independent body with a planning function.
- Merge NCRC and AWC through a phased process
- NCRC remains the same, but fold AWC into the city’s
planning and environmental departments
- Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED)
takes over the functions of both the organizations, while keeping them
as “paper” agencies
- Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
becomes the Chair of the Board of both NCRC & AWC. Organizations remain largely in-tact, with refinements
- Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
takes over the functions of both organizations
- Maintain both organizations in current form with
The purpose of the scenarios is to inform and to provide
options. The section is structured by presenting a table with each
scenario and the major advantages and disadvantages. The advantages and
disadvantages are considered within the context of Washington, DC.
Following the table is a narrative of each scenario with specific
elements and issues to consider in implementation.
1: Maintain NCRC and put the development activities of AWC under
- AWC remains as an independent body with a planning function
- NCRC takes on the development functions of AWC.
- Sustain focus on the waterfront by AWC -- independent
planning agency can continue to focus attention on the
critical area of the city
- Avoid confusion in the development community and general
public that there are two development organizations
- Maintain agility, nimbleness
- Building off already established track record of NCRC
- Leftover piece from AWC may not be effective; Redundancy
with city functions
- Loss of momentum in AWC projects in terms of implementing
the AWI. This can also have a financial implication
- Enhanced negative perception with stakeholders regarding the
land swap -- going back on recently gained accomplishments
- Cumbersome and potentially expensive transition process
- Frustration from stakeholders & public about reversing
2. Merge NCRC and AWC through a phased process.
- Cultural clash between a more
planning-focused (AWC) and a more
deal making-focused (NCRC)
- May lose focus on
- Cumbersome and potentially expensive transition process
- Frustration from stakeholders
& public about reversing recent land-swap
3. NCRC remains the same, but fold AWC into the city’s planning
and environmental departments.
- NCRC takes on the development functions of AWC.
- Natural fit for the AWC
Planning and Environmental staff with the City’s Office of Planning and
Department of Environment
- Office of Planning initially
created the vision for the Anacostia Waterfront and may be well positioned to continue the process
- Removing the
body may cause decreased focus on
initiatives. City agencies may not be as
committed or effective
- Interruption in implementing
- Cumbersome and potentially
- Frustration from stakeholders
about reversing recent land-swap
4. Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED)
takes over the functions of both the organizations, while keeping
them as “paper” agencies
- Potential to establish fast track regulatory process
- City capacity has improved over time and may be better
positioned to manage functions at this time
- Ability to maintain nimble procurement processes, including
purchasing and disposing of land
- The city can use the paper agency to issue debt. This
removes the city from the risk of affecting their credit
rating in case of a default.
- Concerns with city capacity
from the private sector and other stakeholders
- Interruption of projects, with
a possible financial implication
- Possible loss of the remainder
of $25 million to NCRC in federal capitalization (approx. $8.5 million).
Transferee may not be entitled to these funds
- Concerns about existing
- Likely loss of $150 million
Morgan Stanley equity investment with NCRC
- Potential to lose consistency
in projects and staff through political cycles
5. Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development becomes the Chair of the Board
of both NCRC & AWC.
- Organizations remain largely intact, with refinements
- Increased direction and
involvement by the city
- Greater integration into city
plans and interaction with city agencies
- Executive leadership directly
to both organizations
- Maintenance of procurement
systems and staffing
- Continued project and
geographic focus, no need to dismantle youthful organizations and reverse recent
- Must still address issues to
increase credibility and efficiency of organizations
- Potential loss of the
remainder of the $25 million federal capitalization of NCRC.
6. Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development takes over the functions of
both the organizations
- Potential to establish fast
track regulatory process
- City capacity has improved
over time and now better positioned to play a stronger development role
- Energy and enthusiasm in new administration could fuel success
- Loss of nimble procurement
processes, including purchasing and disposing off land.
- Potential to affect the credit
capacity of the city to take on additional debt. In case of default, city becomes
- Possible loss of the remainder
of $25 million to NCRC in federal capitalization (approx. $8.5 million).
Transferee may not be entitled to these funds.
- Concerns about existing contractual obligations
- Likely loss of $150 million Morgan Stanley equity investment with NCRC
- Potential to lose consistency in projects and staff through political cycles
- Concerns with city capacity from the private sector and other stakeholders
7. Maintain both organizations in current form with refinements
- Maintain holistic focus on the waterfront by AWC
- Potential for NCRC to continue to raise private equity
financing to invest in projects with social benefits
- Maintain momentum, no project interruption, and close deals
in the pipeline
- Maintain nimbleness and maintain efficient procurement
- Potential for stability as these young organizations mature
- Maintain consistency in projects and staff through political
- Stakeholders may perceive that problems are not being
- Potential for problems if executive staff turnover persist
A. Scenario Implementation Elements
The following paragraphs provide a few elements of
consideration for scenario implementation.
Scenario 1: Maintain NCRC and put the development
activities of AWC under NCRC.
In scenario 1, AWC continues on as an
independent body with a specific planning function. Currently, AWC is
recognized and credited for its focus on the Anacostia waterfront and
neighborhoods that have seen decades of disinvestment, beginning with
Urban Renewal in the 1950’s. AWC’s geographic-specific mission
combined with high environmental and social standards or initiatives
(including affordable housing and workforce development) are arguments
for the organization to continue in its planning and implementation of
certain aspects of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.
To take on the development activities (specifically the
neighborhood real-estate activities) of AWC, NCRC should incorporate a
strengthened neighborhood development commitment with specific
initiatives. It is necessary to develop a strategy to work with
community development corporations (CDCs), other community based
organizations, the DC Office of Planning and others for project
Under this scenario NCRC will work with AWC as a planning
body and other city agencies to ensure all neighborhood projects are
planned and implemented. For example, this could include widening a
side-walk adjacent to a development to ensure pedestrians as well as
local retail out-door space is accommodated. These smaller projects will
be conducted in addition to, and also in conjunction with, bigger deals
NCRC currently works on.
Scenario 2: Merge NCRC and AWC
One theory that emerged in interviews conducted by IEDC
is that efficiencies could be gained by joining NCRC and AWC. Under this
scenario the two organizations should slowly be joined so as to help
avoid, as much as possible, a clash in focus and business culture. A
likely method is to maintain separate systems under an umbrella company
that, over time are joined to bring the organizations together.
Scenarios 1-3 could look to the Detroit Economic Growth
Corporation (DEGC) case study in Appendix VI-C as an example of
establishing an independent non-profit economic development agency. The
DEGC is a private-public partnership, bringing together public sector
policies and priorities with private sector development and investment
interests to strengthen Detroit’s economic development. The
organization also manages a subsidiary, the Detroit Economic Growth
Association (DEGA), a “paper agency” established to receive
charitable contributions. More details about DEGC are found in the
Scenario 3: NCRC remains the same, but fold AWC into the
city’s planning and environmental departments
Washington, DC has increased the functioning of
government agencies, and feels confident they are able to take on the
planning and environmental focus called for in the Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative. There is a fear that by removing the entity that is
dedicated to development of Anacostia, AWC’s initiatives (as spelled
out by the AWI) will be lost in city agencies.
To help alleviate this from happening it is important
that the city foster the creation of a citizen advocacy group. The group
should include advocates from across the city and beyond that are
devoted to uplifting the Anacostia, and successful in fundraising. They
will play an important part to bring in outside funds (for example
through foundations) and recognition. Again, any change or phasing out of an organization
should be done over time, and NCRC should incorporate a strengthened
neighborhood development commitment with specific initiatives.
Scenario 4: Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development (DMPED) takes over the functions of both the organizations,
while keeping them as “paper” agencies
A ‘paper’ agency, as the
name suggests, is an entity that for the most part only exists on paper.
In the economic development industry this usually means an organization
falls under the authority of the government or a new government entity.
The paper agency maintains an independent board of directors appointed
by an elected body, but does not have dedicated staff or a CEO. The
paper agency reports to a director within a government entity.
Like many of the scenarios mentioned here, Scenario 4
will present particular benefits and challenges. One challenge is the
restructuring of these entities under the city, and the disruption
caused to staff, partners, and existing contracts under NCRC and AWC. An
appropriate transition is crucial. Plans should be developed to phase
the transition, staff the agencies, and ensure deals and negotiations
are not interrupted. To minimize the disruption, it is assumed that much
of the staff would move from the agencies to the city.
Unlike many cities, the District of Columbia’s salaries
at the director level are comparable to those in AWC and NCRC. This
could encourage agency staff to move to the city and remain working on
the paper agency projects.
The Redevelopment Authority of Alleghany County (RAAC),
discussed in Appendix VIA, was restructured from a stand-alone agency to
become a paper agency in 1995. RAAC is an independent authority overseen
by a volunteer board of directors appointed by the Chief Executive. It
is managed under an agreement with the Allegheny County Department of
Economic Development (ACED), and is staffed by ACED. The new structure
allows for the efficient operation of redevelopment projects by
executing many functions and processes outside of county government. The
case study offers further details about this option.
Scenario 5: DMPED becomes the Chair of the Board of both
NCRC & AWC.
In this scenario the organizations remain largely in-tact
but with major refinements. Refinements should be based on the
challenges for each organization as identified in Sections 4-5, as well
as the findings from interviews.
With the Deputy Mayor overseeing each organization as the
Board Chair, city oversight and leadership should be strengthened. This
will also help coordination with other agencies, as well as coordination
among the two when necessary. The dedicated focus and mission of each
organization will remain, along with key staff. Likewise, this is an
opportunity to modify or clarify the mission and functions of each
Board members should continue to serve, with a review of
long-term board structure in terms of appointees and term limits. For
example, it may be beneficial that the Mayor appoints all board members,
and term limits are decreased for the short-term.
Scenario 6: The Office of the DMPED takes over the
functions of both organizations
Many of the considerations already
mentioned must be addressed to select this scenario for implementation.
- Develop a phased transition plan and
a staffing plan to retain existing agency staff to the extent possible
- Intense communication with the
private sector and communities to inform them about the phased
transition and new structure
- Careful consideration of deals and
negotiations currently underway to avoid interruption, as well as
- High-levels of media communication
about why this is the best option going forward, especially in relation
to the recently completed land-swap between NCRC & AWC
The Portland Development Commission (PDC) and the City of
Phoenix Downtown Development Office (DDO) offer two examples of how city
governments lead economic development. These case studies can be found
in Appendix VI-B. PDC is a subsidiary of the city government and
conducts all economic development functions for the city. This
interesting structure includes a private board, allowing for
public-private interaction within the context of city government. The
DDO in Phoenix is located directly in the city, and works with two other
city departments to fulfill city economic development functions. The DDO
is responsible for real-estate development projects in downtown Phoenix.
Scenario 7: Maintain both organizations in current form
Again, this scenario requires that concerns about each
organization are addressed immediately. These include challenges as
identified in Sections 4-5, as well as findings from interviews for this
A major consideration to undertake this option is
enhanced involvement of the city, especially in NCRC’s operation. The
Deputy Mayor or Mayor can take more of a lead in engaging with the board
of each organization and directing activities. This will avoid future
miscommunications and apprehension.
This scenario, along with others, demands a high-level of
communication with stakeholders to address how issues that have been
raised are being dealt with. The best way to do so is through an
organizational strategic plan. In the case of NCRC, this could be
through the creation of a specific plan that indicates their mission,
strategies, activities, tools, requirements, and more. After board
approval, the plan should be approved by City Council. For Scenario 7 to
be a success, both organizations must successfully recruit a director
with both real estate experience and public sector political skills.
The IEDC Economic Development Organization Structure
Review has analyzed alternatives for an efficient and effective
structure for economic development in the District of Colombia. This
final report is based on the findings from information gathering,
targeted interviews, meetings, as well as the two-day working session.
The report highlights that both NCRC and AWC are valued
in Washington, DC. People and organizations that have interacted with
them on projects praise their efficiency, their focus, or their
successful projects. However, there are concerns about the need for two
organizations, levels of accountability and control, as well as the
scope of work. Finally, with an enhanced capacity in city government
developed over the last five years, and a new administration interested
in being more directly involved in economic development, organization
structure options emerge.
As demonstrated in the US Economic Development
Organization Framework section, there are many options for local
governments to take on economic development. Realestate development is
nearly always a crucial component, and is combined with larger goals of
business retention, expansion, attraction, as well as workforce
development. There benefits and challenges to nearly every structure,
and Washington, DC, like any city, must analyze their own needs to
determine the right configuration. The District of Columbia has a number
of resources in terms of economic development organizations and tools,
along with a market that is ripe for development. However, the city’s
legacy as a federal city means that it has great resources as well as
challenges in terms of land title and transfer.
The research and interviews conducted through the course
of the IEDC study show a remarkable concern for healthy and just
economic development in Washington, DC. NCRC and AWC both fill an
important niche in the City’s ongoing revitalization, and it is clear
that no-one wants to lose or backtrack on the successes the
organizations and their partners have gained.
The case studies of comparative city economic development
organizations demonstrate how other cities are stimulating economic
development. PDC in Portland serves a strong city government as a
subsidiary and has a private board. The Phoenix Downtown Development
Office is a city agency that coordinates with other agencies for overall
city development. RAAC in Alleghany County is a ‘paper’ agency that
draws staff from and reports to the County Economic Development
Department, but maintains an independent and engaged board. DEGC of
Detroit is a non-profit corporation that works with but is independent
of the City government.
Based on the information gathered and observations, IEDC
put forth seven scenarios for restructuring Washington DC economic
development organizations, with the pros and cons of each scenario. It
is anticipated the scenarios, and this study process, will help the city
to continue to meet the aspirations of all involved in this study; to
foster sustainable and equitable economic development in Washington, DC.
Appendix I: List of Organizations Interviewed*
- Abdo Development
- Anacostia Economic Development Corporation
- Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (including board
members and former CEO)
- B & D Consulting
- Chamber of Commerce, District of Columbia
- Council of the District of Columbia
- DC Builders Industry Association
- Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning & Economic
- Downtown BID
- General Services Administration, Public Buildings
Services - National Capital Region
- Golden Triangle BID
- Greater Washington Initiative
- The JBG Companies
- Marshall Heights Community Development Organizations,
- National Capital Planning Commission
- National Capital Revitalization Corporation
(including board members and former CEO)
- Office of Planning, District of Columbia (including
former director of planning)
- Prince George’s County Economic
- Washington Area Community Investment Fund,
- Washington DC Economic Partnership
* Note: Many organizations included interviews with
Appendix II: Economic Development Tools in
Washington DC has various economic development tools.
Employment Tax Credits
- Enterprise Zone Employment Tax
Credit: Annual Federal employment tax credit for 20% of wages paid to DC
resident employees (up to $3000 credit per employee).
- Customized Training Program:
Employers are reimbursed for funds spent to train district residents as
- Welfare-to-Work Credit: Up to $8500
per employee in federal tax credits for employees that meet eligibility criteria ($5000 year one;
$3500 year two)
- Work Opportunity Credit: Annual
federal employment tax credit of up to $2400 per employee for all who meet the eligibility criteria.
reSTORE DC Commercial Development Technical Assistance
This program awards technical assistance and grants to
assist commercial revitalization activities or special
volunteer-produced projects that enhance neighborhood business districts
not in designated Main Street areas.
reSTORE DC Commercial Property Acquisition and
This program awards grants to assist in the acquisition
or development of commercial real estate projects that enhance
neighborhood business districts.
Targeted and Industry Specific Incentives
Supermarket Tax Exemption Act of
2000: Exempts the owner of a qualified supermarket in a priority
development area from sales taxes on the purchase of building materials
and equipment for construction or substantial rehabilitation of a
qualified supermarket; exempts the qualified supermarket from the
payment of license fees, personal property taxes and real property taxes
levied on the supermarket for 10 years
DC Revenue Bond Program Tax-Exempt
Bond Financing: Provides for the issuance and sale of tax-exempt revenue
bonds to finance, refinance and reimburse costs to capital projects,
including property acquisition, renovation, construction and purchase of
machinery and equipment.
Downtown Tax Increment Financing
Program (TIF): The Downtown retail incentive program sets aside $30
million of tax increment financing from retail sales for tenant
improvements in the reemerging downtown retail core. Building owners
will be able to receive up to $150 per square foot of District
Government tenant improvements (TI) allowances for qualified anchor and
icon retailers that locate on sections of F, G, 7th or 11th Streets near
some of the city’s most successful new retail, restaurant and museum venues. This
program is designed to attract new apparel, general merchandise and home
furnishing tenants to fill a portion of the 600,000 square feet of new
and repositioned retail space within downtown’s retail entertainment
Neighborhood Economic Development
and Investment Amendment Act (NEDIAA): The District Government has
introduced the Neighborhood Economic Development Investment Amendment
Act, which will provide a comprehensive set of development incentives to
authorize the use of public funding for a variety of economic
development efforts throughout the District of Columbia – particularly
in neighborhoods outside the downtown core. The program would make
available: (a) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) bonds; (b) Payment in Lieu
of Taxes (PILOTs); (c) Special Assessment Districts for the financing of
bonds for public infrastructure projects; and (d) economic benefits and
tax credits for qualified businesses
Appendix III: Sample of NCRC Projects
CityVista is a mixed-use development in the Mt. Vernon Triangle neighborhood on the former Wax Museum
site. Project completion is estimated for the beginning of 2008.
Development includes a 50k+ sq.ft. grocery store, neighborhood retail,
441 condominiums and 244 rental apartments with 20% affordable and
workforce housing. The total 130,000 sq.ft. of retail includes a new
prototype "urban lifestyle" Safeway. Because of its location and size, CityVista will
anchor the redeveloped Mt Vernon Triangle – one of DC’s next big
LSDBE equity participation is at 20% for the CityVista
project. An estimated 275 permanent jobs will be created from the
project. Tax revenues for the first year are estimated to be $8.5
Total non-profit and private sector investment includes
$191 million and there is no nonNCRC district investment in the project.
This project was a former RLA site. NCRC took over management in 2002.
The RFP was issued under NCRC in July of 2003, the developer was
selected in February of 2004, and the deal closed in December of 2005.
DCUSA will be the largest retail development in the District of Columbia, and the first
urban location for the Target Corporation. The 500,000 square foot
center is expected to produce 1,000 jobs and will include 15,000 sq.ft. of affordable retail space.
The $149.5 million pedestrian oriented complex with 1,000 car below-grade parking facility will occupy a
5-acre site in Columbia Heights, approximately 2.5 miles north of the
The DC Council approved a $42 million TIF put forth by
NCRC for the creation of the underground parking garage. This investment
moved the project forward and convinced anchor Target to commit. NCRC
will maintain control of and operate the garage. The estimated tax
revenues are $13 million for the first year.
DC USA is being developed jointly by Grid Properties Inc
and Gotham Organization Inc in conjunction with Joseph Searles III and
the Development Corporation of Columbia Heights (DCCH). The site was
previously managed by RLA and RLARC took it over in 2002. The closing
date was February of 2006. Completion is estimated for 2008.
HOGATES LEASEHOLD ACQUISITION
NCRC acquired the leasehold of the former Hogates
restaurant for $5.55 million in September 2002. The total square footage
is 42,000. NCRC sought a tenant to occupy the site and the lease was
executed in March 2003. Hogates reopened as the restaurant H20 in
December of 2003.
Appendix IV: Sample of AWC Projects
The AWC is charged with implementing the City's vision
for the Southwest Waterfront, as outlined in the Small Area Plan for the
Southwest Waterfront and approved by the City Council in 2003. When
complete, this 47-acre site will include a unique blend of retail,
residential, office, maritime, hotel, park and cultural space that
create a vibrant, amenity-rich 24-hour neighborhood for both District
residents and visitors.
However, significant challenges remain before the plans
can be implemented since the transfer of land from the NCRC to AWC is
still pending. In addition, the AWC needs to reach an agreement with the
existing leaseholders. The District Council also needs to approve a land
disposition resolution, following which the AWC will be able to sign a
land disposition agreement with the developer26.
South Capital Waterfront and Ballpark District
The area includes the new Washington National's ballpark and 60 acres surrounding the stadium. Plans call
for an exciting and vibrant neighborhood with a diverse mix of retail,
entertainment, residential, and office uses. When complete, the South
Capitol Waterfront is expected to generate $10 to $15 million per year
in new tax revenues for the District, provide countless new jobs for
District residents, and create business opportunities for local, small,
disadvantaged business enterprises (LSDBEs). The revitalization of the
South Capitol Waterfront will also include the construction of the Anacostia Riverwalk between the ballpark and the
Washington Navy Yard, which will include a five-acre public park at the
Southeast Federal Center and a new ferry pier at the foot of First
While construction on the site has begun, the AWC and
city have been engaged in protracted legal battles over land
acquisition. Nearly a year ago, a D.C. judge ordered a group of small-business owners to abandon 20-acres of
land, part of the ballpark site. The business owners are pursuing the
case in Superior Court over financial settlement for the land and
Poplar Point encompasses more than 110 acres of federal
land adjacent to Historic Anacostia, directly across from the Navy Yard.
Development efforts in this area will strive to reconnect historic
Anacostia and its residents back to the Anacostia River. Plans call for the site to be revived as a
green gateway to the Anacostia River and act as a catalyst for neighborhood economic development. The
transformation will feature state-of-the- art ecological
restoration as well as cultural, historical, and community attractions.
AWC is currently working with the National Park Service
and the U.S. Congress on transferring the ownership of Poplar Point from
the federal government to AWC. The National Park Service has established
a series of conditions that must be met as part of the transfer
including a relocation strategy for the existing National Park Service
facilities. Plans for the site must also include a 70-acre cultural
park, civic memorials, wetlands, and residential, commercial, and office
development. A developer, led by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill
Architects, has been selected through an open bid process28.
The AWC is working with the Mayor’s office to develop a
plan that must be approved by the Department of the Interior before the
transfer of land can occur. AWC will be presenting the Poplar Point Site
Development Plan and the National Park Service Relocation Strategy to
the District Council in spring 2007. AWC also needs to complete the
environmental assessment on the site29.
Appendix V: Interview Highlights by Group
Community Development Corporations (CDCs)
- While most CDCs generally supported
the creation of NCRC, they have not seen development in under-served
neighborhoods like they had hoped.
- NCRC and AWC should initiate
partnerships with the CDCs for projects in their neighborhoods. One CDC
commented “had it not been for our work in these neighborhoods over
the years, there would be no interest in them even today”.
- Both the organizations should be
“facilitators” of development, not developers. Through partnership
arrangements, they should support CDCs in the services that CDCs cannot
provide, such as construction financing.
- They do not support the idea of
bringing the two organizations under the city. The organizations need to
stay away from the bureaucracy of the City government. However, the
Council should have greater oversight, provide strategic direction and
ensure that the organizations are engaging the CDCs in their projects.
- One way to ensure more involvement
of CDCs is to have representation on the Board of Directors.
- NCRC projects have helped to
catalyze other developments.
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs)30
- ANCs do not favor the decision to
abolish the organizations.
- The biggest concern is an
interruption or loss of momentum in the projects that are currently
underway in their neighborhoods. A number of ANCs expressed strong
feelings about the slow rate of progress in getting the projects
started. One ANC mentioned “no amount of careful transition will be
able to address that problem”.
- ANCs had a positive experience
working with the organizations – - they were considered to be
inclusive in their approach to the development projects and easy to work
Federal and Local Agencies
- Public Development Corporations must
be structured to be creative and implement the City’s vision or larger
development goals, including projects that are for the public good. The
City should financially support these entities and help them achieve
their mission. For example, the City should establish a clear
source of funding for NCRC and not require them to be self-sufficient.
- The mainstays of such public
development corporations are control, accountability, flexibility, and
efficiency. They serve as the link between the City and various outside
agencies and developers as well as a coordinator across many city
- The City needs to decide if it wants
to have one single entity doing economic development with a city-wide
and possibly regional perspective, or have multiple smaller entities
with specific focus. Each setting has advantages and disadvantages.
AWC’s planning focus is helpful to concentrate on a particular area.
- It is important to create a single point of contact,
but not necessary for the City to serve in that role. The purpose is to
make it clearer for other government bodies to identify who to deal
- Clear title to land that the organizations are
mandated to develop has been one of the biggest impediments in their
growth and progress. Many agencies would like to see the problem
- An outcome of the city’s proposal to dissolve the
organizations, and the resulting review of the organizations, should be
to clarify land-title and transfers in Washington, DC. Current and
future economic development entities should be given clear title with
specific development performance measures.
- It is advantageous to have such
organizations because many developers are not keen to partner with
government, but are willing to work with quasi-public entities.
- There is little understanding in the
City government and public in general how long development deals take.
Since both the organizations work in the public realm, they are under
scrutiny from the start. Some private sector deals also take as long,
but they are not monitored so closely.
- Both entities need to do a better
job of marketing themselves and communicating their plans, achievements
etc. The public does not know what they are doing.
Developers and Associations
- The city has too many entities
performing economic development functions in the city. There are four
(4) such instrumentalities of the city: Convention Center Authority,
Sports & Entertainment Commission, NCRC and AWC. Each of these
entities develops a constituency of its own and become smaller political
subdivisions, creating problems of coordination at a later date. The
City needs to decide who its “planners” are.
- The delays that NCRC and AWC face in
their projects are not created by the organizations themselves. They are
an issue of governance in the City. These entities do not have any
special status (for example in getting permits, zoning etc.) as compared
to any private developer.
- The City did not have the capacity
to take on all the projects of NCRC and AWC in the previous
administrations. Mayor Fenty’s team is considered to be too new to
demonstrate the capacity and expertise to take it on.
- The City needs to carefully examine
the lawsuits pending against AWC and RLARC before absorbing them into
- The missions and implementation
plans of both organizations need to be clarified.
- NCRC’s mission is very broad and required to be
financially self-sufficient. This required private sector mentality in
choosing projects. If the City would like them to serve a public
purpose, then a steady revenue source should be established for them.
- AWC is charged with development
along the Anacostia River. Many expressed concern over their mandate for
environmental cleanup of the river and whether it fits with their
overall mission. It was suggested that the Department of Environment in
city government can possibly take it on.
- Both organizations need an
implementation plan in alignment with the City’s priorities for
development in the District.
- Though it is not clear why the AWC was created as an
independent agency and not a subsidiary to NCRC, they believe that it is
a good idea to have an agency that focuses on the waterfront. Examples
of dedicated agencies for waterfront development from around the world
were talked about.
- The Southwest Waterfront issue
between the NCRC and AWC is representative of the general business
environment in the District. Many developers consider it easier and more
beneficial to work outside the District for such reasons.
- There is strong support to not
abolish the two organizations. Instead, it is necessary to improve the
coordination between NCRC, AWC and the city. Some individuals also
support the idea of having a single entity, though not within the city.
City Government (including Council Members)
- When NCRC and AWC were created, the
City did not have the capacity to deal with economic development issues.
The Deputy Mayor’s office is now much better equipped to handle them.
However, a City government can never be as nimble as these
quasi-government entities. Government is not structured to deal with
businesses. If you don’t seize the moment, you lose the opportunity.
- Some have encountered a lack of
responsiveness and accountability from NCRC. They feel the organization
has drifted too far away from government oversight and involvement. The
organization acts like it independent from the city.
- Concern was expressed over the
capacity of the City government to take on the schools as well NCRC and
AWC at the same time. Further, the City is considering setting up an
independent entity to develop schools in the District. There is concern
over the rationale to merge or collapse NCRC and AWC and
simultaneously create a similar entity.
- There is general understanding of the need of
redevelopment agencies and why they are formed around the country, but
City government has not had a good experience with NCRC and AWC.
- NCRC was envisioned to be the
facilitator and catalyst of development and disposing of the land, not
do the development themselves.
- The creation of AWC resulted in a
lot of confusion because NCRC was setup to take on many of the same
tasks using many of the same tools.
- The City is deeply involved with a
lot of deals done by NCRC and AWC through the tax incentive tools used
for financing these projects, which need to go through Council approval.
Therefore, there is scope for bringing them under the City government.
- While the procurement and personnel
systems of the City can be big reasons for not bringing the two
organizations under the City, it may be possible to model them on the
same model as the Office of the CFO, which is outside the City’s
- The City government should try to
get clear title to its land from the federal government – start afresh
with a clean slate. It is believed that doing so would solve a lot of
problems related to the speed of progress made by the two organizations.
Also, there may be opportunity with a new Congress.
- Whatever the City decided to do, it needs to make
sure that progress continues to be made on the projects currently
underway. Most projects have had a lot of community involvement.
NCRC (including former employees)
- NCRC considers that they have a very
nimble and efficient system. They are able to turn deals around
- NCRC believes they are a facilitator
and catalyst for development. They are able to use innovative tools to
acquire and develop land that may not be developed by private sector
initiative alone. This stimulates surrounding development.
- They are able to respond quickly to
market opportunities. Turn around time from RFP to bid to acquiring
funding is very quick.
- They have been able to achieve a lot
of social goals for the city such as LSDBE and affordable housing
requirements without financial support from the City.
- Joint ventures ensure NCRC’s involvement in a
project, and helps them to integrate social goals. They also gain a
return which can be used to invest in other social impact projects.
- NCRC would like to have all the
tools available to them to do real estate deals including equity
financing (such as the Morgan Stanley deal) and joint ventures.
- There is a lack of agreement with
critical agencies regarding NCRC’s powers and responsibilities. For
example, there are different interpretations of their statute. The
Office of the Attorney General doesn’t believe NCRC has the authority
to use certain tools that are listed as tools in their mandate. Also the
council which actually gave NCRC the authority to use eminent domain,
now has misgivings about this tool.
- One of the organization’s biggest mistakes is not
promoting achievements and results. The public and political leadership
therefore do not understand their successes and may consider them
- NCRC should develop a strategic plan
for moving forward. Both the organizations need to develop these plans,
but NCRC in particular since it never had a fully development plan.
- The biggest need of the organization is support from
the executive branch and city council. With this support they will be
able to assure that projects move rapidly. In addition, they will get
the legitimacy to continue on their mandate at optimum levels.
- Being an instrumentality of the
city, both organizations should get preferential treatment from other
city agencies in getting permits, zoning, etc. This will make it
attractive for the developers to work with them and also manage
expectations in relation to the time a project takes.
- The City should phase out the two
organizations over time as they both have current contractual agreements
and financial liabilities such as public debt.
- The City should not bring the two
organizations under city government control. Rather, they should make
sure that the organizations are protected from the politics.
AWC (including former employees)
- AWC has a large social component in
all its projects, which makes their job more difficult. Their affordable
housing and LSDBE requirements are higher than most city agencies.
- AWC is doing projects in untested
markets, where the private sector will not go without public
- Community involvement in development
projects is one of the mainstays of AWC.
- The perception that AWC (and NCRC)
are slow is misplaced. There is a lack of understanding how long real
estate development deals take.
- The biggest challenge facing the AWC
is legal titles and control over the sites that are outlined in their
framework plan for development. This includes the Southwest Waterfront
site control battle with NCRC, which was only recently resolved.
- AWC needs a more engaged and
supportive Executive Branch and City Council in order to achieve their
mission. They also need strong leadership from the City in providing
more direction to their mission as well as a strong CEO who is able to
manage the expectations of the City and developers at the same time.
- They have not done a good job of
promoting themselves to the public in general as well as the City
- They have done a poor job of setting
interim milestones and steps for themselves. This can be a benchmark for
measuring their performance.
- AWC should consider developing core
competencies in partnering with federal agencies since most of their
land is still under federal control.
- It is not a good idea to bring the
two organizations completely under the city government. This will slow
things down rather than speeding the organizations up; procurement and
personnel systems of the city were cited as the biggest reasons. Also,
there will be loss of momentum in completing or pursuing projects of the
- There needs to be an understanding
that the first two years of creation will be difficult for any
organization. Any major changes that come about from the City’s
proposed legislation may cause similar growing pains.
- If the two organizations are
abolished or merged, it should be done over time by aligning their
missions with each other as well as to that of the city.
- If the City government intends to save money by
abolishing the two organizations and streamlining operations, it needs
to consider the amount of time lost in the transition, which could
translate into millions of dollars in potential tax revenue from
A. “Paper” Agency Model (Redevelopment Authority of
B. City Agency / Department (Portland Development
Commission and City of Phoenix departments of Community and Economic
Development, Downtown Development and Neighborhood Services)
C. Independent Authority (Detroit Economic Growth
A “Paper” Agency Model (Redevelopment Authority of
The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC),
Pennsylvania was established by the PA Urban Redevelopment Law in 1945,
and chartered under the Commonwealth of PA, in 1950. The Allegheny
County Board of Commissioners established the Authority to assist in the
generation, stimulation and management of economic and community growth.
The Authority is responsible for acquiring and preparing real estate for
economic development activities, managing finances from various public
sources, and facilitating the reuse of vacant, tax-delinquent, or
The RAAC was a stand-along organization that reported
directly to the Allegheny County Commissioners until 1995. At that point
the Authority was restructured to remove the director and staff, thus
becoming a ‘paper’ agency. Today, the RAAC is an independent
authority overseen by a volunteer Board of Directors. It is managed by
county staff under an agreement with the Allegheny County Department of
Economic Development (ACED).
The new structure allows for the efficient operation of
redevelopment projects by executing many functions and processes outside
of county government. Beyond efficiency, the ACED notes other benefits
One stop shop for clientele
Staff driven projects
Ability to control the process
Grants and bond issues generate fee
Contractual process is smoother than
that of a typical government
Areas of Focus
RAAC is busiest authority in Alleghany County. The
Authority often concentrates on large-scale redevelopment projects,
particularly brownfields. The Authority is active in acquisition and
remediation of brownfields, and works with developers to sell or develop
sites. This is actually done through the County Business Development
Department. They often identify brownfield sites, research federal or
state grant opportunities to remediate the site and, if possible, build
infrastructure for future or partner development.
The RAAC Core Activities include33:
- Economic Development Fund (EDF).
RAAC is responsible for administering the County’s $50 million
low-interest revolving loan fund that was established in 1995 to create
and preserve jobs in the region. Since its inception, EDF has created or
retained an estimated 6,360 jobs by investing $43.8 million in local
- Redevelopment and Development Projects. RAAC coordinates comprehensive plans with local municipalities
and conducts economic feasibility studies to leverage County resources
for redevelopment projects to benefit the local tax base. In addition,
the Development Division is engaged in property acquisition, site
development and redevelopment, and infrastructure improvement. In these
efforts, the Division partners with municipalities, developers, public
agencies, nonprofit development organizations, brokers, agents,
architects, engineers, contractors and lending institutions to ensure
that the necessary resources are available to support each project.
- Tax Increment Financing (TIF). RAAC
manages TIF plans to finance public infrastructure improvements that
allow redevelopment activities to take place. A portion of the new
assessed value of the property creates new tax revenues that are used to
pay off debt issued to finance the improvements. All TIF districts are
collaborative efforts involving municipalities and school districts as
well as the County.
- Housing Redevelopment. RAAC aids
ACED housing initiatives with financing, business development, master
planning and reclamation activities. Programs assisted include the
Allegheny Home Improvement Loan Program (AHILP), the Allegheny Vacant
Property Recovery Program and large-scale housing redevelopments.
The RAAC is looking to get more involved with
neighborhood revitalization. In Allegheny County there are 130
incorporated municipalities, which means working with distinct
neighborhoods requires a high-level of involvement and coordination.
The Redevelopment Authority is managed under an agreement
with the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development (ACED). The
ACED has a total of six authorities, all of which are directed by the
ACED Executive Director.
RAAC staff is provided by Allegheny County via the ACED.
Day-to-day operations are managed by the County Authorities Department
employees including a manager, two project managers, and one
administrative assistant. Other county employees are assigned to
projects as needed. Business Development Department employees usually
work on specific redevelopment projects. For example, the Development
Group within the Business Development Department is primarily
responsible for working with brownfield sites and other redevelopment
The five-member Redevelopment Board of Directors is
appointed by the Chief Executive.34 Board members cannot be dismissed
until their term ends. The members are appointed for a five-year
Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County Structure
The Board of Directors is a staff-driven board. The
Authorities Department staff prepare the agenda items and bring projects
to the board for their approval. The board relies on staff to provide
them with all necessary information. According to the Board of
Director’s Chairman, the staff does an excellent job of presenting
quality proposals forth. The board reviews them quite thoroughly to
ensure projects are worthy of having government participation, as well
as ensuring that they benefit a major portion of the county.
The board is able to act efficiently, largely due to the
fact that staff presents only thoroughly developed proposals that meet
the board’s standards.
The Board of Directors meet once a month in public
meetings. The Board does not work directly with the County Chief
Executive or County Commissioners. The staff ensures county government
officials are informed. Transparency and constant communication means
there are few problems or uncertainties raised by County leadership. As
a courtesy, the Business Development of ACED group provides
the chief executive a monthly listing of projects.
The Chief Executive of Allegheny County determines the
Mission towards which all Departments and Authorities achieve. The
primary objectives include developing areas surrounding the airport and
redeveloping brownfield sites. Allegheny County is currently developing
a consolidated plan to further guide all redevelopment projects in the
The Redevelopment Authority has many of the powers of the
County government. This includes issuance of limited obligation bonds
and eminent domain.
RAAC issues limited obligations bonds. The County is
never liable for bond payment or providing revenue, and the city is
protected from legal prosecution. The bond financing is carefully
structured to ensure that, in the case of a default, the security laid
down in the form of real-estate is sufficient to cover the default.
Bonds almost always carry insurance. Investors often require or feel
more comfortable with insurance attached to a bond.
The Authority does not have to approach any form of
government for authorization to issue bonds. However, tax exempt bonds
need the highest elected official’s approval for the issuance of
bonds, or the County Executive.
The State Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945 provides
Authorities with powers of eminent domain. As such, RAAC is able to
employ eminent domain to tackle largescale redevelopment projects.
The RAAC signs an annual agreement with the Allegheny
County Department of Economic Development (ACED) to determine services
and fees. The Agreement determines that AEDC agrees to provide direct
services to RAAC, including staff personnel, office space and utilities,
and other administrative or secretarial services. The RAAC agrees to pay
the ACED a set amount each year to defray administrative costs. In 2006
the amount was $200,000. Besides the set fees, the County has a fee
structure in place for bonds issued by RAAC. Such fees go directly into
the general fund to pay for overhead and indirect costs.
The RAAC is a conduit for many state and federal grants.
The AEDC charges a fee to administer those grants if appropriate. It is
much easier for the Authority to be the applicant and recipient for a
grant because of the somewhat onerous legislative process a County
government must go through for approval. The RAAC board approves grants
that come in and the County can thus administer the grant much more
The total annual operating budget of RAAC is about $1.4
million. The organization’s revenue is generated from annual
administrative fees, annual Tax Increment Financing fees, the Economic
Development Fund, interest income, Redevelopment Assistance Capital
Program grant revenue, and other income.
Select Projects & Activities
Former Firth Sterling Redevelopment: $350,00035
The former Firth Sterling Redevelopment Project is 17
acre brownfield in the City of McKeesport. The Redevelopment Authority
of Allegheny County (RAAC) acquired this brownfield in 2004. To date the
RAAC has completed the removal of all hazardous and non-hazardous
materials. The current funds will assist in demolition of 10 structures
and infrastructure development in preparation for resale of the property
EPA Grant for Brownfields Redevelopment
In 2005 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded
$600,000 to the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County to assess,
cleanup and redevelop abandoned industrial sites into community assets
throughout Allegheny County.
Tech 21 Research Park
The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County recently
received a $3,000,000 loan and a $1,208,000 grant to develop Tech 21
Research Park in Marshall Township. Business in Our Sites (BOS) funds
will be used for engineering, the construction of a spine road, storm
sewers, water and sewer line extensions and off-site improvements.36 The
223-acre site will accommodate 16 parcels for facilities to serve
Allegheny Home Improvement Loan Program (AHILP)
The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County sponsors
the AHILP program to maintain affordable housing units countywide. The
revolving loan is eligible homeowners to fund home improvements and
repairs to owner-occupied properties. AHILP utilizes Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Department of Community and
Economic Development (DCED) funds and possibly revenue bond funds to
offer low and no-interest loans to homeowners whose household income is
within program guidelines. In conjunction to a loan, grant funds are
also available toward a portion of the cost of certain types of eligible
improvements including accessibility items and lead hazard control
items. Approximately 50 loans are expected to be committed in 2007 under
Pre-Development Fund: $400,000
The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County is
working on numerous preliminary development initiatives around the
County. The Development Division is working with developers, property
owners, municipal officials and others to cultivate
development/redevelopment opportunities in several municipalities
including Tarentum, Clairton, Braddock, Coraopolis, and Neville
Township. The pre-development fund is used for activities such as appraisals, feasibility
analysis, architectural and engineering work, title searches and other
Darnell, Moses. Authorities Department Manager, Allegheny
County Economic Development. Interview March 12, 2007.
Quarantillo, Paul. Board of Directors Chairperson,
Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County. Interview March 12, 2007.
B. City Agency: Portland Development Commission and City
of Phoenix Downtown Development Office
Two examples of economic development functions managed by
an agency or department within the City government were studied:
- Portland Development Commission
- City of Phoenix Downtown Development
Office (DDO), Community and Economic Development Department (CED), and
the Neighborhood Services Department.
The Portland Development Commission is an autonomous
subsidiary of the City of Portland with an all private-sector, Mayor
nominated Board of Directors, known as Commissioners in the case of PDC.
The Executive Director reports to the Commission instead of the City
government. The City is included in the decision making process as it
provides the funding for many of its programs.
The City of Phoenix on the other hand manages various
development and redevelopment efforts in-house through its three
departments. The Downtown Development Office has the biggest portfolio
with major development efforts underway in the downtown. The
Neighborhood Services Department works in neighborhoods on smaller real
estate projects such as attracting neighborhood retail, in-fill housing
etc. The Community & Economic Development Department provides
financial services in terms of real estate loans to businesses and
residents, but not involved with construction activities.
Details about both the entities are below.
Portland Development Commission
Portland voters created the Portland Development
Commission (PDC) in 1958 as a city agency to administer projects and
programs that achieve the city’s housing, employment, economic
development, and redevelopment objectives. The PDC’s mission is to
bring together community resources to achieve Portland’s vision of a
strong economy with healthy neighborhoods and quality jobs.
Area of Focus
The PDC serves the City of Portland (estimated population
533,427 in 2005) and provides some contracted services to the
surrounding tri-county region. The Commission’s programs and services
focus on neighborhood revitalization, housing development and job
Revitalization: To keep neighborhoods bustling, PDC
works with residents, renters, homeowners, business owners and nonprofit
organizations to expand affordable housing and quality jobs in the city
by providing an array of services such as planning and market analysis.
They also assemble underused property and help bring together the
public/private partners and finances needed to accomplish housing,
retail, office and other projects.
Housing: PDC’s housing programs
target a variety of Portland’s housing goals and objectives involving
different densities, mixed-use, transit-orientation, and affordability.
To help stabilize neighborhoods and keep people in their homes, PDC
offers several loan programs for home purchase, refinancing or repair.
They also help finance and develop multi-family housing for a variety of
Job Creation: PDC offers both direct
and indirect assistance to businesses looking to expand or locate in the
Portland area including business loans or help locating the right site.
They also provide geographically-specific small business loan programs
The Housing, Development and Economic Development
departments are the Operating departments, where as the other three are
the Administrative departments.
Budget & Staff39
The total budget for PDC’s operating departments is
$209.8 million, or 91% of the Total Expenditure Budget. The total budget
for PDC’s administrative departments is $17.8 million. The Development
Department has the largest budget at $98.9 million for FY 2006-07, a
major portion of which comes from Tax Increment Financing. The Housing
and Economic Development Departments have budgets of $76.3 million and
$34.5 million respectively.
PDC had 176 full time employees. Housing is the biggest
operating department with 37 employees, while Executive is the biggest
administrative department with 37 employees.
The major sources of funding for PDC are: tax increment
finance (TIF), federal and other grants, and income from various
programs and service disbursements. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is the
primary funding mechanism for PDC projects. The City of Portland also
contributes to PDC through a General Fund allocation, which funds
economic development activities outside the urban renewal areas.
While the PDC does not have the power to tax, raise
bonds, or use eminent domain, as a city agency it has institutional ties
to those departments of the city government which do have those powers.
In the case of raising bonds, PDC can initiate the process to issue
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRBs).
Governance and Decision Making41
Commission Composition and Selection
The Commission is governed by a five-member, volunteer
citizen board of Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor and approved by
City Council. The Commission develops the PDC’s mission and policies,
and approves proposed PDC projects. While the PDC is an agency of the
City of Portland, the Executive Director reports to the Commission and
not the Mayor and/or City Council. This structure was created to allow
the agency to implement programs and focus resources independently and
not at the direction of any one city Commissioner.
Decision Making Process
Commission business is conducted at monthly public
meetings and all PDC activities are guided by a five-year plan.
Decisions are made in the organization through the Commissioners, the
Executive Director, and the Department Directors. The city government
participates in decision making to the extent that it sets budget
allocations for some agency resources. In addition it acts in an
advisory capacity for programs and projects.
Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses
The main advantage of the PDC lies in the combination of
different programmatic functions within one organization, ranging from
urban renewal and housing to economic development. The initiatives are
coordinated using staff and services from all of the departments.
A disadvantage of coordinating diverse types of programs
is that there are sometimes conflicts between downtown residential
housing and business development. Given the structure of the organization, though, these conflicts
can be resolved internally in a way in which all the major stakeholders
can be taken into account.
PDC projects are some of the most well-known in the city:
- Development of Museum Place,
Eastbank Esplanade, Portland's Rose Quarter, Light Rail to the Airport
and North Interstate Avenue, The Classical Chinese Garden, Pioneer
Place, Pioneer Courthouse Square, Walnut Park Retail Center, RiverPlace,
Chinatown Gateway, renovation of historic Union Station, and the
redevelopment of the North Park Blocks.
- Renovation of historic and
underutilized buildings downtown into affordable housing. Examples
include the Sally McCracken Building, the Golden West, Mark Hatfield
Building and Swindells Building.
- Thousands of loans to Portland
homeowners to make needed repairs to their homes. These loans not only
ensure that these houses remain up to code, but are also safe to live
- Over 7,000 loans to owners of rental
housing to fix substandard rental units and maintain affordable rents.
Notable projects include 333 Oak, Rose City Village and the Maya
Angelou. Loans for construction of new affordable rental housing include
the St. Francis, Kafoury Commons, Betty Campbell, Rosemount Commons and
- A variety of significant Economic
Development projects including the recruitment of Qwest Communications
International customer service center, Watermark Sports, the re-opening
of Physicians Hospital and the expansion of Harris Soup Company (Harry's
- Sears, Colin. Economic Development
Manager, Portland Development Commission. Interviewed March 15th 2007
City of Phoenix – Downtown Development Office
The City of Phoenix, AZ implements its economic
development functions through three major departments within the
government: the Downtown Development Office (DDO), the Community and
Economic Development Department (CED), and the Neighborhood Services
The Downtown Development Office is responsible for major
real estate development projects in downtown Phoenix. The Community and
Economic Development Department works to foster business and economic
growth in Phoenix and provides various valueadded services to achieve
this goal. In relation to real estate development projects, CED provides
loans to business and residents for real estate development. The
Neighborhood Services Department works on small real estate
development projects in the neighborhoods, outside the downtown.
Downtown Development Office (DDO)
The DDO was created in 2004 as a separate department out
of the Community and Economic Development Department’s Central City
Division. It provides focus to the large scale redevelopment efforts
undertaken by the City of Phoenix in the revitalization of its downtown.
The department creates or facilitates development
activities that create or retain jobs, enhances city revenues and
enhances the quality of life in the downtown redevelopment area43.
Activities of the department are guided by a strategic plan called
“Downtown Phoenix: A Strategic Vision and Blueprint for the future”
for downtown development over the next ten years. Major projects
currently underway in the downtown area include the Biomedical Campus at
Copper Square, Valley Metro Rail transit system, the new 1,000 room
Sheraton hotel, the development of the new 15,000 student Arizona State
University Downtown Phoenix campus, the establishment of the University
of Arizona medical school, and the development of approximately 2,000
student housing units.
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD)
This department was created to preserve and improve the
physical, social and economic health of Phoenix neighborhoods, support
neighborhood self-reliance, and enhance the quality of life for
residents through community-based problem solving, neighborhoodoriented
services and public/private cooperation. The department investigates
complaints of un-maintained properties and zoning violations; provides
home maintenance training; assists residents with home repairs; removes
graffiti and provides paint and tools for neighborhood clean ups;
provides landlord/tenant counseling; designates and protects historic
neighborhoods; promotes the establishment of neighborhood associations;
and administers the Community Development Block Grant Program44.
Community and Economic Development Department (CED)
CED stimulates economic activity by offering a diverse
range of value-added business programs to build, revitalize, and sustain
a quality community for Phoenix businesses and residents. It is
responsible for providing assistance to new or expanding businesses;
negotiating development agreements for office, retail and industrial
projects; marketing the city to regional, national and international
businesses; and providing facilities and services that encourage
convention activity, cultural events, entertainment attractions,
community development and sporting events in Phoenix45.
Funding and Staff46
Below is a table that outlines the operating budget
amounts for each department, their funding sources and staff. Being city
departments, the most important source of funding for all the
departments is the General Fund. In addition, grants from several
federal and state funds support various programs.
Downtown Development Office
Neighborhood Services Department
Community and Economic Development Department
Operating Budget (FY 2006)
Sources of funding
General Fund = $3.4 million
Others include Sports Facilities and Convention Center
General Fund = $13.6 million
CDBG = $11.3 million
Others include Federal and State Grant trust, HOME Program Grant and
other restricted funds
General Fund = $2.8 million
CDBG = $1.06 million
City Improvement = $2.8 million
Fed. & State Grant Trust = $6.4 million
HSD Grant = $7.6 million
Miscellaneous other sources also contribute
Financing and Powers
As part of the city government, DDO has the ability to
initiate eminent domain, though there are multiple levels of approval it
needs to go through before obtaining a majority Council vote. The City
of Phoenix does not utilize Tax Increment Financing for its projects,
though bonds are used in financing different types of projects. However,
the City decides the limit for each department to take on debt and
therefore bonds are considered to be an effective financing tool
available for redevelopment projects.
Departments coordinate with each other as well as other
city departments on various projects to offer comprehensive services to
residents and businesses. For example, the CED helps with business
attraction to small neighborhood communities and works in coordination
with the NSD in locating them in “target” areas identified by them.
The DDO works in partnership with a number of other city departments
such as Street Transportation, Public Works, Parks and Recreation etc.
on projects in downtown.
The departments also partner on projects to leverage
private sector funds. For example, the DDO and CED have worked in
partnership to attract the Arizona State University to locate its new
campus in downtown Phoenix. New market tax credits and historic tax credits will be used in the redevelopment of a number of
historic buildings located on the site of the new campus. While the CED
manages the financial aspects of the deal, the DDO will be working with
developers on the redevelopment aspects of the project.
Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses
The main advantage of a city agency / department is that
it helps maintain focus on public interests through accountability and
oversight by the City Council and Mayor. In addition, economic
development projects can be integrated into the broader development
goals of the City.
The major challenges faced by these city departments are
the cumbersome procurement and personnel systems. The departments are
not able to move quickly to ensure timely completion of projects.
- Chan, John. Director, Downtown
Development Office, City of Phoenix. Interviewed March 15th 2007
- Franco, Roberto. Director, Community
and Economic Development Department, City of Phoenix. Interviewed March
- Harris, John. Acting Deputy
Director, Downtown Development Office, City of Phoenix. Interviewed
March 15th 2007.
C. Detroit Economic Growth Corporation
In 1978, the Jobs and Business Development Task Force of
the Economic Growth Council of Detroit recommended the creation of an
organization devoted solely to the economic development of the city. As
a result, the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC) was
established. Its mandate is to help businesses provide jobs, leverage
private investment, and serve as the lead implementing agency for
business retention, attraction and economic development initiatives. The
DEGC is a private-public partnership, bringing together public sector
policies and priorities with private sector development and investment
interests to strengthen Detroit’s economic development.
The Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC) was
established by state and local legislation as nonprofit corporation with
the 501(c)(4) legal designation in order to own land and property, and
to be able to earn short-term profits for investment. The DEGC has a
subsidiary, the Detroit Economic Growth Association (DEGA), which is a
“paper corporation” established as a 501(c)(3), private nonprofit to
be able to receive charitable contributions.
The DEGC also provides staff services to the city’s
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment
Authority (DBRA), Economic Development Corporation (EDC), Neighborhood
Development Corporation (NDC), Local Development Finance Authority
(LDFA), and Tax Increment Finance Authority (TIFA). This federation of
organizations brings together the public powers of the city and
quasi-public development tools of the EDC, DBRA and the DDA with the
expertise and resources of the private sector to further business growth
and development in the city. These public and private economic
development resources and tools are coordinated within the framework of
the DEGC, and they are extended to the community through the technical,
financial and development assistance available at DEGC47.
Areas of Focus
The DEGC serves the City of Detroit with its population
of 950,000 residents. It has taken a real-estate transaction-oriented
approach to economic development since its inception, focusing largely
on project-oriented activities including a variety of large and small
enterprises in both the downtown district and in the city’s
neighborhoods. Resources have been directed towards providing technical,
financial and development assistance to business retention, expansion,
and attraction. Approximately 75 percent of its administrative and
program expenditures are oriented towards real estate development
The DEGC has a number of focuses for its real estate
development activities, which include:
- Downtown & Neighborhood Revitalization
- Market & Financial Analysis
- Land Acquisition / Assembly
- Financial Assistance
- Technical Assistance
- Property Management
- Traffic & Parking Studies
- Obtaining Regulatory Approvals
- Project Management
- Issuing Developer RFPs / RFQs
- Leasing Space
Land use types include office, residential, retail,
industrial, lodging, and audience support.
Budget & Staff
The DEGC has an annual budget of approximately $3.1
million. The staff and financial resources of the DEGC go to four
components, that of financial services, business development, project
management and administration. The Financial Services Group is
responsible for financial administration and loan structuring for
projects. The Business Development Group is responsible for business
attraction and retention. The Project Management Group plans and
develops individual real-estate initiatives.
Eighty percent of the annual operating budget for the
DEGC comes from the City of Detroit General Fund. Staff services are
provided to the City of Detroit through the DDA and EDC subsidiaries.
Approximately, 20 percent of annual funding comes from private sources.
The DEGC’s loan portfolio of approximately $50 million
represents direct investment in more than 65 projects, many of which are
small businesses for whom the DEGC was the primary source of support.
Since its inception, DEGC and its affiliates have invested more than $1
billion in public funds to leverage more than $4 billion in private
The sources of capital investment for projects through
DEGC have included:
- HUD Urban Development Action Grant
- Commercial Area Stabilization (CAS)
- SBA 503 & 504 Programs
- Industrial Revolving Loan Funds
- Bank Line of Credit
- Small Business Loan Transaction Program
- Tax Increment Finance Authority
- Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
- City of Detroit Local Development
Finance Authority (LDFA)
- Tax Increment & debt service
revenues through DDA
- Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs)
issued through the EDC
Through the different corporate entities which make up
the DEGC, it is able to issue bonds (EDC), receive tax increment
revenues (DDA), and use the power of eminent domain through Michigan’s
“Quick Take Condemnation Statute.”
Governance and Decision Making
Board Composition and Selection
The DEGC is administered by a single board of directors
and president. There are 60 board members, and an executive committee of
20, which exercises the full authority of the board of directors when it
makes decisions. Board composition is characterized by seven developers,
five representatives from the financial sector, six members from the
retail sector, five from the manufacturing sector, eight from
government, three from utilities, three from accounting firms, two from
labor organizations, three from the health industry, five attorneys, two
from academia, six from the service industry, and eight others.
Members of the board of directors are nominated by the
Mayor and approved by the Council. The mayor and three members of his
cabinet are ex-officio board members. Board members are reported to be
active participants in the program.
Decision Making Process
Decisions regarding policy, finance and major project
initiatives are made by the president and the board of directors.
Administrative, budgeting, and programmatic decisions are made by the
president, vice-presidents, Chief Financial Officer, the director of
business development, and the project management director during regular
administrative meetings. Daily operational decisions are made within the
three core components by the directors and their staffs, or by
cross-component project staff.
Functions and tasks are allocated through three
departments 1) Business Development (business retention, attraction, and
marketing); 2) Financial Services (from loan/contract negotiation to
financial administration); and 3) Project Management (from
predevelopment through construction).
Relations with Other Economic Development Organizations
DEGC efforts represent the City of Detroit’s
determination to support business and ensure the necessary financing
tools are available. As such, the City of Detroit is the primary client
of the DEGC. The DEGC works with individual businesses, entrepreneurs,
developers, and the City government when undertaking individual
The management staff participates in a number of public
and private forums that bring together the various actors in city
economic development. This collaboration helps to share ideas and
information among network members, maximize resources, and avoid overlap
Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of the organization lie in the structure of
the DEGC, which supports the integration of public and private sector
policies and strategies.
The weakness of the organization lies in its dependence
on the city bureaucratic process for the release of funds. This
frequently causes delays in the availability of funds to pay contracts,
and this slows project implementation.
- Papapanos, Art. Vice President,
Board Administration, Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. Interviewed
March 13th 2007.
1 International Economic Development Training Manual:
Real-Estate Redevelopment & Reuse. IEDC, 2006.
2 From the Washington, DC Economic Partnership, 2006
Neighborhood Retail Opportunities.
4 Federal Property & Administrative Services Act
of 1949, available at http://epw.senate.gov/fpasa49.pdf
5 Real Property Act of 2006, available at http://222.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill+h109-3699&type=cho
6 From the Washington, DC Economic Partnership, 2006
Neighborhood Retail Opportunities
7 Proposed Revitalization Plan of the National Capital
Revitalization Corporation. December, 2000. Available at, http://www.dcwatch.com/ncrc/
8 National Capital Revitalization Corporation Act of 1998
Bill 12-514, DC Law 12-144. From DC Watch Archives, available at: http://www.dcwatch.com/archives/council12/12-514.htm
9 Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. May
10 DC Watch Archives, May 3, 2000. Available at, http://www.dcwatch.com/ncrc/000503.htm
11 NCRC Revitalization Plan. Available at, http://www.dcwatch.com/ncrc/001207.htm
12 The National Capital Revitalization Corporation,
“NCRC Project Profile: Projects and Initiatives for 2002-2007”.
13 The National Capital Revitalization Corporation,
“NCRC Project Profile: Projects and Initiatives for 2002-2007”.
14 The Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan, Office of
Planning, District of Columbia, November 2003
15 State of the Corporation Report, February 2007, AWC
Anacostia Waterfront Act of 2004
18 AWC. Available at, http://www.anacostiawaterfront.net/ABOUTUS/tabid/53/Default.aspx
19 AWC. Available at, http://www.anacostiawaterfront.net/NEWS/tabid/54/mid/378/newsid378/79/Press
20 Extract from Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Marketing Kit, 2007
23 Summarized from Projects Update, Anacostia Waterfront
Corporation, February 21, 2007
24 From the Washington, DC Economic Partnership, 2006
Neighborhood Retail Opportunities
25 The Development Corporation of Columbia Heights. http://www.dcch.org/html/dcusa.html
26 Projects Update, Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, Feb
27 AWC, http://anacostiawaterfront.net/PROJECTS/BALLPARKDISTRICT/tabid/76/Default.aspx
28 AWC, http://anacostiawaterfront.net/PROJECTS/POPLARPOINT/tabid/77/Default.aspx
29 Projects Update, Anacostia Waterfront Corporation,
Feb 21, 2007
30 Comments made at the Public Hearing on B17-022
"NCRC and AWC Reorganization Act of 2007" on March 13th,
31 Alleghany County Economic Development. http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/ecodev/authorities/redevelopment_overview.aspx
32 “Allegheny County Economic Development and its
Authorities”, presented by ACED, 2006.
33 Allegheny County, http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/ecodev/authorities/redevelopment_overview.aspx
34 In 2000 Allegheny County became a Home Rule County
35 Allegheny County, Draft one year consolidated plan.
March 1, 2007 – - February 29, 2008 http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/ecodev/resources/conplan07.pdf
36 BOS projects work to create shovel-ready sites for
businesses through land acquisition, construction and feasibility
37 PA Power Port, http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?Q=444356&A=11&pp=12&n=1
38 PDC: Investing in Portland’s Future, Portland
Development Commission, March 2005
39 “Adopted Budget FY 2006-07”, Portland Development
40 Ibid. “Adopted Budget FY 2006-07”, Portland
41 Portland Development Commission website: http://www.pdc.us/about_pdc/faqs.asp
42 Portland Development Commission website: http://www.pdc.us/about_pdc/faqs.asp
43 City of Phoenix Operating Budget 2005-06: http://phoenix.gov/BUDGET/d6ddo.pdf
44 “Your City Government”, City of Phoenix website: ftp://phoenix.gov/pub/payf/yourgovt.pdf
46 City of Phoenix Operating Budget 2005-06: http://phoenix.gov/BUDGET/bud06sum.html
47 Detroit Economic Growth Corporation website: http://www.degc.org/main.cfm?location=5