Docstoc

A Tacoma Public Market

Document Sample
A Tacoma Public Market Powered By Docstoc
					        A Feasibility Study for



          A
  Tacoma Public Market




             Prepared for the
Tacoma Economic Development Department
      City of Tacoma, Washington

                    By

         The Scott Group LLC
             Seattle, WA
               April 15, 2005
           Urban revitalization...Economic development...Progress.

…Today there is a growing recognition among local governments, private
businesses, and community-based organizations that our cities need new
   definitions of "urban revitalization" and "economic development."

          To effect meaningful and lasting change, cities must create
                       places where people want to be.

Through Public Markets, we have the means to address many of the more
vexing problems of our cities: the need to bring people of different ethnic
 groups and incomes together; the need to make inviting and safe public
 spaces; the need to reinvigorate urban shopping districts and to support
  small-scale economic activity; the need to provide fresh, high quality
 produce to inner-city residents; and the need to protect open space and
                      preserve farming around cities.




      -    From the National Public Market Symposium sponsored by Projects for Public Spaces
                                                        THE SCOTT GROUP LLC
                                                   1300 NE 68th Street Seattle, Washington 98122
                                                                  thescottgroup@mindspring.com
                                             Office Phone: (206) 322-4570 Fax: (206) 322-1425


Mr. Ryan Petty
Director, Tacoma Economic Development Department
City of Tacoma.


Mr. Petty;

We are pleased to submit this initial feasibility study for a permanent public market in
downtown Tacoma. Following last year’s Downtown Retail Study by Maestri Design
Inc. and updated Downtown Housing Market Study by Real Vision, the City of Tacoma
Economic Development Department (TEDD) has continued to consider projects that will
leverage additional investment in the downtown core, while simultaneously providing
amenities to service the existing and growing downtown residential population.

Over the last five years Tacoma has flourished in providing new cultural, educational,
transportation and housing projects, yet downtown core has not achieved its inherent
potential in terms of basic retail and grocery service.

With existing public market structures in Seattle and Vancouver BC as well as planned or
recently completed public markets in Bellingham, Olympia, Puyallup and Portland, OR,
the Pacific Northwest is at the forefront of a growing national trend of revitalizing inner
cities through public markets. As downtown Tacoma looks towards its next stage of
growth, now is the time to explore the possibility of such an amenity for Tacoma.

With guidance and input from your department, this study was produced in three phases
over a three month period. The first phase consisted of interviewing the directors or
managers of eight public and farmers markets in the Pacific Northwest, and reviewing
related studies that the City of Tacoma already possessed. The second phase consisted of
interviews with local stakeholders, property owners and possible vendors and retailers. A
regional market analysis for a public market was also completed through this phase. The
third phase consisted of synthesizing the information assembled in the initial phases,
developing a pool of potential sites, generating a site selection matrix, building
development models and making several public market site recommendations.

The submittal of this document represents the completion of this feasibility study. It
contains the completed documentation of all three phases as well as our recommendations
and suggestions for next steps towards realizing a public market for downtown Tacoma.

Sincerely,

The Scott Group
Scott Surdyke, Scott Mackay, Scott Nodland
                                             Table of Contents
What is a Public Market?................................................................................................. v
What can a Public Market do for Tacoma? .................................................................. vi
  Reflecting the Community .......................................................................................... vi
  Serving the Region ...................................................................................................... vii
  Creating New Jobs and Fostering Economic Development .................................... vii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2
Section I: Review of Existing Documentation ............................................................... 5
  Ford Foundation Application, September 2004......................................................... 5
  2003 Downtown Retail Strategy Report ..................................................................... 5
Section II: Tacoma’s Public Market History ................................................................. 6
  1891: The C Street Market........................................................................................... 6
  1927: The Crystal Palace Market................................................................................ 6
  World War II: Demise of the Crystal Palace ............................................................. 8
Section III: Public Goals & Benefits of a Public Market ............................................. 8
  Serve Growing Downtown Residential Community.................................................. 8
  Business Incubator........................................................................................................ 8
  Promote Broader Economic Growth / Employment ................................................. 9
  Public Gathering Place / Building Community.......................................................... 9
  Tourism........................................................................................................................ 10
  Preserve Local Farmland ........................................................................................... 10
Section IV: Regional Market Analysis......................................................................... 10
  Methodology ................................................................................................................ 11
  Income Levels .............................................................................................................. 12
  Household Spending – Fresh Food Taken Home..................................................... 12
  Capture Rate and Unmet Demand............................................................................ 13
  Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 14
Section V: Interview Summaries .................................................................................. 15
  Regional Market Interviews....................................................................................... 15
  Local Stake Holder Interviews .................................................................................. 18
Section VI: Public Market Types ................................................................................. 22
  Farmers Market .......................................................................................................... 22
  Public Market.............................................................................................................. 22
  Festival Market ........................................................................................................... 23
Section VII: Public Market Facilities........................................................................... 23
  Open Air ...................................................................................................................... 23
  Shed Structure............................................................................................................. 23
  Market Hall ................................................................................................................. 24
  Market District............................................................................................................ 24
Section VIII: Public Market Governance (Ownership) ............................................. 24
  Full Public.................................................................................................................... 25
  Joint Venture............................................................................................................... 25
  Quasi Public................................................................................................................. 25
  Privately Owned.......................................................................................................... 25

The Scott Group                                                  ii                                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
  Co-Op ........................................................................................................................... 26
Section IX: Public Market Program ............................................................................ 26
  Public Goals & Space Planning ................................................................................. 27
  Size of Public Market.................................................................................................. 27
  Vendor Types .............................................................................................................. 28
  Vendor Mix.................................................................................................................. 29
  Other spaces (Restrooms, Storage, Garbage, Loading) .......................................... 30
  Space Planning / Layout............................................................................................. 31
  Parking Ratio .............................................................................................................. 33
Section X: Pre Development Strategies (Building Momentum) ................................ 34
  Feasibility Studies ....................................................................................................... 34
  Build Public & Political Support ............................................................................... 34
  Designate a Site ........................................................................................................... 35
  Zoning Review............................................................................................................. 35
  Maximize Public Grants and Other Subsidies ......................................................... 35
Section XI: Attracting Private Interest (Ownership) ................................................. 35
  Incentives ..................................................................................................................... 36
  Property Disposition Techniques............................................................................... 36
Section XII: Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 38
  Municipal Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 38
  County/State Funding Sources .................................................................................. 39
  Federal Funding Sources............................................................................................ 40
  Non-profit/Community Development Funding Sources.......................................... 40
  Appropriate Facility Type for Tacoma – A Market Hall........................................ 43
  Tacoma’s Program: General Size, Vendor Mix & Parking.................................... 44
  Operational Budget Comparisons (Regional/National) .......................................... 45
  Conceptual Operational Budget – Tacoma Market Hall ........................................ 48
  Ability to Carry Debt Burden.................................................................................... 51
Section XIV: Site Analysis and Selection..................................................................... 53
  Site Matrix & Definitions ........................................................................................... 57
  Site 1: Streets and Grounds Sites (Brewery District) ............................................. 64
  Site 2: Freighthouse Square (Dome District)........................................................... 68
  Site 3: Petrich/Bamford Property/East Side of Foss............................................... 72
  Site 4: Colonial Produce/Johnny’s Seafood (Foss Waterway).............................. 78
Section XV: Development Models ................................................................................ 81
  Participants in the Development Process.................................................................. 81
  Cost Estimations Excluded from This Study ........................................................... 81
  Conceptual Hard Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 82
  Conceptual Soft Costs Estimates ............................................................................... 82
  Cost Estimates – Top Four Sites................................................................................ 83
  Determining the Gap .................................................................................................. 86
  Financing the Gap....................................................................................................... 86
Section XVI: Conclusions & Recommendations......................................................... 87
Section XVII: Next Steps............................................................................................... 89
  Creating an Initial Public Market Task Force......................................................... 89
  Leverage City Assets................................................................................................... 89


The Scott Group                                                  iii                                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
  Refine the Site Analysis .............................................................................................. 89
  Refine the Financial Analysis..................................................................................... 90
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix I: Market Interviews ..................................................................................... 92
  Pike Place Market (Carole Binder)- Seattle, WA .................................................... 92
  Pike Place Market (George Rolfe)............................................................................. 95
  Granville Island Market- Vancouver, BC ................................................................ 97
  Olympia Farmers Market- Olympia, WA .............................................................. 104
  Depot Market Square- Bellingham, WA ................................................................ 107
  Pioneer Park Pavilion- Puyallup, WA .................................................................... 110
  Lonsdale Quay Market- North Vancouver, BC ..................................................... 113
  Westminster Quay- New Westminster, BC ............................................................ 116
Appendix II: Stake Holder Interviews....................................................................... 119
Appendix IV: National Markets ................................................................................. 132




The Scott Group                                                  iv                                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
                           Why a Public Market?
The Downtown Tacoma Retail Study, conducted in 2003 by Maestri Design, concluded
that it would be difficult for downtown Tacoma to attract national retailers at this time,
based on current population demographics. However, with all the cultural, educational
and residential investment that has taken place in Tacoma, the natural next step in
downtown’s renaissance is to provide opportunities for services and retail. In lieu of
national retailers or a retail anchor, the Maestri study implied that local businesses and
retailers would have to step up to the plate to fill the demand.

The study also concluded that the city center is underserved in terms of grocery and fresh
foods, so the genesis of this report is to explore the opportunity to meet this need. Cities
throughout the region and across the country are rediscovering public markets as a means
to providing a focal point for their downtown cores. In many instances, permanent
markets are being developed in downtowns that are otherwise overlooked initially by
grocery chains. In this respect, the development of a permanent public market could
provide downtown Tacoma with a prominent new “retail” anchor, which could in turn
attract additional retail, cultural and mixed-use development.

This study explores the viability and the potential demand for a year round public market
in downtown Tacoma, and also explores potential sites and development scenarios that
could be considered by the public or private sector.

                         What is a Public Market?
Public markets are far more than supermarkets or grocery stores serving a city in a
number of ways. First and foremost, like a grocery store, they provide easy access to
fresh, high quality food goods for area residents. However, they also serve as a primary
community gathering spot and in many instances become the “heart” of an urban center.
Public markets serve as family destinations, venues for local events and artisans and
business incubators. Webster’s dictionary defines the word public as: “Of or pertaining
to, or affecting the community or the people as a whole”, while market is defined as: “A
public gathering for purchasing and selling merchandise.” A public market is thus a true
gathering place for the entire community.

Today most basic food and grocery needs are met by national supermarket chains, but
from an aesthetic, and cultural standpoint they do not compare to the authenticity of a
public market. Public markets and farmers markets are the traditional showcases for
local products, where commercial supermarkets primarily import fresh food regardless of
its source. A unique aspect of public markets is that they bring the grower, the product
and the consumer together, for an experience rarely found in a typical grocery store.
Public markets also provide a unique visual experience, with daily and seasonal displays
of goods in a festive and busy atmosphere. Public markets also go beyond supermarkets


The Scott Group                              v                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
in their integration with other businesses such as restaurants, kitchenware stores and other
food related vendors.

Ideally, the experience of routinely shopping at a public market would be one that is
looked forward to, rather than something thought of as a necessary household chore. The
uniqueness of the products and the authenticity of the market experience helps create a
“story” that can be told with pride to family and guests: “I got it at the market.”


            What can a Public Market do for Tacoma?
The Pacific Northwest offers excellent examples of public markets and farmers markets.
Throughout the research conducted for this report and in numerous studies conducted by
institutions nationally, Seattle’s Pike Place Market and Vancouver’s Granville Island
market are cited as two of the outstanding examples of successful public markets in North
America. Given this, it was interesting to note that Tacoma’s last public market was built
and operated by the original developers of the Pike Place Market. There are great lessons
to be learned from understanding the evolution, organization and impact of these markets,
however the goal for the Tacoma Public Market would be to create a market that
responds to its surroundings and reflects what makes Tacoma unique.

Enhancing Existing Urban Fabric
A Tacoma Public Market is an opportunity to tie in with and enhance the city’s existing
urban fabric, much in the way that the new projects occurring downtown are currently
reinvigorating the downtown core by blending old and new. The City of Tacoma is
blessed with a rich history of industrial and maritime trades, which is complemented by
the historic structures that still stand throughout the downtown core. In reviewing
possible sites for a public market, strong consideration was given to the overall
neighborhood character including existing or historic structures. Existing structures found
throughout these sites include materials such as concrete, corrugated metal and brick, as
well as wood beam interiors (It was also pointed out that the Foss Waterway
Development Authority is storing a number of old growth beams from the Municipal
Dock, which could be incorporated into a new or renovated structure).

Reflecting the Community
A recurring theme mentioned during the interview of regional public market operators
was that public markets and farmers markets create a strong sense of community pride,
and they tend to become the “heart and soul” of a city. Public Markets are also a
reflection of the diversity of a community, with unique vendors and customers of all
ethnicities frequenting them.




The Scott Group                              vi                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Serving the Region
A Public Market in downtown Tacoma would not only serve the downtown core, but
would serve the Pierce County and South Sound region as well. Ease of access from I-5,
as well as a highly visible location, would serve as a beacon to bring thousands of visitors
into the downtown core on a regular basis. Building on the success of the Pike Place
Market and Olympia’s thriving Farmers Market, the Tacoma Public Market would
provide the essential market experience for Pierce County’s 753,000 residents.

Creating New Jobs and Fostering Economic Development
More than just a hub for fresh foods and specialty goods, public markets and farmers
markets are seen as catalysts for attracting additional economic development, leading to
vibrant new “market districts” in some cities. The success of adjacent high density,
mixed-use development found in other cities is a testament to the drawing power of these
attractions. The accompanying mix of uses can vary, with housing for low income
residents and the elderly being built alongside high end condominiums and apartments.
Businesses ranging from creative firms to start ups are also attracted to the vitality and
diversity of market districts. Industrial artist studios and live/work lofts can also be
found, as well as the producers of goods and light industrial uses. The City of Portland,
for example, estimates that its new public market will generate up to $500 Million in
adjacent mixed-use development.

The markets themselves are seen as good incubators for small businesses, and they offer
a multitude of full-time and part-time employment opportunities. Businesses such as
Starbucks and Sur la Table, which have become very successful national retailers, got
their start at the Pike Place Market. Tacoma may realize its own opportunity to develop a
unique new attraction such as a public market that will serve to generate local economic
development while at the same time providing the city with a timeless and useful amenity
that will be frequented and cherished by the entire region.




The Scott Group                              vii                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
                             Executive Summary

The conclusion of this report is that the City of Tacoma and the Pierce County region
could support a moderately-sized public market hall of 19,000 gross sf (9,500 net sf of
leasable vendor area), which would contain approximately 25 vendors. This proposed
market size (9,500 net sf) is less than half of the 21,000 net sf size of three comparable
public markets in the Vancouver BC area, and is roughly 60% the size of the national
average public market size of 15,300 (from Urban Land Institute/Project for Public
Spaces). We believe this size is also sufficient to attract peripheral economic
development, which could result in a larger, mixed-use market district similar to those
found in Seattle and Vancouver, BC, and planned for Portland, OR.

This study proposes a Tacoma Public Market Model with vendor gross sales of roughly
$4.5 million from existing potential gross sales opportunity (utilizing conservative
capture rates), in excess of $18 million. A public market in downtown Tacoma would
serve as an amenity convenient to its immediate and larger target market area, which
contains over 753,000 residents. The study’s conclusions are based upon on detail of
local demographics, including population per capita expenditure on grocery and food-
related goods, in the market analysis section of the report.

The market hall model proposed considers existing sites which are both appropriate for a
market hall structure and have the capacity for additional or periphery development
(potential to grow into a market-oriented district). This study’s research suggests distinct
economic advantages in the adaptive re-use of an existing structure (vs. new
construction), assuming a market hall structure with an estimated development cost of
approximately $1.7 million (plus costs of land and tenant improvements).

Site visits and interviews of the directors of eight regional markets from Portland, OR to
Vancouver, BC, were conducted for this report, (and measured against other background
research on national public market experiences), as well as numerous interviews with
local stakeholders and property owners.

The demand for public markets and farmers markets is growing both regionally and
nationally, and smaller cities are finding them to be successful in promoting additional
economic development. As Tacoma still has plentiful site options in its downtown core,
there is good potential for Tacoma to realize a new mixed-use “market district,” which
could encompass several blocks and provide a strong new regional retail anchor for its
growing downtown core.




The Scott Group                               2                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
Top Four Recommended Sites for the Tacoma Public Market
Based on existing studies as well as input from the case study interviews, a set of criteria
was established from which to evaluate the potential sites (please see Section XIV). From
fifteen initial sites, four were chosen as the most probable locations for a public market,
and with the greatest potential for promoting additional economic development.
The sites are:

    1. The “Streets & Grounds” Site (Brewery District): Includes three City-owned
       parcels located at South 23rd & Holgate Street. The central parcel, formerly a
       maintenance shop, includes a two-story concrete warehouse that could serve as
       the main market hall. The configuration of these multiple warehouse structures
       would give the market an historic feel and potential for a sprawling market
       district, similar to that of the Pike Place Market.

    2. Freighthouse Square/Pierce Transit Plaza (Dome District): Includes the 380’
       portion of Freighthouse Square located west of the Sounder lobby, the outdoor
       plaza of the Pierce Transit garage, and the adjacent property known as the “Pierce
       Transit Shed.” This portion of Freighthouse Square could be renovated into a
       public market hall, while the Pierce Transit plaza would house the Farmers
       Market . Additional market and mixed-uses could be developed in the adjacent
       Pierce Transit property. This market would have high visibility and excellent
       freeway access.

    3. Petrich/Bamford Site (East Side of Foss Waterway): Includes two potential sites
       that flank the east side of the Murray Morgan Bridge, which are currently owned
       by Claire Petrich and Kathryn Bamford. Both properties have existing structures
       that could serve as market halls, and there is plenty of open space for parking and
       for a farmers market. A market at this location would have high visibility, and
       could build off of the existing “Tideflat Trader” merchants, which sell a range of
       imports and crafts. This model, which would also consider additional arts and
       maritime uses, would be similar in concept to Vancouver’s Granville Island
       Market.

        Note: At the time of this report both property owners (Claire Petrich and Kathryn
        Bamford) expressed interest in the market concept. However, we understand that
        the Petrich property is under consideration for the Urban Waters project, which
        may affect its availability.

    4. Colonial Produce/Johnny’s Seafood (West Side of the Foss Waterway): These
       two sites could anchor a mixed-use development that would provide a major new
       attraction and amenity for the south end of the Foss Waterway. The site currently
       houses Johnny’s Seafood, which could remain or could be incorporated into a
       new or renovated structure. The zoning and location lends itself to a high-density,
       mixed-use component, which would most likely be developed on adjacent sites.


The Scott Group                              3                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
    Per the evaluation results summarized in the Site Matrix (Section XIV), there were
    three additional sites whose score was comparable to the Colonial Produce/Johnny’s
    Seafood site. However, because of expressed interest by the Foss Waterway
    Development Authority as well as recent news articles and discussions of a market at
    this location, it was determined that this site should be considered to be among the
    top four because of the interest expressed for a market at this location.




The Scott Group                             4                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
Section I: Review of Existing Documentation
As part of the report The Scott Group reviewed four existing reports the city has
commissioned or possessed that related to either public markets or downtown retail
demand. The Scott Group reviewed these reports and incorporated relevant information
and analysis from them into this report. The first report was an initial City-sponsored
study that identified the municipal garage at 9th & Commerce as the best site for a public
market (this site was considered one of the potential sites for this study). The additional
publications were as follows:

Ford Foundation Application, September 2004
The Tacoma’s Farmers Market applied in September of 2004 to the Ford Foundation for
$65,000 grant. The grant was to assist the Farmers Market in carrying out a three-phased
feasibility study for expanding the Farmers Market and creating a exploring a permanent
market location. The grant application cited the Dome District and a location near the
light rail station as the most likely future home for a permanent farmers market. This area
was preferred because of its parking reservoir, access to a multimode transportation
network and its ability to house a transitional market location on the plaza of the Sound
Transit parking garage until a permanent home was identified. The Farmers Market also
considered the adjacent metal-clad shed structure owned by Pierce Transit. This site has
also drawn interest from Mercy Housing for an affordable housing project. If Mercy
Housing moved forward they had expressed a willingness to consider the Farmers Market
as the user of all or some portion of their required retail ground floor. Unfortunately, the
Tacoma Farmers Market did not receive the grant.

2003 Downtown Retail Strategy Report
The Tacoma Economic Development Department hired Maestri Design Inc. to develop a
strategy and linked recommendations for revitalizing Tacoma’s downtown retail. In
doing this, Maestri met with numerous stakeholders as well as physically assessed the
appearance and operational trends of downtown retail establishments. They also carried
out a more formal retail audit. The Audit noted substantial unmet demand for 375,000sf
to 500,000sf of retail. Of this, 75,000sf to 100,000sf of the demand was for grocery or
personal service establishments. Following their assessment they delivered a series of
recommendations for improving the downtown retail environment. Their primary
recommendations were:

        •    Brand five “nodes” (small activity hubs) in the city
        •    Create a unified system of way-finding between these nodes
        •    Market downtown with a unified message
        •    Implement design review




The Scott Group                              5                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
Residential Market Analysis for Downtown Tacoma
Tacoma Economic Development Department has used Suzanne Britsch of Real Vision
Research, Inc to prepare a housing supply and demand study for downtown Tacoma Ms.
Britsch estimates that there is an annual demand for 1,617 units per year, 355 to 550 of
which are for-sale units. Alternately she found that the developers are only supplying
approximately 700 units a year, which are primarily for-sale units. The report noted
several amenities that downtown Tacoma still lacks that are high on the list for attracting
downtown residents. Of note were;

        •    Lack of on-site parking for renovated buildings
        •    Lack of grocery and /or convenience stores
        •    Lack of major retail shopping
        •    Lack of high-quality or upscale restaurants

The report also noted that price points for housing have been growing rapidly, with the
majority of units in 2001 selling for between $100,000 and $149,000 and in 2004 this
range has moved up to between $300,000 and $349,000 with the highest priced units
selling above $500,000.




Section II: Tacoma’s Public Market History
For many cities, the development of a public markets today serves to create a link to the
grand historic markets of the past, and Tacoma is no exception. As part of The Scott
Group’s basic investigation into a public market for the City of Tacoma, we researched
the city’s history of public markets to find that indeed public markets had a strong
presence in Tacoma until after WWII..

1891: The C Street Market
Tacoma built its first public market hall in 1891 between 23rd & 25th Streets, on C Street.
The market was an all wood shed structure, but designed in the classical revival style
featuring arches and columns. Originally designed as a 600 foot long structure, only the
first portion of the hall was built, measuring 133’x 46’ (6,118 sf). It is unclear what
happened to this market but Tacoma’s growing population coupled with the City of
Destiny’s ambitious attitude led to the construction of a grand new public market in 1927.

1927: The Crystal Palace Market
Billed as “The Northwest’s Greatest Food Emporium,” the Crystal Palace Market,
located on the SE corner of Market Street and S. 11th, was built at a cost of $300,000 by
Arthur Goodwyn, president of Seattle’s Pike Place Market. As Mr. Goodwyn liked to
proclaim, Tacoma’s Crystal Palace Market was “One of the largest of its kind in the
The Scott Group                               6                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
world.” Indeed the market was large, with 189 permanent vendors in a multileveled
60,000 square foot structure.




In addition, the building featured a covered, open-air arcade with 50 tables for farmers.
Onsite restaurants and office space were also featured. He noted in one interview that:

        “Under the one roof of the market will be assembled the finest,
        largest and most complete display of foodstuffs to be found
        anywhere. . . . Other market buildings along Market Street….will
        eventually have to conform, giving Tacoma a typical modern and
        metropolitan market district”

The large size and variety of the Crystal Palace Market was the result of a study of “the
most successful market types,” by market planner Charles B. Hurley. He concluded that
a “combination market” that included permanent merchants indoors and seasonal
producers (farmers) in the adjacent arcade would be the best model. The market was
built of reinforced concrete with brick and terra cotta exterior, which is also typical of the
historic structures found at the Pike Place Market. The market featured four levels that
were connected by a series of ramps, and a third level skybridge that connected it with
The Fisher Company, a large department store. The lowest level featured market stalls, a
50-ton refrigeration unit and parking. The second (mid) level, between the alley and
Market Street, featured market stalls, lunch counters, barber shop and a grocer store.
Third floor (Market Street) featured 60 stalls. Fourth floor featured office space.


The Scott Group                               7                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
World War II: Demise of the Crystal Palace
The internment of the Japanese was largely blamed as the reason for the demise of the
Crystal Palace Market. Over half of the permanent merchants and seasonal farmers were
Japanese, and within months the Market was in default with its lenders. The market
changed its format and tried to adapt, adding a pharmacy, a large grocery store (Piggly
Wiggly), and finally tried to survive as a bowling alley. The overall decline of downtown
Tacoma and the rise of post WWII national grocery market chains helped to seal the fate
of the Crystal Palace, and the building was eventually demolished.




Section III: Public Goals & Benefits of a Public Market
The City of Tacoma has invested a great deal in specific infrastructure and cultural
amenity projects over the last few years. There has in fact been just over $1 billion in
public and private investments in the downtown core in the last 5 years. Major public
investments included a satellite campus for the University of Washington, the new
Tacoma Art Museum and the Museum of Glass, Sound Transit’s new LINK light rail line
and multimodal transit station, the new convention center, the new esplanade on the Foss
Waterway and the Chihuly Bridge of Glass. These public investments have prompted
private investment that includes a number of new housing projects (both for-sale and for
rent) as well as new restaurants, cafes, and the new Marriott Hotel. The Tacoma
Economic Development Department (TEDD) would like to see this momentum
continued. They believe a public market would do this on several levels:

Serve Growing Downtown Residential Community
TEDD believes that Downtown Tacoma continues to lack several critical amenities
sought by residential dwellers, one of the most basic of which is convenient, quality
grocery selection. Currently in the area near downtown Tacoma there is only one such
quality merchant, the Stadium Thriftway. Though a public market does not bring the full
spectrum of goods that a modern full service supermarket can, a public market does a
superior job of delivering quality food goods. Any such market would however need to
be a seven day a week, year round operation if it is to serve a role similar to a
supermarket or grocery store. A market also generally brings a cache to an area that’s
usually not achievable by a typical grocery store. Such an addition would greatly assist
in making downtown more appealing to residential dwellers.

Business Incubator
There is a growing awareness that small local businesses are an ever increasing important
player in job growth. They are in fact believed by economists to be responsible for a
majority of the job growth in this country. This has led local and national leaders to
search for new ways to support entrepreneurs and small businesses. In this effort to grow

The Scott Group                             8                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
business a great deal of attention has been focused on the production side of business.
However not all products are for export and the importance of distribution is just as
important. Public markets offer entrepreneurs and startup businesses something they
cannot create by themselves; viable locations in which to sell their products or services.

The relative affordability of stalls makes a public markets a natural incubator for new
food-oriented businesses. Compared to leasing typical retail space, market stalls offer
much lower financial risk to a merchant, as they typically include a basic tenant
improvement and businesses can be up and running with relatively limited startup costs.
The set-up of moving from “daystall” to “permanent daystall” allows farmers and small
vendors, to get in at the “daystall” level, and after grow to one of the smaller
“transitional” stalls, and eventually lease a larger, permanent stall. In addition, the nature
and demand of these stalls helps mitigate risk to the market operator, as the stalls can
easily be leased if one business does not succeed. In addition, the concentration of
vendors and businesses draws much more foot traffic than a single or smaller group of
vendors could attract. The opportunity to co-locate in a public market is more attractive
and less risky than opening a stand alone business in a traditional neighborhood street
front setting.

Further, in efforts to reduce the initial barriers to entry for these businesses, some
municipalities have streamlined the permitting and licensing processes for merchants
locating in a market or market district. Some jurisdictions have even granted the public
market entity an “umbrella” business license, whereby individual vendors operating
within a market structure are not required to acquire individual business licenses.

Promote Broader Economic Growth / Employment
Public markets generate numerous kinds of economic growth. They attract development
and business in the surrounding area, they require vendors to hire sales staff and they
employ numerous people locally in production of the goods sold by the vendors.
Granville island’s forty seven vendors employ 150 full-time individuals and 200 part-
time. Seattle’s Pike Place Market employs nearly 2000 individuals. Markets have a
further catalytic effect. A market’s drawing power often lures businesses whose client
bases are similar to those of the market itself. This generates increased occupancy levels
in buildings surrounding the market, which in turn drives increasing property values and
a municipality’s tax base. The City of Portland estimates that its new market district will
generate up to $500 Million in development attracted to the public and farmers markets.

Public Gathering Place / Building Community
Public markets often become one of the most visited attractions in a city, as well as
attracting a diverse group of visitors. Markets attract visitors from all ethnicities and
socioeconomic backgrounds. It is in fact one of the few urban retail experiences where
such a wide spectrum of society will sell, shop and mix together.



The Scott Group                                9                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
Markets also re-establish the human aspect of food production and distribution. The
direct contact with the farmer, owner, or craftsman selling product is becoming again
appreciated by consumers faced with mass produced and distributed commodities. This
direct contact often creates bonds of buyer loyalty unprecedented in more typical
commercial settings.

Tourism
As Tacoma has experienced, tourism is good for the local economy. It brings individuals
who spend money in the economy without utilizing public services, creating a net gain.
Tourism also creates jobs and improves the business climate for restaurants, hotels and
local retail merchants. For example, Seattle’s Pike place market is the largest tourist
attraction in the Pacific Northwest, with an annual visitor level near 10,000,000.
Olympia’s farmers market often has two to three tour busses a day during the height of its
season. The additional attraction of a public market could also increase the number of
visitors to Tacoma’s downtown museums, which in turn increases the time visitors stay in
Tacoma and subsequently the amount they spend.

Preserve Local Farmland
Public markets can also have significant impact on a region’s agricultural economy. The
rise of national grocery chains and corporate farming greatly reduced small independent
farmer capacity to sell their products. This economic pressure on small farms is
accentuated in areas of suburban expansion, where the dwindling ability to make an
income by small farmers, along with the increased value of agricultural land if taken out
of production and sold for development, has resulted in the rapid loss of close-in
agricultural land.

Public markets and regional farmers markets remove the costs of the middle man by
allowing farmers to directly retail their produce and market to the consumer (increasing
farmer income). Markets further turn a farm’s close-in location into an asset from a
delivery of goods standpoint, since there is no long haul shipping or freight costs. Direct
selling also promotes the awareness of consumers as to the quality, quantity and variety
of produce that can be sourced locally.




Section IV: Regional Market Analysis
A significant factor in determining whether a public market will be successful or not is
the public market’s ability to serve and attract customers. In determining this ability a
number of variables are evaluated including population and employee density, income
levels, gross sales of similar products, consumer capture rates, unmet demand and
competition. This study proposes a Tacoma Public Market Model with vendor gross sales
estimated at roughly $4,500,000 which will be more thoroughly discussed in Section
XIII.
The Scott Group                             10                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Methodology
Typical retail market analyses are carried out utilizing what is know as a leakage or sales
gap analysis. This is done by comparing estimated consumer spending with total retail
                                                 sales to determine if there is more
                                                 estimated consumer spending in a
                                                 designated geographic area (the primary
                                                 trade area) than there is captured sales.
                                                 The amount of this gap or leakage is
                                                 measured against the gross sales
                                                 requirements of the retailer. This method
                                                 however becomes problematic in the
                                                 realm of fresh food sales because of the
                                                 lack of tax data on fresh food sales.
                                                 Many fresh food sales are not taxed and
                                                 thus base line sales data is not available.
                                                 An alternate method is employed
                                                 utilizing estimated expenditure and
                                                 typical capture rates for the grocery
                                                 industry and constructing the gap model
                                                 from B&O taxes rather than direct using
                                                 sales tax data.

The City Of Tacoma has delineated an area into which the public market is to be located.
The map above outlines this area which encompasses the greater downtown, the Brewery
District, the Dome District and the Foss Waterway.

The geographic center of this map was also utilized as the geographic center for the
competitive market analysis of this report. Public markets tend to draw customers from
distances further than the typical supermarket or grocery stores which have primary trade
areas of 1-2 miles. A primary trade area is the distance over which a majority, (60-
65%), of customers are willing to travel to a particular retail establishment. Public
markets tend to draw from a much wider area than the typical supermarket because they
are seen not only as a source for basic grocery needs but as destinations and experiences
in and of themselves. We have investigated statistical information for 1, 3, 5 and 10 mile
radii as well as information for Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. Research suggests
that it is not unusual for customers to drive up to 30 minutes to shop at a public market.
Base population, income and expenditure data was generated by the City of Tacoma
utilizing a program named “Extend the Reach” by SRC Demographics. Total retail sales
data was generated by The City of Tacoma utilizing its B&O tax data.




The Scott Group                              11                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Population
The Greater South Puget Sound (Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties) has a total
population of approximately 1,225,000 people. Pierce County alone has over half that
with a total population of 753,228. Moving in towards Tacoma’s downtown core, a 3-
mile ring produces a population of 92,898 and a 1-mile ring (more or less synonymous
with the downtown core) a population of 13,167. Though the population drops
dramatically as one approaches the downtown core to a population level below that one
might look for in a traditional 1-2 mile primary trade area for a typical grocery store,
these population numbers do not reflect the growing number of employees populating the
downtown core on weekdays. A 3-mile ring produces an employee population of 89,997
and a 1-mile ring produces an employee
population of 30,882. Employee
populations generally generate a great
deal of weekday customer traffic (lunch
and some fresh foods) for public
markets when they are located adjacent
to the business core.

Income Levels
The current average household income
in the Tri-County South Sound is
$59,925. In Pierce County the 2004
projected average household income is
$59,046. Income levels however
decrease when one looks at statistics
inside the Tacoma city limits and
further still toward Tacoma’s downtown
core. This is not surprising given that
some of the South Sound’s most affluent neighborhoods sit just outside the Tacoma city
limits and downtown core. Within the defined downtown (1-mile ring) average
household incomes drops to $36,841. However, as noted above, public markets tend to
draw customers from a range substantially further than the 1-2 mile primary trade area of
an urban grocery store. Further, the disposable income of the downtown workforce of
31,000 (within a 1-mile ring) is anticipated to boost the sales beyond what one might
expect from looking at per-capita or median household income levels of those living in
the downtown core.

Household Spending – Fresh Food Taken Home
An important means of determining the success of a retailing venture is to determine the
number of households within the applicable market, what households typically spend
annually on the type of item/s being sold and what the likely capture rate of a given
enterprise will be in that market. The Tri-County, Greater South Sound market has
462,696 households with average household incomes of approximately $59,925 and
average annual expenditures of $4,700 on groceries and fresh foods taken home.
The Scott Group                             12                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
Focusing on Pierce County the total number of households is 281,633 with an average
household income of $59,046 of which approximately $4,671 annually is spent on
groceries and fresh food taken home. Again, when focusing on Tacoma and its
downtown 1-mile radius the numbers begin to drop. There are 5,478 households in the
downtown core (1-mile radius) with an average household income of $36,841. It is worth
noting that the median household income in this same 1-mile radius is a very low
$19,301, (compared to a median income of $48,940 for the 3-mile radius.) This low
median income suggests average income level inside the 1-mile radius is skewed
upwards by a low number of very high income households. Above is a chart that looks at
the number of households, median income, and typical fresh food expenditures for 1, 3, 5
and 10 mile radius circles as well as Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties.


 FRESH FOOD SPENDING AND CAPTURE ANALYSIS
                                 Average          Avg           Individual                           Est.       Possible
                                    HH        Fresh Food           Ring           Cumulative       Capture       Annual
                  Households      Income       Spending            Total              Total          Rate        Gross
 1 mile                  5,478     $36,841          $3,782       $20,717,796        $20,717,796     10.00%      $2,071,780
 3 mile                36,660      $47,435          $4,102      $129,661,524       $150,379,320      2.50%      $3,241,538
 5 mile                94,618      $52,920          $4,351      $261,303,598       $411,682,918      1.00%      $2,613,036
 10 mile              239,725      $58,024          $4,617      $695,127,407     $1,106,810,325      0.50%      $3,475,637
                                                                                                     1.03%     $11,401,991


 Tacoma                79,748    $41,131          $4,291      $342,198,668                           2.75%       $9,410,463
                  Note: The Tacoma number is for demonstrative purposes only an not included in the final tally.


 Pierce Co            281,633      $59,046          $4,671    $1,315,507,743     $1,315,507,743      0.50%      $6,577,539
 Thurston Co           90,097      $60,460          $4,722      $425,438,034     $1,740,945,777      0.25%      $1,063,595
 Kitsap Co             90,966      $62,115          $4,796      $436,272,936     $2,177,218,713      0.25%      $1,090,682
                                                                                 $2,177,218,713      0.40%      $8,731,816


                                                              Possible Spending Available for Capture:         $18,142,280



Capture Rate and Unmet Demand
Capture rates are the probability (expressed as a percentage) that retail dollars for any
given category will be spent in a particular location. Capture rates are based on two
primary factors: distance from the target area (the further away someone lives, the less
likely they are to travel to the target area to shop) and competition (if a customer has
numerous options for spending, the likelihood of their choosing a specific target area or
choosing a specific retailer decreases). Within the primary trade area there is only one
major supermarket, a Thriftway located in the Stadium district, but there are also a
number of other, more limited convenience or grocery options. It is not unreasonable to
believe that a public market (in a role competitive with supermarkets) would capture
some of the $20,717,796 of household fresh food spending by families in the primary
trade area (1-2 miles). Given an assumption that a public market, if established, would
operate 6-7 days a week, it is not unreasonable to allocate a capture rate of 10% of

The Scott Group                                          13                                                  05/24/05
Seattle WA
consumer fresh food spending, equating to gross sales of $2,071,780. This assumes that
on average people within the primary trade area will shop at the public market just over
once a week utilizing the public market as they would a grocery store or supermarket.

When the radius is expanded up to 10 miles (with progressively lower capture rates
applied) the total gross sales pool available for capture increases to $1,106,810,325
annually. A public market would only capture a very small percentage of those sales but
                                                     using low capture rates of 2.5%, 1.0%
                                                     and 0.5% for the 3, 5 and 10 mile radii
                                                     produces potential cumulative gross
                                                     sales of $11,401,991. According to
                                                     Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers
                                                     2002 published by the Urban Land
                                                     Institute a typical, local (non-national)
                                                     urban supermarket of 30,000 sf
                                                     achieves gross sales of approximately
                                                     $9,000,000. The importance of this
                                                     number is that a public market would
                                                     only need to capture approximately 7%
                                                     of annual fresh food spending in a 3-
                                                     mile ring to gross as much as the
                                                     typical urban supermarket. However,
                                                     as mentioned above public markets
                                                     tend to draw customers from greater
                                                     distances than typical supermarkets
                                                     and grocery stores do. Looking at
spending limited inside Tacoma’s city limits a public market would need to capture only
2.75% of at total fresh food consumer spending annually to achieve gross sales at similar
levels of urban supermarkets and grocery stores. But it is likely that a public market
located in downtown Tacoma would also capture some small percentage of consumers
spending in the Greater South Sound. If you then use a reduced capture rate of one half
of one percent (0.5%) of fresh food spending in Pierce County (excluding Tacoma), it
represents an additional $6,577,539 gross sales annually. Lastly, assuming that the
market will also capture some small percentage of Thurston and Kitsap County residents,
one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of grocery spending generates an additional
$2,154,277 in gross sales annually. Combining these numbers together creates an overall
annual gross sales potential of more than $18,000,000.

Conclusion

This analysis should not be interpreted as suggesting that merely building and operating a
public market will produce gross sales figures as noted in the sections above. Too many
variables come into play such as: size; accessibility of the market’s specific location; site
visibility; proximity to and cost of parking; quality of management; being a fully leased
market with the correct vendor mix and quality products vs. the opposite; etc.. Rather,
the analysis shows that the target market is underserved and that a public market does not

The Scott Group                               14                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
have to achieve capture rates considered high by industry standards to generate gross
sales high enough to support a public market. As noted above, typical local (non-
national) urban supermarkets achieve, on average, gross sales of approximately
$9,000,000 on a 30,000 sf store or $300/sf. In the case of public market in Downtown
Tacoma the possible gross sales (utilizing conservative capture rates) are in excess of
$18,000,000. The conclusion that there is room for additional grocery vending is further
supported by Maestri Design Inc’s Downtown Retail Strategy report the City of Tacoma
commissioned in 2003. In this report a Maestri estimated unmet demand for 45,000 to
70,000 square feet of grocery which would capture up to $52,000,000 in gross sales
currently leaking out of the market to businesses located outside downtown Tacoma.
Again the analysis suggests that there is adequate unmet grocery demand or demand
being satisfied by supermarkets outside the Downtown core available to be captured by a
well-located, well-run public market in Tacoma’s Downtown core. For context, the
Olympia Farmers Market experience regarding vendor gross sales has been $3,700,000.
This study proposes a Tacoma Public Market Model with vendor sales estimated at
roughly $4,500,000.




Section V: Interview Summaries
During the first two phases of this study The Scott Group met with the market directors
of eight regional markets as well as numerous individuals, business and institutions in
and around Tacoma that would likely have an interest in participating in the effort to
create a public market. Below are excerpts from both the regional market director
interviews and the stake holder interviews.

Regional Market Interviews
In the first phase of this study The Scott Group carried out interviews and site visits with
the operators and directors of eight regional markets (from Portland to Vancouver). This
included five public markets (completed or planned) and two permanent structures for
farmers markets (two completed and one planned). Site visits and interviews were
conducted for the following.

    •   Pike Place Market: (Seattle) Carole Binder, Director
    •   Granville Island Market: (Vancouver, BC): Ken Tunnicliffe, Director
    •   Portland Public Market: (planned): Ron Paul, Special Projects, Arts & Culture,
        City of Portland
    •   Olympia Farmers Market: Charlie Hanny, Bob Sullivan, Managers
    •   Pioneer Park Pavilion: (Puyallup) Sarah Harris, Pavilion Supervisor, Sonie
        Hansen, Assistant Director, Puyallup Farmers Market Ralph Dannenberg, Parks
        & Department Director
    •   Depot Market Square: (Bellingham, planned): Tara Hardesty, Development
        Specialist, City of Bellingham

The Scott Group                              15                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Lonsdale Quay: (North Vancouver, BC): Gary Matheison, CEO, Continental
        Commercial Systems Corp, Brian Dunkey, General Manager
    •   Westminster Quay: (New Westminster, BC) Nick Marini, General Manager

Please see Appendix I for the detailed interviews and testimony. Much of what was
learned from these interviews and site visits have their own sections in this report and
will not be repeated here. Please see the relevant sections. A list of these is follows
below:

    •   Market Histories                        see Section II
    •   Economic Catalysts                      see Section III
    •   Small Business Incubators               see Section III
    •   Ownership Structures                    see Section VIII & XI
    •   Financing Strategies                    see Section XII
    •   Managements Structures                  see Section XIII
    •   Site Location/Criteria                  see Section XIV


The following are condensed excerpts, suggestions, advice and personal “rules of thumb” from
various case interviews. These may not directly apply to a public market in Tacoma, but they are
some of the more common comments and suggestions from the interviews with market directors.

    Market Programming Comments

        •    Location/Program Criteria: High visibility or an easily identifiable location
             was important to the tourists and out of town customers.
        •    Parking/Auto access: Convenient, affordable and accessible parking was
             also an important consideration. Some of the interviewees cited the
             importance of being close to mass transit, while others stressed that most of
             the customers come by car.
        •    Stake Holder Interest: Get all Stake holders interested, involved: Discuss
             with grocers, landowners, tourism offices, chamber of commerce….build
             strong local support.
        •    Stay focused on Food: Focus on food-oriented market. Don’t try to “offer
             everything” such as crafts vendors, clothing, and tourist-oriented merchants.
        •    Second Floor Retail: Markets with second floor space tended to experience
             high turnover, and would not recommend developing a multi-floor structure
             for the “core market.”
        •    Collaborate with Farmers Market : Relationship and collaboration with the
             local farmers market is very important
        •    Create the “Culinary Heart of the Region”: Focus should be on fresh
             gourmet and regional foods and products. Tie in with local downtown
             restaurants, culinary schools
        •    Phasing: Allow for phasing. Initial market could start smaller to establish
             itself

The Scott Group                                16                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
        •    Branding: It’s important for the market to have a visible character and good
             “brand” recognition. People want to tell the story that “I got it at the market”.
        •    Space for Weekend Vendors: is needed and is important

    General Comments

        •    Creating a People Place: markets created the “living room” for the City- a
             place where all types of people gather and feel comfortable.
        •    Economic Benefits: Not so much a “real estate development” as an economic
             investment: Cities should not look for a return on investment, but should focus
             on the overall economic benefit.
        •    Markets must be self-sustaining: Revenue must be enough to cover
             operations, plus reserves.
        •    Change Existing Shopping Patterns: You must change/break existing
             shopping patterns of inner city residents and workers.
        •    Must be a Reason to “Go There.” Goal is to be a vibrant and diverse
             “people place.” Look for sites that have potential reason for people to go there
             or to naturally be there (i.e, don’t just put a market in the middle of nowhere)
        •    Distribution of Vendors: Don’t put similar vendors next to each other, in
             order to encourage “wandering” and comparison shopping. GIM clusters
             vendors into “3 sections” that include similar diverse mix.
        •    Market Should be for Everyone: A place for people to come and enjoy
             without having to spend anything. It should feel safe, and the nature of
             offering “unique foods” will attract diverse clientele, both lower income and
             high income.
        •    Market must feel clean: Though the overall feeling is industrial, market
             should be kept in clean condition (trash, stalls, displays, etc.)
        •    No National Tenants: ever (but they can have their start in the market)
        •    No T-shirts: market should stay true to food-oriented, and daystalls should
             offer authentic crafts, not tourist-oriented knickknacks.
        •    Active Truck Loading is Good: Markets should encourage load/unload
             throughout the day, as it is “authentic” to a working market, and adds interest
             to the streetscape.
        •    Remember the History of the Market: It’s important for Cities to revive the
             history of their own markets.
        •    High End Restaurants: Are attracted by the presence of an urban market,
             and they support and provide publicity for the vendors.
        •    Viewing Opportunities: wherever possible, create opportunities to see people
             baking, cleaning fish, preparing foods, etc.
        •    Local oriented, not tourist: In summer, traffic is 70% tourist, in winter its
             40%.
        •    Proximity To Users: Close to residential, office population a plus. Whether
             by foot, transit or car, a major component of the market location is that is
             should be easily accessible and visible to the target market.
        •    Low Cost Structure: Should be a low-cost, low-maintenance structure.

The Scott Group                                17                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        •    Marine Access: it would be nice to have marine access, or to be able to sell
             fish “off the boat.”
        •    Need to screen vendors: Want to make sure that vendors have engaging
             “personalities” to sell the experience.

    Local Stake Holder Interviews
    In the second phase of this study The Scott Group carried out interviews and site
    visits with numerous individuals, business, institutions and local property owner in
    and around Tacoma that would likely have an interest in participating in the effort to
    create a public market. Below is a list of these local stake holders and a summery of
    some of the ideas that came from those interviews. Please see the Appendix II for
    full interview write ups.

        •    Tacoma Farmers Market                        •   Bamford Pottery
        •    Metropolitan Dev. Council                    •   Haub Brothers Trust
        •    Tacoma Economic                              •   Colonial Fruit & Produce
             Development Department                       •   LeMay Car Museum
        •    Foss Waterway Development                    •   The Marcato
             Authority                                    •   Keith Stone (former owner,
        •    Sound Transit                                    Freighthouse Square)
        •    Pierce Transit                               •   George Rolfe (first Director,
        •    Port of Tacoma                                   Pike Place Market PDA)
        •    Univ. of Washington Tacoma                   •   Kathy Casey (Chef and
        •    Bates Technical College                          Market Vendor owner)
        •    Johnny’s Seafood                             •   Sur La Table (national
        •    Tacoma Boys                                      kitchenware store based in
        •    Freighthouse Square                              Pike Place Market)
        •    Tacoma Dome Management                       •   El Gaucho/Mackay
        •    Mercy Housing                                    Restaurants
        •    Urban Waters
        •    DockMandu/Petrich Marine

        General Comments
        There was a general consensus that a public market would be a great amenity for
        downtown Tacoma. Many of the interviewees were familiar or even frequented
        the Pike Place Market and the Olympia Farmers Market. Comments were made
        that a public market would serve the new residents downtown, and could help
        revitalize downtown development in neighborhoods such as the Dome District,
        the Brewery District and the Hillside/Upper Tacoma. Though the thoughts of
        where a market should be located (or shouldn’t be located) varied. There were
        also numerous comments that a market should be close to a LINK light rail
        station, as well as be located on the Foss Waterway (which is not served by rapid
        transit).

The Scott Group                              18                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
             •    Regional Vendors and Possible Tenants: Local vendors, such as
                  Johnny’s Seafood and Tacoma Boys, agreed that a public market would be
                  a good idea for downtown Tacoma, though there was expressed caution
                  regarding competition inside the market. Through interviews conducted
                  for this report the operators and managers of regional public markets cited
                  importance of competition. Other reports reviewed for this study
                  concurred. Maintaining at least two, (ideally three), of each vendor type is
                  perceived as a consumer benefit and more reason to shop a market. In
                  choice, consumers benefit from superior products, differentiation among
                  vendors within the same vendor mix categories, and higher pricing
                  sensitivity.

                  Discussions with regional food-oriented businesses (Kathy Casey Inc, Sur
                  la Table, Mackay Restaurants) revealed common thoughts as to the
                  building of Tacoma’s reputation as a food-oriented city. It was suggested
                  that the City of Tacoma should get behind the marketing of the new food-
                  oriented businesses (such as the new or planned downtown restaurants, the
                  Metropolitan Market in the Proctor district and the new kitchenware store
                  in the Sixth Avenue District). It is important for potential merchants,
                  businesses and investors to believe in Tacoma’s growing position on the
                  Pacific Northwest’s “culinary map.” Comments included:

                     “The new, upscale restaurants will really help Tacoma
                     build a reputation as a regional culinary hot spot. This is
                     an important angle to develop, especially considering the
                     general lack of retail activity downtown.” -Kathy Casey,
                     chef and owner of Kathy Casey Food Studios and Dish
                     D’lish at the Pike Place Market and SeaTac Airport.

                     “Tacoma still struggles with a regional stigma, which must
                     be overcome in order to attract vendors and food-centric
                     businesses from the Puget Sound market.” -Susan Faw,
                     Vice President of Real Estate, Sur la Table

             •    Local and Non-Profit Agencies: Discussions with local educational and
                  non-profit agencies were held to garner interest as well as to explore
                  options for incorporating additional non-profit components into the market
                  program. The Pike Place Market is an excellent example of how non-profit
                  model, as it also has an affordable housing and human service division.
                  We met with a components can be incorporated in to the larger market
                  operations.

                  The agencies in the interview excerpts below not only agreed with the
                  concept of a public market in Tacoma, but each expressed interest in
                  additional components that could expand the overall mission and function
                  of a public market. These agencies also expressed an interest in furthering

The Scott Group                                19                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                  the discussion and to be considered as members in the core stakeholder
                  group or any task force put together as part of the market’s “next steps.”
                  The varied interests and combination of additional program elements
                  could result in a public market that is truly unique to Tacoma, and one that
                  offers a multitude of community and public benefits. Each of the
                  components to be considered would also work separately to secure grants
                  and public/private funding, similar to how these functions are currently
                  operated. They may also be considered as secondary or future additions to
                  the core market structure, or part of a Public Market District that evolves
                  over time. With the participation of these non-profits the overall market
                  could eventual encompass some or all of the following:

                      •   Public Market Hall (permanent)
                      •   Tacoma Farmers Market (seasonal)
                      •   Business Incubator (agricultural, food, small business)
                      •   Culinary Arts Program (Class Space, Kitchen, Café)
                      •   Housing/Mixed Use Component
                      •   Arts Studios/Arts incubator/Creative Businesses


        1) Tacoma Farmers Market

                  •   Current market vendors are committed to other markets on weekend,
                      so Tacoma’s market has been limited to mid-day Thursdays. These
                      vendors are already committed to weekend markets in Seattle,
                      Puyallup and Olympia.
                  •   A Tuesday evening farmers market will begin in April at the Tacoma
                      Dome Station Plaza (facing Freighthouse Square)
                  •   Originally identified the Dome District as a potential transition and/or
                      permanent home (per the Ford Foundation Grant Application)
                  •   Agree that the idea of a year-round public market would help bring
                      foot traffic to induce farmers market vendors to expand to weekends.
                  •   Understand that the public market focus would be to provide year
                      round goods, including fish, meat, dairy and wine (which are typically
                      not provided by farmers markets), and that the Farmers Market
                      component would be complementary and would retain an emphasis on
                      regional and seasonal goods.

                  Summary: The Tacoma Farmers Market (TFM) would be interested in
                  co-locating with a public market in downtown Tacoma (provided there
                  was enough space). It is interesting to note that the TFM currently rates
                  “lower on the list” in terms of commitment to primary market days from
                  vendors, since most of the TFM vendors are committed to other cities on
                  the more desirable evenings (Wed-Sat) and weekend days. An investment
                  of a permanent, year-round structure in downtown Tacoma would attract a
                  variety of farmers market vendors (drawn by the increased foot traffic).
The Scott Group                                20                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
        2) Metropolitan Development Council

                  •   Supporter and Sponsor of business incubator component at Salishan
                  •   Would be interested in participating in development of a public market
                  •   Has been involved with Tacoma Farmers Market
                  •   Has experience in obtaining grants for food and community-oriented
                      projects
                  •   Would be interested in a housing component (affordable)
                  •   Believes that a business incubator component would be appropriate
                      (could include agriculture/food resources, “wired city” component,
                      education and outreach)

                  Summary: The Metropolitan Development Council is a multifaceted non-
                  profit agency that has expertise in a variety of non-profit endeavors. Their
                  focus on projects and services that help the community would be a good
                  fit for a public market entity. They have expressed an interest in being
                  considered a part of the entity that furthers the development of the market.
                  They bring substantial experience in affordable housing, community
                  services, agricultural and business incubator programs.

        3) Bates Technical College - Culinary Arts Program

                  •   Would be very interested in an opportunity to participate in a public
                      market project for Tacoma, from an educational standpoint. This could
                      include possible classroom space, a teaching kitchen, or a student-run
                      café sharing space in the market structure.
                  •   Would like to become more actively involved in the Tacoma region
                  •   The college is interested and committed to Tacoma’s economic
                      development
                  •   Future focus is to expand “continuing education” programs such as
                      culinary arts
                  •   Would like to be considered for participation in “next steps” towards
                      realization of the public market.

                  Summary: The expressed interest of Bates Technical College to
                  incorporate their culinary arts program into the public market brings with
                  it a component that most regional market operators stated was a very
                  desirable. A culinary and/or bio-agricultural education component furthers
                  the market’s role as a regional center for food and agriculture, and gives
                  the market an additional facet for both economic and community benefit.

        4) Intercommunity Mercy Housing

                  •   Has shown interest to develop affordable housing in the Dome District

The Scott Group                                21                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                  •   Would be interested in exploring a mixed-use development with a
                      public market or a farmers market component.
                  •   Has expertise in affordable housing

                  Summary: Intercommunity Mercy Housing has been looking at sites in
                  the Dome District, and is interested in the prospects of developing
                  affordable housing near mass transit and market uses. Because of their
                  interest and experience with grants and non-profit development, they
                  would be a good consideration to help advance the public market concept
                  and/or location.




Section VI: Public Market Types
Public markets come in various sizes and organizational models around the county.
There is everything from small ten-vendor, farmer markets that happen once a month to
large market districts such as the Pike Place Market in Seattle that operate year round in
multiple buildings over several city blocks. Many markets blend elements of each type
such as public markets that hold farmers market days or farmers markets housed in sheds
that operate upwards of 4 to 5 days a week.

Farmers Market
Farmers markets are typically focused on providing regional fresh foods during the
growing and harvest season. This can extend to some fish, foul, beef, bakery and cheese
products as well as limited crafts. However, the farmers market movement had been
characterized by limiting vendors to products they in fact grow, raise, catch or produce.
This typically means that most farmers markets provide a more limited selection of foods
and goods, (foods that can be grown in the region as well as the foods that are in season.)
Farmers markets have also tended to operate within a range of 1 to 4 days a week, (the
majority around 1 to 2 days), and not at all during the winter months. Much of the
movement has been driven by a desire to promote the direct interaction of the producer
and buyer, keeping farmland in production and bring better quality products to the
consumer.

Public Market
Public markets are year-round full-week concerns that typically contain a wide variety of
vendors. Unlike farmers markets, vendors in a public markets often sell products well
beyond what can be grown, raised or otherwise produced regionally. Public markets
often encourage regional vendors but allow vendors to bring in non-regional products to
provide customers with a wide selection year round. Public markets also encourage a
wider variety of vendors with specialty, imported prepared and served food taking a
much higher profile. The goals of a public market are often similar yet different than a
farmers market. Where farmers markets have historically been designed as a way of
The Scott Group                               22                                    05/24/05
Seattle WA
preserving the local farming industry, public markets were primarily design to benefit the
consumer by bringing in a wide, year-round selection of high quality goods at a low
price.

Festival Market
Festival markets are hybrids of a public market and a retail mall. Goods typically
associated with a public market or farmers market add atmosphere to the facility but
rarely make up the majority of the leasable area. Festival markets typically also include a
large food court as well as more typical retail merchants. Festival markets also tend to be
privately owned and operated . The Festival Market movement was very popular in the
1980’s with the development of Boston’s Faneuil Hall, Baltimore’s Harborplace and
Westminster Quay in New Westminster, BC.




Section VII: Public Market Facilities
Public market facilities come in all shapes and sizes, and many are comprised of a mix of
types, including enclosed market halls with attached open air sheds, open air sheds with
small enclosed vendor spaces, and shed markets with open air vendor areas.
Additionally, many larger market districts often contain numerous combinations of the
above mentioned facility types. Many would be surprised to realize that the main core of
the Pike Place Market is more an open air arcade than an enclosed urban market hall.

Open Air
The size and feel of an air market depends on where they are located and the general
nature of the open space that’s provided. They can take place in parking lots, streets,
parks, under bridges or colonnades. Typically there are no permanent site improvements,
each vendor bringing all that is necessary to sell their goods. On days where the public
market does not operate there may be little to no evidence that the market exists on the
site.

Shed Structure
Shed roof markets provide varying degrees of shelter from the rain, sun and general
weather. They can range from simple structures with little more than roofs providing
minimal protection to large barn or colonnade structures that can be partially or almost
fully enclosed with doors. They however remain “open” air structures that tend to be
lighter on infrastructure improvements, often with no or only minimal electrical and
plumbing provided to vendors. This facility form is often used to stabilize and grow a
farmers market and thus is still primarily directed at transient vendors and stall
improvements appropriate to such. The benefit to shed structures is that at relatively low


The Scott Group                             23                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
cost they improve the “presence” and public awareness of a market as well as provide a
more hospitable environment for shoppers during inclement weather.

Market Hall
Market halls are permanent, primarily enclosed facilities (though some are designed to be
very “open-air” with direct outdoor connections) designed to house a wide variety of
goods and longer term vendors. They typically offer a more complete set of utilities for
vendors as well as cold and dry storage facilities. Some market halls also provide full
climate control with both heating and cooling - some do not. Because of the higher level
of structure, utility service and climate control market halls tend to support a wider
variety of vendor types and are able to house such tenants year round in a wider variety
of climates. Market halls go beyond the typical seasonal and regional fresh foods found
in farmers market to include vendors specializing in fresh, dry, and prepared goods from
around the world. Market halls also tend to operate on a more competitive basis with
supermarkets than either open air or shed structures because they typically are open 6 to 7
days a week as well as year round.

Market District
Market Districts are geographic areas that contain a public or farmers market, as well as
additional non-market facilities that house compatible and complementary uses. They
may include other market-like vendors, creative businesses, light manufacturing, housing,
office space or production of goods or consumables sellable to market customers. Market
Districts are unique in that they can contain components of each of the other market types
(open air, shed, enclosed), and the core market vendors tend to be spread among several
structures. Market Districts often become a zone of highly synergistic economic activity
as well as incubators for new businesses. Designating a Market District helps cities
initiate a theme or identity for a redevelopment district. New development then builds on
the success and popularity of the market, thus reinforcing the neighborhood’s identity.




Section VIII: Public Market Governance (Ownership)
There are a number of different governance models used regionally. The model used is
often a result of the particular genesis of that market. British Columbia has a number of
privately financed and owned markets that are run by private commercial management
groups, but there is also the Granville Island Market, which is run by an agency of the
Canadian Federal Government. In Washington markets are governed under several forms
of public or quasi-public management models. Puyallup’s Pioneer Park Pavilion is fully
owned and operated by the city. The Pike Place Market is governed under the Pike Place
Public Development Authority, a quasi-governmental group independent of the City, but
whose governing board still receives appointees from the Mayor of Seattle. Olympia’s
market structure is on land that is owned by the Port, which is leased by the city and then

The Scott Group                             24                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
subleased to the not-for-profit Olympia Farmers Market. A brief discussion of the
various forms of market governance models follows:

Full Public
Some jurisdictions believe that their investment of public funds into a facility should
fully remain in public hands as many other public facilities do. The benefit to this
approach is that the jurisdiction can insure the facility is run just as they want it to be run
and may, at some later date, use or redevelop the property as they see fit. This control
also comes with responsibility to support the market/public facility in times where it is
not operating at a break-even or profitable manner. Puyallup’s new Pioneer Park
Pavilion is an example of this model. The downside of this model is that the facility and
its underlying purpose to house a public market is subject to political winds and the
reality that a government is running what is essentially a retail endeavor involving private
enterprise, not something government is typically know for.

Joint Venture
A step away from the full public model is one in which a jurisdiction continues to own
the facility but master leases or turns over management control to another entity.
Typically these entities are not-for-profits whose mission is to operate a market. This
serves to both remove management from the political process for at least as long as the
lease term as well as allow the market management to adopt a more market-oriented
outlook than the typical governmental agency. It also lends the jurisdiction an amount of
distance from blame or responsibility if the market proves unsuccessful.

Quasi Public
Creating even more distance between itself and the governance of a public market a
jurisdiction may create a subsidiary corporation or public development agency (PDA).
In this model the jurisdiction creates a quasi-public agency that is given governing
control and title to the market. Jurisdictions often retain influence by writing the mission
statement, governing bylaws, placing limits on the disposition on the title to the property
as well as retaining the right to appoint a percentage of the agency’s governing body.
The Pike Place Market is owned and operated by such an agency. The City of Seattle
now retains influence through mayoral appointments of one third of the markets
governing council. The benefit of the PDA model is that the market operation is
extremely removed from the political process and run by a group whose sole focus is the
market’s success. It also removes the city on an annual basis from direct responsibility
for operational shortfalls (though the political process may force this nonetheless). This is
the model more typically used for managing and developing public markets today.

Privately Owned
Examples of fully privately-owned public markets can be found both regionally and
nationally. For jurisdictions that do not have adequate resources to build and operate a
The Scott Group                               25                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
public market this is often a viable avenue providing that the jurisdiction can induce a
private company’s interest in investing and operating such a venture. A benefit of these
public markets is that public incentive contributions to such ventures are often limited to
little more than some mix of land, grants, low interest loans, provision of infrastructure,
tax abatements, loan guarantees, etc. These facilities often look, feel and operate similarly
to publicly owned markets, having a similar vendor mix but often have an increased
emphasis on food court and other anchor retail merchants and users such as hotels and
restaurants. The reason for this is that such markets are operated to generate a return on
investment. Accordingly, higher profit margin vendors become important in that mix.
These markets are not intended to achieve the complete spectrum of social benefits that a
public venture might be designed to achieve but do bring many of the benefits with them
as well as some not associated with publicly owned markets.

Co-Op
Though much less common there are examples of co-op markets where the market is in
fact owned by the vendors. This hybrid has aspects of supermarkets where there are
common checkout counters but individual segments of the market are operated by private
vendors.




Section IX: Public Market Program
If there is a rule of thumb to be learned from public markets around the country it is that
they come in all shapes and sizes. They span the gambit from small shed facilities to
large public market districts spread over several city blocks and in any number of
buildings. The answer to how large, of what type, how many vendors and in what mix is
rooted in a number of issues. Some of these issues are more apparent than others. Some
of the more important ones are listed below.

    •   What goals are to be achieved by the market?
    •   What demand exists for the type of goods typically sold in a public market?
    •   What capacity does the vendor community have to occupy the market and meet
        demand?
    •   What capacity have similar cities shown in their ability to support a market?
    •   What sort of spaces should a public market provide?
    •   What is the character of the area the market is located in?

There were, however, several consistent messages gleaned from the market managers
interviewed as part of this report. They included starting small with room to grow,
keeping the market’s focus on fresh or specialty foods, maintain local orientation, avoid
franchises and national tenants, watch the vendor mix and provide sufficient parking and
storage. Second story or “out of the way” retail struggles and if it exists should be geared


The Scott Group                              26                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
to destination uses such as restaurants. It is also important to provide space for the local
farmers market.

Public Goals & Space Planning
One of the first questions for any public market when determining the market’s space
program is; what are the goals of the entity leading the effort to create a public market
and how do those goals affect the space plan? The City of Tacoma has a number of goals
they would like to see a public market achieve. A list of those goals that clearly impact
the market from a space planning perspective follows:

        Serve Growing Downtown Residential Market
        The City is interested in supporting and increasing the recent growth in downtown
        housing. The City believes a critical amenity the downtown core lacks is a
        grocery provider. They believe that a public market can satisfy this need as well
        as bring a certain cache and higher level amenity to the downtown core much in
        the way the Pike Place Market or Granville Island Market serve their respective
        downtowns (Seattle and Vancouver BC). However to serve as a truly useful
        grocery provider a public market would need to be large enough to provide the
        fresh food goods in the major categories as well as operate seven days a week and
        year round.

        Year-Round Seven-Day Market
        A year round / seven day a week facility pushes a public market towards a
        permanent enclosable structure. Most year round markets have the ability to
        enclose or protect the consumer and vendors from the worst elements of winter
        weather, rain, wind and dropping temperatures. Mere sheds often fail to provide
        enough protection though as the Pike Place Market demonstrates fully enclosed
        temperature controlled environments are not necessary either. However, solid
        roofed structures with adequate sidewalls or enclosable spaces (which protect
        both vendor and customers) seem to be the minimum a year-round facility needs
        to provide.

        Permanent Home for Tacoma’s Farmers Market
        A permanent home for the Tacoma Farmers Market could take many forms. It
        could be access to day tables in the market, a fully open air shed structure
        attached to a market hall, or the use of an outdoor plaza adjacent to the public
        market. Currently the Tacoma Farmers market operates a mid-day market on
        Thursdays, and plans to begin a Tuesday evening market in April 2005

Size of Public Market
With any retail venture the basic question is what sort of demand exists for the type of
goods to be sold and how much space is needed to sell them. It was clear from the
market study that there is unmet demand in downtown Tacoma for grocery goods. A
public market is not analogous to a modern supermarket, as most supermarkets carry non-
The Scott Group                               27                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
food items that public markets typically do not carry. Thus, when looking at the fresh
food oriented portions of most public markets, they tend to be smaller than the average
urban grocery store, (33,000 gross leasable sf. according to Dollars and Cents of
Shopping Centers 2002 ULI )

One can also attempt collating population density to size of a public market, but this is
more difficult because the overall size of a public market or market district often has as
much to do with history, length of time open, character of surrounding neighborhood and
density of the surrounding area, etc. The most typical approach is to build up a space
plan based off an initial program that outlines the number and type of vendors, their space
needs as well as the appropriate space requirements for other basic amenities and
circulation. The supportable number of vendors in the proposed vendor mix has been
validated through the earlier Market Analysis section in this feasibility study.

Vendor Types
There are a number of considerations when selecting a particular vendor mix for a public
market. First is to make a distinction between “permanent” and “day-table” vendors.
The next is to distinguish between fresh food, food court, restaurant and craft-related
vendors.

        Permanent Vendors
        The majority of vendors in public markets are permanent. This is an outgrowth of
        what a public market program is; a seven day a week, year round retail operation.
        Thus, unlike farmers markets where vendors set up their stalls at the beginning of
        each market day, public market vendors are in fact small business tenants in a
        retail facility with longer term lease.

        Day Stalls
        Most markets cater to transient or temporary vendors that may occupy a space for
        a day or two each week or some other shorter period of time. Responding to this
        type of vendor, public markets often provide spaces, stalls or tables dispersed
        throughout the immediate market area. Market managers use these “day-tables”
        to insert a sense of change and freshness in the market. They tend to rotate
        (thought sometimes a seniority or gross sales ranking is considered) day-table
        vendors so that customers coming back to the market and get a “new market”
        each time they visit. Market mangers also use these spaces for their selected craft
        vendors. It controls their impact on a market that is otherwise food oriented.

        Food Court
        Food Court vendors focus on providing ready to eat foods typically consumed at
        the market. Market managers closely control the number and location of such
        vendors, primarily so the food court function doesn’t overshadow the fresh food
        orientation of the market. Concentrating food court vendors can be advantageous,
        especially with markets that are located in close proximity to job centers.
        Generally, the food court functions as an attraction for the downtown lunch
The Scott Group                              28                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
        crowd, and tend to provide plentiful public seating. Granville Island concentrates
        its food court vendors and public seating towards the water, while the Pike Place
        Market disburses these vendors throughout the market district. Some markets
        offer hybrids, where fast food vendors are also encouraged to offer fresh or take
        home foods.

        Restaurant Vendors
        Many markets incorporate more formal sit-down restaurants. This is not only
        because there is a natural connection between the fresh food of the market and the
        prepared food that often come from the market’s selections, but restaurants
        increase the destination character of the market for both locals and tourists.
        However because of the high level of investment required for restaurants they
        tend to operate under the more typical commercial lease structures of all market
        vendors.

        Craft Vendors
        Craft vendors are often found at public markets, but their number and location are
        typically controlled like food court vendors for similar reasons. Again many
        public market mangers want to promote the market’s primary function, which is
        to deliver fresh and specialty foods. Too many craft vendors can dilute the
        markets focus, and managers must beware of flooding the market with “part-time”
        craft vendors that offer mass produced, tourist-oriented items. Mangers do
        however find a small percentage of craft vendors often lend a bit of flavor to a
        market but they are typically relegated to day tables or some small percentage of
        the permanent vendors. Craft vendors are sometimes restricted to those with
        unique or artisan qualities. For example, hand crafted goods made from natural
        materials are preferable to tee shirts.

        Owner Operated
        Market operators can insist that businesses be owner operated in order to promote
        a sense of authenticity and high quality service. This is one of the ways public
        markets distinguish themselves from supermarkets, attracting loyal returning
        customers who enjoy the experience of the market despite the inherent
        convenience and variety of household goods associated with a supermarket.

        Once the basic types of vendors that operate in public markets are understood an
        underlying mix of vendors is selected. There are some fairly standard categories
        that need to be met to promote the perception that the public market can serve as a
        one stop shop for fresh food needs. Beyond that the vendor mix is a balance of
        viable, diverse businesses and market demand.

Vendor Mix
Most public markets average a ratio approximating 70% fresh food vendors, with the
remaining 30% split between food court and craft vendors. Permanent vendors are
typically around 80% of the market and day tables represent the remaining 20%. There
The Scott Group                              29                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
are also some fairly basic vendor categories that almost every successful public market
will have represented with their permanent vendors. They are noted below:

        •    Produce                                     •   Herb/Spices
        •    Meat/Poultry                                •   Specialty Foods
        •    Seafood                                     •   Coffee/Tea
        •    Dairy/cheese                                •   Wine
        •    Deli meats/cheeses                          •   Confectionary
        •    Bakery                                      •   Flowers/Plants

Ideally a public market attempts to have three of each vendor type. This is to promote
competition and quality. Alan Hammond, the former general manager of the Granville
Island market put it “One vendor is a monopoly, two is collusion and three is
competition!” (p. 55 PPS). This number also tends to promote specialization by vendors
in the same category. Of course not all markets achieve this 3 vendor ideal, and continue
to operate successfully (for example, the Pike Place Market only has two butchers).

When creating a vendor mix, awareness not only of demand but of available vendors with
the quality and capacity to operate in the market must be considered. Many markets
operate with as few as one vendor in several of the categories.

Other spaces (Restrooms, Storage, Garbage, Loading)
There are several other categories of space beyond vendor stalls and public circulation
markets must consider. They are restrooms, cold and dry storage, garbage collection and
truck loading areas. These issues are all handled differently with the particular
development history of each market producing the outcome.

        Restrooms
        Minimally, a market needs to provide one men’s and one women’s restroom.
        However, very few actually provide many more than this. Puyallup’s Pioneer
        Park Pavilion has one restroom each for men and women. The Pike Place Market
        District, despite its significantly larger size, provides only two public restrooms
        for each sex.

        Cold Storage
        Retailing requires storage space. Again looking regionally markets demonstrate a
        number of different methods for handling this issue. Most markets have some
        level of central cold storage for the large volume meat/poultry/fish vendors. The
        fresh food portion of the Pike Place Market has a 2,500 sf central cold storage,
        which satisfies the vendor’s basic needs. The Granville Island’s Market Hall,
        with 21,000 sf fresh food vendors, has a 900 sf central cold storage which Ken
        Tunnicliffe, the market director, believed could be larger by several hundred
        square feet. However, one will also find in both of these market as well as many
        others have distributed cold display cases as well as smaller cold storage units put
        in by larger vendors.
The Scott Group                              30                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Dry Storage
        Providing central dry storage is much less common. Rather, dry storage is often
        incorporated into vendors’ stalls because the space needs around this type of
        storage tends to be less. It is however necessary. At Granville Island, where no
        dry storage was provided other than the shelf space vendors turned many of their
        designated mezzanine office spaces into dry storage.

        Loading
        Only the newest of markets or the fully private markets appear to have well
        designed or thought out loading and unloading areas. The more established
        markets tend to be limited by their historic character, the visibility of loading not
        being a concern when the markets were originally developed. However, the
        managers of the more established markets also believed that the activity of
        loading and unloading of goods at either end of the market-day adds a level of
        realism and activity to the market that many customers actually enjoy. On-street
        loading does, however, require that the market layout accommodate the moving
        of goods thru the market from various point along the street or site.

        Garbage Collection/Storage
        Many of the market managers noted that their facilities were either too old or not
        designed around dealing with this issue. Carole Binder, the Director of the Pike
        Place Market, said that a garbage holding area had to be built right in front of the
        Market because there was no other location that provided enough access for the
        merchants. Despite the Pike Place Market example, most market mangers noted
        that there should be a central garbage area that is out of the way visually and
        would not generate odors that would permeate the market on hot summer days.

Space Planning / Layout
There were some consistent messages about how markets should generally be laid out.
These range from the arrangement of vendors, to the function and viability of second
story or mezzanine space.

        Stall Size
        When physically looking through markets, stalls are found in every shape and
        size. Market operators, however, tended to program base stalls that are roughly
        10 ft x 10 ft (though some recommended 15 ft x 15 ft). This size allows for some
        storage, display counters/tables and registrar space in each stall. This basis size
        allows larger and busier vendors (fish mongers, bakers, butchers) to occupy 2-3
        stalls if needed. Though 10 ft x10 ft may seem like a small space from which to
        run a business, this tight space planning is part of a typical approach by market
        managers. “Visual Abundance” was a goal of most managers, and tightly
        clustered stalls help promote this by keeping merchandise efficiently displayed.
        Manger also tended to keep vertical wall elements out of “interior” stalls and


The Scott Group                               31                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        promoted “open” format stalls to minimize visual barriers for customers
        (increasing the apparent activity and bustle of the market).

        Vendor Layout
        Market mangers interviewed for this report had some very consistent beliefs on
        this subject. First, was that upon entering a market customers, should be met by
        plants and flowers, then fruits and vegetables (for color and visual appeal). Once
        inside customers vendor mix is less controlled but the anchor fish, meat and
        poultry vendors should be spread out thorough the market so as to draw customers
        to various point in the market. If there is more than one anchor vendor in each
        category, managers suggested creating clusters where the basic fruit/vegetable,
        fish, meat and poultry, dairy vendors are located together, creating several
        “nodes” of similar goods.

        Food Court
        As noted earlier in this report, there were two basic approaches to handling food
        court and food court vendors. One was to group them in one centralized area of
        the market, where public seating was appropriately provided (Granville Island,
        Lonsdale Quay, Olympia). The other model disperses food court vendors through
        the market, with limited or similarly dispersed public seating areas (Pike Place
        Market).

        Restaurants
        Restaurants and cafes are found in many different relations to the primary market
        space, above, below, alongside and in. However, an interesting pattern was that
        the higher the quality and the greater the “destination” orientation of the
        restaurant, the more likely the restaurant would be found in out of the way space
        that could otherwise be considered marginal for retail. Many restaurants were
        located on upper or lower levels, or were located in alleys or at the end of a
        peripheral corridor. The Pike Place Market and Granville Island provide excellent
        examples.

        Crafts
        Like food court vendors market managers tend to limit the number and impact of
        craft vendors. Through the interviews conducted for this report, three models for
        craft vendor locations were observed. Some markets will group craft vendors
        together (Pike Place Market), some disperse them through the market (Granville
        Island) and some will run a completely separate crafts market along side the
        public market (Portland). Market managers of the first two models felt it
        important that the number and density of craft vendors be kept, like food court
        vendors, at some small percentage of the overall vendor population. They also
        limited most craft vendors to day tables with few if any permanent craft vendors.
        This allowed market managers to continually change the character of the crafts
        found at the market.



The Scott Group                             32                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Public Circulation
        Within market structures there must be balance between providing enough space
        for customers to stroll and for vendors to get goods in and out, while keeping that
        “sense of abundance” managers seek. Most market operators believed that
        keeping the circulation spaces narrow was beneficial to the energy and function of
        the overall market. In most cases the central aisles between vendor stalls were
        rarely more than 10-12 ft wide, though the convergence of several corridors or a
        central market “hub” could allow for a larger space. The narrow nature of the
        aisles tends to promote efficient circulation patters that created vista corridors,
        where a number of vendors could be seen at once alongside the public activity.

        Connection to the Outdoors
        Though not exclusively, market mangers believed a visual or physical connection
        to the outdoors enhances the overall market experience. This connection could be
        realized in the form of an open arcade, or through the use of large sliding
        industrial windows or garage doors that could be opened in warm weather or
        during busy market days. The market operators need to consider the expectations
        of its customers as well as the expectations of the vendors to avoid conflicts over
        climate control.

        Second Floor / Mezzanine Space
        Resoundingly market managers with second floor, mezzanine or below ground-
        floor space (as with the Pike Place Market) believed it was far inferior to ground
        floors space, especially for the core function of the market. It is not that this
        space couldn’t be leased, but rather it was noted that achievable rents were far
        lower, and that many businesses struggled and that there was high turnover. This
        was especially observed in the Lonsdale Quay and Westminster Quay markets.
        Exceptions to this were destination restaurants, pubs and office uses. It should be
        noted that the Pike Place Market has also been struggling with its lower level
        merchants, and several years ago considered converting the lowest level of the
        market to office space.


Parking Ratio
Consistently all market managers listed ample or convenient parking as critical to the
success of a market. Market mangers went on to note that parking is important because
the majority of shoppers who truly do their “grocery” shopping vs. customers looking for
little more than a snack or a cup of coffee, tended to come by car rather than walk or take
public transport. Managers felt most customers do not want the added burden of hand
carrying all their purchased goods home. Parking is also important to capture market
customers coming from greater distances than the typical one or two mile trade area.
Proximity and ease of access to any supplied parking was also noted. Parking located
more than two blocks away was seen as disadvantageous, while surface parking spaces
located adjacent to or in front of a market was seen as a must, (even if it was far
The Scott Group                              33                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
insufficient to meet demand), because of the public’s perception of the availability of free
or convenient short-term parking is equal to or more important than the parking reality.

However, there was little agreement between market mangers as to what parking count
would suffice as “ample” parking. Managers usually communicated that an adequate
amount of parking was more than they presently had available.

It is also informative to look at ratios used by national and regional retail shopping
centers to determine their parking counts. As noted in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping
Centers 2002 produced by the Urban Land Institute the standard ratio used today for
smaller shopping centers is 4 to 5 stalls per 1000 square feet of gross shopping area.
However because public markets attract higher volumes of people seeking the experience
of visiting the market, this ratio may need to be pushed to the upper end.




Section X: Pre Development Strategies (Building
Momentum)
There are a number of actions that a jurisdiction can take that can help create a playing
field where the development of a public market becomes more likely to occur. Some of
these actions are helpful moving the concept forward in its very early stages and others
are aimed at making such an initiative more economically practical and/or attractive to
private investors nearer to the point where the market would be built.

Feasibility Studies
Over the last 20 years the initial support for most new public markets came from their
local jurisdictions. One of the best methods to not only generate interest and
understanding of what a market can do but also to build support for a public market is to
carry out a series of progressively more focused feasibility studies. The City of Portland
Oregon has commissioned 3 such studies. The first was to generally determine if there
was demand for a public market and narrow down a list of possible sites. The second
study looked more closely at a specific market program and at a few select sites. The
third study, currently under way, is cost estimating a specific program on a specific site.
This effort by the City of Portland has sustained the Portland Public Market initiative at a
low cost, having obtained almost $500,000 in federal grant monies.

Build Public & Political Support
The vast majority of public markets found around the nation have been, in the beginning,
the result of a public investment. The form of this investment comes in many shapes and
sizes but has often been a combination of a gift of real estate and a lump some of money
to start the market off as free of debt as possible. This form of investment typically
requires a level of political and public support commensurate with the size of the gift. In
The Scott Group                              34                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
many communities, building this support is not a great effort but often requires the
municipality to expend resources building awareness of the effort as well as educating the
general public and business community as to the specific benefits a public market brings.
This awareness-building is often done by supporting basic feasibility studies, establishing
a public committee or task force of likely stakeholders to shepherd the effort and by
working with local business and other possible stakeholders to generate grass roots
support.

Designate a Site
Public and private energies are often further mobilized when a specific site is chosen,
allowing the public to more easily envision what the market could be and then mobilizing
efforts around the site. This focusing effect is often magnified if the project is associated
with some historic structure that the community wants to preserve. The City of Boston
invited the US Department of Agriculture to tour its potential public market sites, in order
to garner further public support and validation for its planned public market. The end
result was Fanueil Hall. The Pike Place Market came about as a result of a genuine threat
that it would be torn down in an urban revitalization project. Instead a popular initiative
was successfully advanced to save the “historic” market and surrounding buildings.

Zoning Review
Given the desire for a public market to become an economic engine for the area which
surrounds a market, it is important to insure that the permitted land uses are flexible
enough to promote this goal. Generally zoning which allows retail, office, light industrial
and housing is preferred, but examples of heavy industrial uses adjacent to markets exist.
The Granville Island Market is adjacent to both a cement factory as well as a maritime
center which does boat repairs.

Maximize Public Grants and Other Subsidies
There are a number of grants available for public markets. Many come in the form of
state or federal matching grants where a city will be matched based on the “value” they
are contributing. Thus, when structuring any land or public monies given to a market, the
manner of the transfer and timing should be considered. Other grants work to support
programs that can take place in or be part of a market. In this realm a jurisdiction should
consider if any existing or desired programs can be incorporated into the market’s larger
operation and assist in directing outside money towards the markets overall budget.




Section XI: Attracting Private Interest (Ownership)
In an era of tight budgets many jurisdictions seek creative methods of mobilizing private
dollars towards public or publicly-oriented projects. Because of this public/private joint

The Scott Group                              35                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
ventures have become more common in recent years. However, it is often difficult to
induce private equity to join such efforts in the beginning. Jurisdictions must often offer
private equity incentives or terms that reduce the risk of such a venture by lowing the
costs of entry, protecting returns and place limits on their liability. There are a number of
methods that can be used. These methods range from tax incentives to methods of
property disposition.

Incentives
There are a number of incentives open to a jurisdiction to attract the attention of private
investment towards development in general and a public market specifically. They are:

    •   Tax Credits/Grants: Jurisdictions can direct tax credits or outright grants
        towards a project
    •   Impact Fees: A jurisdiction may reduce or remove impact fees a public market
        project would otherwise have to pay.
    •   Infrastructure Costs: A jurisdiction can bear some or all of the public right of
        way infrastructure costs (such as sidewalks or street improvements) or publicly
        used space costs (such as public plazas or restrooms) associated with the public
        market.
    •   Area Wide Tax Incentives for New Investment: Reducing property or business
        taxes in the area directly surround the public market facility will assist in the
        momentum created by the market itself in attracting investments and jobs
    •   Parking: Many jurisdictions build parking facilities from time to time to help the
        overall access to parking in urban cores. If such a facility is directed in close
        proximity to the public market and any land use requirements for parking
        triggered by the market is lowered or removed, this lowers the burden on the
        market project to provide costly parking spaces.
    •   Streamlined Permitting Process: Having a commitment from a jurisdiction that
        a project will have a clear and streamlined permitting timeline helps to mitigate
        the perception of risk and is attractive to development interests.

Property Disposition Techniques

A combination of the following techniques below and the incentives described above
could be used to incentivise a developer to advance development of a public market or
greater market district on property that is currently controlled by a jurisdiction. As
mentioned above, the entity developing a market can be a private for-profit, private non-
profit, quasi-governmental or governmental agency.

        Joint Venturing
        A jurisdiction can provide incentive to a public market developer through its
        participation in various types and levels of “effective” participation in a joint
        venture. Joint ventures are similar to partnerships however they are often
        undertaken by entities having fewer common objectives and/or little mutual

The Scott Group                               36                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        association and less relationship otherwise. Several forms of joint venture are
        noted below:

             •    Land Contributions & Profit Sharing: A jurisdiction may contribute land
                  for some negotiated price into the development as its equity and then share
                  in the cash flow and/or future profits. The City could receive a preferred
                  return on cash flows until the original equity investment is retired.

             •    Subordinated Mortgage: A jurisdiction can agree to participate in a joint
                  venture through a subordinated mortgage, where the City agrees to loan in
                  second position to a market bank. This adds an extra layer of protection
                  for the commercial bank guaranteeing them payment from market
                  revenues before the City gets payment. The return on investment for the
                  City could be in the form of interest and a percentage of cash flows and/or
                  residual value at sale.

             •    Loan Guarantees: To incentivise an initial private debt lender, (which
                  once on board attracts other lenders) to participate in the financing of a
                  construction loan or permanent loan, a jurisdiction can agree to guarantee
                  a percentage of the loan amount, for example, the jurisdiction or agency
                  could agree that in the event the Public Market was unable to perform in
                  servicing its loan obligation, the Jurisdiction or agency agrees to be
                  responsible for 25% of amounts due.

        Purchase Options
        A jurisdiction can offer the future right to purchase a specified property at a given
        price to a market developer. This may be the parcel the market hall is on or
        adjacent parcels that become part of a greater market district or both. This can
        incentivise the developer on several layers: 1) Possession or title to a parcel of
        land is often not needed until the point at which demolition and or construction is
        going to take place, 2) Allowing the developer to close on the land only when it is
        actually needed avoids the high carrying costs associated with owning the land,
        (and carrying mortgage costs), while still designing, permitting and funding the
        market structure. Such an option can be applied to the parcel the market is to be
        placed on as well as on adjacent properties (contingent on the market being built)
        that would be part and parcel of a wider market district. The benefit of such an
        arrangement for the developer is that they capture some of the increase in value
        the creation has on adjacent property and the benefit to the jurisdiction is they
        attract the private investment required to build such a market in the first place.
        This would offset the inherent risk the developer faces in participating in the
        development of a public market.

        Long-Term Ground Leases
        A long-term land lease offers a method of lowering the upfront costs of creating a
        market. Typical land acquisition costs are 10% to 20% of a development’s
        overall cost. Utilizing a ground lease can the lower the hurdle of front-end costs
The Scott Group                                37                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
        for a market developer. Further there is no real tax implication, since in an actual
        acquisition the developer gets a tax right off for interest on the mortgage
        associated with the land purchase, and in a land lease the developer gets a
        business expense right off associated with the lease costs (which are considered
        an operating cost).

        Ground Leases with Option to Purchase
        By including an option to purchase the property at the end of the leasehold (for a
        specified amount), the above described options and long-term ground lease can be
        combined to provide higher potential profit incentives and additional flexibility
        for financing. This could help in inducing a market developer to undertake the
        risks associated with developing a public market.

        Land Contracts
        A jurisdiction can offer possession of the property to a development entity and
        retain title to the property, and the contract terms can vary depending on that
        jurisdiction’s goals and requirements. One example would be to draft Terms of
        Transfer based upon payment of a specified loan amount (with or without a
        payment schedule) that decreases for ever year the market is in continual
        operation. The point is that if the jurisdiction holds title and transfers the property
        at a discount at some later date associated with the successful construction and
        operation of a market this lowers the barriers for a private development entity (the
        front-end costs are lower and adds flexibility in seeking financing from private
        lenders).




Section XII: Funding Sources
During the research phase and in discussions with stakeholders, The Scott Group
collected information on the various public grants and funding sources that were used by
the municipalities in their efforts to build a public market. The funding strategies and
public funding sources varied and show a great deal of creativity. In addition, TSG
researched federal, state and county grant sources as well as noting those sources
identified in previous studies provided by the city. The intent was to bring to light the
variety of sources that are potentially available when Tacoma proceeds with its effort to
build a public Market.

Municipal Funding Sources
Looking at various efforts carried out regionally to fund public markets, municipalities
have shown a great deal of creativity. Each market effort we investigated had to bring
together a number of municipal funding sources. Some of the larger and more obvious of
these included:


The Scott Group                               38                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   City Bonds: (either independent or associated with other larger initiatives, i.e., a
        parks initiative or other capital projects.) In lieu of councilmanic bonds, cities
        have folded the financing for market structures into larger capital projects bonds.
    •   Tax Increment Financing: (Portland) The state of Oregon allows municipalities
        to borrow funds based on the anticipated increase in value created by new
        development. This allowed the City of Portland to invest in streetscape
        improvements and infrastructure in the Pearl District. Portland will be using TIFs
        to finance a major portion of their public market.
    •   Real Estate Excise Funds: (Bellingham) The city of Bellingham allocates a
        portion of its RE excise taxes, (paid during site acquisitions), for development and
        infrastructure improvements.

However, several municipalities also looked at how they could legitimately direct
existing budget monies towards their efforts. They looked to existing line items and
channeled those funds to the same goals but within the market project. Several examples
were the directing of funds for:

    •   Public Restrooms: (were built in the market)
    •   Parks Department Open Space: (the market plaza was considered open space)
    •   Street Improvement Funds: (the curb and sidewalks around the market were
        built out)
    •   Public Parking: (the project’s parking was built as a multiuse public parking
        facility).
    •   Public Utilities: ( electric, water and sewer infrastructure was built out on the
        market site)
    •   Building and Land Use Fees: (waive permit/inspection fees)

County/State Funding Sources
Only two state or county funding sources were located. The availability and conditions
of these funds vary and are handed out on a competitive basis.

    •   County General Funds: (County) The Pierce County Council may allocate
        general county funds towards a public market project. This would however
        require a clear showing that the project would benefit the whole county and not
        just the City of Tacoma.
    •   Economic Development Block Grants: (can be State, County or City). These
        grants are available from the federal government, and in many cases monies are
        appropriated at the state, county and city levels. The grants are available for
        projects that help community development, or that serve lower income residents.
        To access these funds, the Tacoma Public Market would first go through the City
        of Tacoma for its CDBG funds, and it could qualify for county or additional funds
        if it serves a larger region.



The Scott Group                              39                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Federal Funding Sources
There are a number of federal grant sources coming from various federal agencies. The
future climate for these grants is uncertain due to of federal budget issues but Congress
recently voted to continue the Community Block Grant funding. These grants include, but
are not limited to, the following:

    •   USDA Food Projects Grant, Marketing Services Grant: These grants are
        offered for projects marketing and promoting the use of agricultural land and
        agricultural awareness
    •   HUD Economic Development Initiative Grants: Similar to Block Grants
    •   Community Economic Development Discretionary Grants: are the basis for
        the Economic Development Block Grants as described above.
    •   Save Our Treasures (Historic Building) Grants: are available for buildings of
        historic or community significance. The Portland Public Market will be built
        using these grants. Locally, Albers Mill qualified for these grants, while the
        Maritime Center (Puget Sound Freight Building) was recently denied.
    •   Capital Programs Fund Grant: These grants are typically administered at the
        county or municipal level. Whatcom County provided $214,000 towards
        Bellingham’s Depot Market Square. This program is administered by the City of
        Tacoma.

Non-profit/Community Development Funding Sources
Additional funding can be acquired through a very limited number of non-profit
financing organizations. Efforts that provide community benefit such as housing,
business development, agricultural program, nutrition programming, skills training and
the arts can be targeted for such funding. If a market incorporates these types of
activities into its programming it might qualify for some level of grant money.

        Opportunity Fund Loans
        There are also non-profits that specialize in non-recourse loans to public oriented
        efforts. These grants support feasibility studies, capacity building efforts, project
        programming, bridge loans, and construction.

             •    Capacity Grants can help hire a consultant whose skills and experience
                                           s
                  match an organization' needs, providing for: development of a strategic
                  business plan; building a Board of Directors; financial management
                  analysis; assisting in identifying and interviewing consultants, creating
                  work plans, and managing consultant contracts.
             •    Phase I Predevelopment Loans: non-recourse loans (otherwise known as
                  "risk capital") covering costs such as earnest money for site control;
                  preliminary architectural or engineering studies; hazardous materials

The Scott Group                                40                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                  surveys; and other activities necessary to determine project feasibility;
                  prepare applications for other project funding.
             •    Phase II Predevelopment Loans: for projects that have completed initial
                  feasibility work, have secured at least one permanent financing
                  commitment, and need interim financing to continue moving forward until
                  the final pieces of public/private funding are assembled. These funds will
                  generally cover costs associated with continued site control, completing
                  architectural and engineering plans, loan fees, and professional fees. In
                  most cases, these loans will repay Phase I Predevelopment loans and
                  ideally will be leveraged with organizational contributions and other grant
                  sources.
             •    Subdebt Acquisition Bridge Loans: These secured loans were created to
                  assist nonprofits in purchasing land and buildings. If the appraised value
                  of the land exceeds debt, these loans may repay the Phase I and II
                  Predevelopment Loans. Typically acquisition loans will be made in
                  conjunction with, and subordinate to, a private lender.
             •    Commercial Tenant Improvement Loans: These secured loans are
                  designed to assist the nonprofit in building out commercial spaces. A
                  signed lease is required prior to disbursement of a loan.
                  (Funding Sources: A Regional Case Studies Chart follows.)




The Scott Group                                 41                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                   Funding Sources: Regional Case Studies Chart
Grant/Moneys                    Used Locally?               Notes
         FEDERAL
USDA : Ag. Marketing Services   Portland Market: $70k
Grant
HUD EDI (Economic Dev.          Portland Market: $100k      For preliminary Design
Initiative)
Interiors Dept (Save our        Portland Market: $300k      Relates to renovation of Historic Building
Treasures)
USDA: Community Food                                        $300k maximum per project. Competitive,
Projects Grant                                              matching funds ground (until 2007) Total
                                                            Program: $44.6M
Community Economic Dev.                                     $700k maximum per project. Must be 501(c)3
Discretionary Grant                                         entity. Must help low-income community,
                                                            provide 60 sustainable jobs. Affordable
                                                            Housing component a plus
Enterprise Community Grants                                 Amount varies
(USDA)

            STATE
Capital Programs Fund Grant     Bellingham Market: $450k

        COUNTIES
Whatcom County Econ. Dev.       Bellingham Market: $214k
Grant

             CITIES
Real Estate Excise Funds        Bellingham Market : $836k
Street Funds                    Bellingham Market : $300k   Curb, sidewalk, parking surface improvements
Wastewater Funds                Bellingham Market: $150k    Public Restroom Component


    OTHER SOURCES USED
Private Sector Fundraising      Bellingham Market: $550k    Private sector fundraising should be
                                                            anticipated and shepherded by a task force.
Olympia Parks & Rec. Bond       Olympia Market: $600,000
Urban Renewal Grants (1970’s)   Pike Place Market           Not available today
                                Granville Market: $25M
New Market Tax Credits
Tax Increment Financing         Portland Public Market      Commonly used by Portland Development
                                                            Commission
Impact Capital of Seattle                                   Expressed interest in potentially providing a
                                                            non-profit early funding resources and/or
                                                            technical assistance for a Tacoma Public
                                                            Market project.




The Scott Group                                   42                                                05/24/05
Seattle WA
Section XIII: Operational Budget Overview
In developing a stabilized operational budget for a public market The Scott Group looked
at the operating budgets from a number of regional markets as well as referring to
operational budgets models developed by the Urban Land Institute and Project for Public
Spaces, Inc. in their publication Public Markets and Community Revitalization. The
Urban Land Institute’s Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers 2002 also provided costs
for the operation of regional grocery stores as a point of reference and check.

It should be noted that the operational budget developed below is not only a stabilized
budget (as if the market had been up and running for more than a year) but it is an
idealized budget, and it not based on the operation of a public market tied to a specific
site. Rather, it is assumes a specified number of vendors, an income based off those
vendors and expenses gauged to a market hall that is correctly sized for that number of
vendors. Income projections are based off a theoretical vendor group and likely gross
sales of those vendors. Expense levels are again informed by the operation budgets of the
regional markets interviewed and the budgets developed by PPS and ULI.

The purpose of developing an operation budget is to derive a net operating income and a
market’s ability to carry debt and cover capital development costs. When looking at the
budget one would prudently anticipate an operating deficit during the initial start-up
period. These can be anticipated to be, generally, one (1) to three (3) years. A far-sighted
capital budget might anticipate an initial operating shortfall and incorporate reserves to
support shortfall operations until break-even is achieved.

Appropriate Facility Type for Tacoma – A Market Hall
As noted in the Public Goals and Benefits section (Section III) and the Public Market
Program section (Section IX) of this study, the City has a number of goals for pursuing a
public market. However, the foremost of the City’s stated objectives is to attract
additional economic development and amenities to its growing downtown core. As
sections III and IX noted, to truly serve as a grocery or fresh food amenity, a public
market would need to operate nearly seven days a week and year round. This consistent
level of operations helps markets attract additional retail and tourists, and helps to
develop a hub for a market district.

Permanent market hall structures typically house year round operations. A successful
market hall would satisfy the City’s objectives more readily than a market shed. A market
shed more typically is a program structure chosen for less intensive, more seasonal use by
a farmers market. However, the nearby Olympia Farmers Market, serving an adjacent
population of roughly a quarter the size of Tacoma, is highly successful as a market shed
designed exclusively for a farmers market. Though it has grown quickly, and now
operates 4 days a week for 9 months with gross sales of $3,700,000 annually, it still does
not operate in the winter months. This is a result of the vendors’ seasonal nature and the
level of services, infrastructure and security needed by vendors that operate year round
out of permanent stalls.
The Scott Group                              43                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
The Market Analysis section of this study further explains in detail how this study
assumes market demand for a market hall program currently exists in Tacoma.

Tacoma’s Program: General Size, Vendor Mix & Parking
        Vendor Mix for Tacoma
        The Project for Public Spaces and the Urban Land Institute’s Public Markets and
        Community Revitalization offers a basis for constructing an operating proforma
        for a typical 15,300 net rentable sf market hall from a broader national analysis.
        This study’s interviews of regional market operators affirm this basis. Factoring
        differentiating variables such as site, structure type, management plan, vendor
        mix and days/months of operation, we have assumed a public market hall model
        that parallels the national model’s assumptions. However, we have adjusted this
        model for a somewhat less intensive, more conservative approach appropriate to
        Tacoma.

        The Tacoma model as proposed conservatively assumes lower revenue for stalls,
        less staffing and roughly equal operating expenses (less the staffing reduction)
        than the PPS/ULI model. Accordingly, the quantity of vendors has been reduced
        from the PPS/ULI model with 33 vendors to 25 vendors for the Tacoma model.
        For example, the optimal number of three bakery vendors was reduced to two,
        with each bakery occupying less space than in the PPS/ULI model. However, the
        overall vender mix has been retained. This vendor mix is outlined in Section IX:
        Public Market Program of this report. The importance of this mix was validated
        in our interviews and observations at the regional markets visited for this study.

        Overall Size of Market
        A conservative approach is proposed in making the assumption that a market hall
        should initially begin smaller and eventually grow to its full potential. The overall
        gross size and net rentable area are assumed to be the “critical mass” necessary
        for creating a viable consumer attraction (event) as well as the minimum rents
        required to support operating expense projections. To fit those parameters, this
        study proposes a Tacoma market hall size of roughly 19,000 gross sf, with
        roughly 9,500 net rentable sf of vendor area. This assumes capturing roughly
        $4.5 million gross sales of an available $18 million in the Tacoma Public
        Market’s model’s target market that is available according to the Market Analysis
        section of this report. The specific sites proposed in this study provide for growth
        of the market hall itself and potential for growth into a market district. Each of the
        potential market sites would benefit from adjacent underutilized or low intensity
        uses or adjacent low intensity uses.

        Parking
        The sites selected in this study also assume off-site or nearby street parking,
        supporting the proposed market hall model’s operating assumptions. Assuming a
        parking ratio at the high end of the scale for retail operations of 5 per 1000 sf of
The Scott Group                               44                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        gross retail space would create a demand for approximately 100 stalls. Please see
        Section IX: Public Market Program, of this report for a more detailed discussion.

Operational Budget Comparisons (Regional/National)
        Assumptions (Vendor Gross Sales)
        The operating budgets that were acquired from the regional market directors did
        not provide analysis of gross sales or net profits of independent (private) market
        vendors or other market tenants. Rather, they noted total gross rents collected and
        rental rates. The vendor gross sales numbers used, as a basis for calculating
        Tacoma Public Market operational income, have been extrapolated from the
        PPS/ULI market hall model as well as the data collected from the interviews with
        the eight regional market operators and supported by the Section IV: Market
        Analysis section of this report.

        Explanation of Operational Budget Comparisons Chart
        Below is a chart providing a comparative look at some of the Puget Sound
        region’s differing market typologies, (sheds, halls and districts). Recent or
        proposed operating budgets are contrasted and compared in this analysis against a
        typical (national) market hall’s operating budget offered by the PPS/ULI. This
        comparison is helpful in understanding the range of intensity of operations as they
        relate to types of markets as well as differentiations and similarities between
        various market revenue and expense line items. Finally, because market operators
        do not utilize standard formatted budget proforma, the task of comparing
        operating budgets is not a simple or easy task. There is a certain amount of
        untangling inherent “apples and oranges” dilemmas to make “apples with apples”
        comparisons of line items.




The Scott Group                             45                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
The Scott Group   46   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Notes on Individual Market Budgets
    1. Bellingham’s Depot Market Square: The operational budget of Depot Market
       Square is distinguishable from other local markets in that the shed was fully
       funded by the city and the farmers market is charged no rent on the space. This
       “low rent” decision by the City was gauged to maintain the lowest possible rent
       structure for its Farmers Market vendors. This relates to underlying objectives of
       the City of Bellingham.

    2. The Olympia Farmers Market The Olympia Market shed is built on land owned
       by the Port of Olympia and leased to the City. The City built the shed (using
       councilmanic bonds) and subleases the shed site to the Olympia Farmers Market
       at a rate that will repay the bonds and rent. These line items could also be
       measured against other market budgets’ costs of land and improvements or
       characterized, comparatively, against other market’s original capitalization. For
       comparative reasons of this analysis we’ve held these expense line items below
       the N.O.I. line item. They are $32,000 for repayment of City Bonds, $32,000 rent
       to the Port and $9,000 in related leasehold tax costs.

        The Olympia Farmers Market has been highly successful and operated at a
        significantly higher intensity than the typical farmers market in a market “shed”
        structure. From a financial perspective, the Olympia Farmers Market could be
        described as “shed operations on steroids” or a shed hybrid that operates as a
        market hall. While the market hall operating assumptions described above are
        more intensive than Olympia’s shed operations, after adjusting days of operations,
        Olympia’s operating budget more closely parallels a market hall than might be
        expected. Its proximity to Tacoma is also relevant in considering the area’s
        inherent acceptance and demand for public market venues.

    3. The PPS/ULI Typical Market Hall The PPS/ULI typical (national) market hall
       operations incorporate 15,300 sf of net leasable vendor space and proposes 33
       vendors with an average stall size of 464 sf. The largest vendors are bakery, meat
       and produce vendors, and the smallest are day tables. The mix of vendors includes
       two to four of each of the following vendor types: bakery; cheese; coffee/tea;
       eggs/dairy; flowers; meat; poultry; seafood; day table; and six prepared food
       vendors. Vendor gross sales are estimated at $7,000,000 annually. Vendor rents
       charged averages 6.34% of vendor gross sales with the lowest rent representing
       4% and highest representing 9% of any specific vendor’s gross sales. The average
       market rent charged to vendors is roughly $13,000 annually ($1,080/monthly) and
       the total annual vendor rents are roughly $432,000 or $31.40 sf over net leasable
       area. These revenues also incorporate assumptions that Common Area Charges
       (CAM) included are roughly $100,000 and there is $108,000 or a 20% annual
       vacancy loss for revenues. These operations assume operations 12 months per
       year 25 days per month.


The Scott Group                             47                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
    4. The Seattle Pike Place Market Our research revealed Seattle’s that Pike Place
       Market is not only a regional centerpiece, but it is widely recognized and often
       cited nationally for various aspects of its success. Its operating budget proforma
       incorporates revenues and expenses relating to a larger market district. Its budget
       format incorporates interdepartmental operations of running numerous city blocks
       containing commercial office and retail, residential and parking.


Conceptual Operational Budget – Tacoma Market Hall
        Vendor Count/Mix/Size
        This study proposes 25 permanent vendors. Similar to the PPS/ULI model, the
        largest vendor spaces are assumed to be meat and produce and the smallest are
        day tables. The mix of vendors includes one to three of each of the following
        vendor types: bakery; cheese; coffee/tea; eggs/dairy; flowers; meat; poultry;
        seafood; day table; and six prepared food vendors. (Please see the conceptual
        Vendor Mix Plan below). This study proposes vendors with an average stall size
        of 382 sf.




The Scott Group                             48                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
            CONCEPTUAL VENDOR MIX
            TACOMA PUBLIC MARKET
            Assumes roughly 15,000 Gross SF w/o adjacent retail

                                                                  Rent as               Rent
                                                                      %      Yearly      per
                     Vendor Type         SF           Sales         Sales      Rent       SF
             1    Bakery                350       $150,000         6.00%      $9,000   $25.71
             2    Bakery                350       $150,000         6.00%      $9,000   $25.71
             3    Cheese/Wine           500       $225,000         8.00%     $18,000   $36.00
             4    Cheese/Wine           300       $135,000         8.00%     $10,800   $36.00
             5    Coffee/Tea            300       $150,000         8.00%     $12,000   $40.00
             6    Coffee/Tea            300       $150,000         8.00%     $12,000   $40.00
             7    Eggs/Dairy            300       $125,000         6.00%      $7,500   $25.00
             8    Flowers               200       $100,000         7.50%      $7,500   $37.50
             9    Flowers               400       $200,000         7.50%     $15,000   $37.50
            10    Meat 1                400       $180,000         4.50%      $8,100   $20.25
            11    Meat 2                750       $300,000         4.50%     $13,500   $18.00
            12    Poultry               300       $125,000         4.50%      $5,625   $18.75
            13    Poultry               300       $125,000         4.50%      $5,625   $18.75
            14    Prepared Food 1       300       $225,000         9.00%     $20,250   $67.50
            15    Prepared Food 2       300       $225,000         9.00%     $20,250   $67.50
            16    Prepared Food 3       300       $225,000         9.00%     $20,250   $67.50
            17    Prepared Food 4       300       $225,000         9.00%     $20,250   $67.50
            18    Prepared Food 5       100         $75,000        9.00%      $6,750   $67.50
            19    Produce 1             600       $250,000         5.50%     $13,750   $22.92
            20    Produce 2             600       $200,000         5.50%     $11,000   $18.33
            21    Produce 3             600       $200,000         5.50%     $11,000   $18.33
            22    Seafood 1             700       $350,000         4.50%     $15,750   $22.50
            23    Seafood 2             600       $300,000         4.50%     $13,500   $22.50
            24    Day Table 1           200         $50,000        6.00%      $3,000   $15.00
            25    Day Table 2           200         $50,000        6.00%      $3,000   $15.00

                  Total                9,550     $4,490,000                 $292,400
                  Average               382                       6.62%                $34.05




The Scott Group                                     49                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Income
        The model’s operations assume operations 12 months per year 25 days per month.
        This study does not incorporate inflationary escalation between the time the
        PPS/ULI generated its rent assumptions and the time a Tacoma Public Market
        would be activated.

        Rent structure (Base, Percentage, CAM)
        Vendor gross sales are estimated at roughly $4,500,000. Given that the Olympia
        farmers market is located in a city approximately one fourth the size of Tacoma,
        operates seasonally 4 days per week and achieves gross sales of roughly
        $3,700,000, the authors of this study propose the conceptual gross sales as shown
        in the Tacoma model are a conservatively estimated assumption. Vendor rents
        average 6.62% of these estimated gross sales, with the lowest rent representing
        4.5% and highest representing 9% of any specific vendor’s gross sales. A
        structure of “base rent plus percentage of sales” might also be utilized by an
        operator that arrives at equivalent gross rental amount.

        Additionally, the model assumes common area maintenance (CAM) assessments
        that total $100K, averaging $333/month per permanent vendor. The amount to the
        vendor could be reduced if CAM expenses are amortized by additional tenants or
        offset by ancillary income sources. As a contingency, CAM charges to vendors
        have not been reduced from the PPS/ULI market hall model. While some
        elements associated with typical CAM charges might be reduced in a model that
        assumes less net square footage of vendor area, the majority of factors behind the
        typical sum for CAM charges do not directly correlate with floor area. For
        example, CAM inclusions typically allocate to vendors all reasonable expenses
        required to manage, operate and maintain a facility.

        These costs are often influenced by some basis other than “per square foot,” so
        there may in fact be little or no difference in total CAM costs between a market
        with 9,500 nsf and a market with 15,000 nsf. Expenses such staffing, advertising,
        legal and professional services, insurance, etc, do not directly correlate on a
        square foot, pro-rata basis.

        Ancillary Income
        The model proposed does not assume ancillary income. However, additional
        income is typically generated by additionally assessing vendors for dry and cold
        storage space use. This space is typically required and made available by market
        operators for an additional rental amount that this study scope has not undertaken.
        An entrepreneurial operator could also provide a range of other administrative /
        office services and conveniences that might be utilized by permanent vendors and
        farmers market vendors.

        Farmers Market Income
        It is this study’s conclusion that the existing farmers market annual revenues will
        significantly improve through its co-location with a full-time Tacoma Public

The Scott Group                              50                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Market. It assumes the farmers market pays a $20,000 annual rental fee for use of
        an outdoor set-up space directly adjacent the Public Market. While this amount is
        slightly more than it is accustomed to paying, the authors of this study assume this
        amount as an appropriate placeholder amount.

             •    Size: The Tacoma farmers market currently consists of roughly 100
                  vendors.
             •    Rent structure: The structure of the farmers market rent could be a
                  percentage of sales, a flat fee or some combination of both according to
                  market operator and farmers market negotiation. The authors have
                  assumed a placeholder for total rent approximating $20,000 annually.

        Parking Income
        This study does not initially anticipate parking revenues being generated being by
        the public market itself.

        Vacancy loss
        This study conservatively assumes roughly $80,000 or 20% vacancy loss which is
        consistent with the Urban Land Institute’s model.

        Expenses
        The study’s authors have elected to hold most expenses consistent with the Urban
        Land Institute’s assumptions with the exception of staffing.

             •    Staffing: The Tacoma model assumes a primary management position at a
                  slightly higher cost and without an assistant manager but with added
                  clerical expense. The Tacoma model also initially assumes a reduced
                  security personnel cost of $10,000 (vs. $35,000 in the Urban Land
                  Institute model) until rationale presents itself otherwise.

        Net Operating Income (NOI)
        The net operating income (NOI) represents operational income less expenses and
        is assumed to be between $30,000 and $40,000.

Ability to Carry Debt Burden
The assumptions herein assume a hall structure that has been refurbished or developed
with hard costs ranging roughly $750,000 to $1,800,000. The Tacoma Market’s initial
ability to carry debt is limited in the Tacoma model presented. It should be mentioned
again that most Public Markets operators are typically non-profit or quasi-governmental.
Public markets are normally perceived as a public good. Viewed as such they are
typically capitalized and established through resources of municipalities.




The Scott Group                                51                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
             CONCEPTUAL MARKET HALL BUDGET
             TACOMA PUBLIC MARKET


                  INCOME
                    Rents                  Retail
                                           Farmers Market                                 $20,000
                                           Crafts
                                           Facility Rental
                                           Vendor Stalls                                 $292,400
                                                                  Total Daystall Rents   $312,400
                                       Community Market Baskets
                                       Residential
                                       Retail & Office Related
                                       Storage
                                       Cooler
                    Parking
                    Tacoma Market Foundation
                    Common Area Charges (CAM)                                            $100,000
                    Vacancy Loss                                                         ($82,480)
                  Total Income                                                           $329,920


                  EXPENSES
                    Personnel
                                       Management                                         $45,000
                                       Clerical Support                                   $20,000
                                       Maintenance                                        $40,000
                                       Security                                           $10,000
                                       Taxes                                              $24,000
                                           Total Personnel Related                       $139,000
                    Advertising / Events                                                  $40,000
                    Office expenses                                                       $20,000
                    Legal / Professional                                                  $10,000
                    Insurance                                                             $25,000
                    Fees / Permits                                                         $2,000
                    Utilities                                                             $10,000
                    Garbage                                                               $25,000
                    Supplies / Equip                                                      $20,000
                  Total Expenses                                                         $291,000


                  Net Operating Income                                                    $38,920
The Scott Group                                              52                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Section XIV: Site Analysis and Selection
As part of this report, a site analysis was conducted to evaluate potential locations for a
public market for Tacoma. It was agreed after discussions with the City that the site
selection would be limited to the downtown core, in an area that would be bordered by I-
5 to the south, D-Street to the east, Yakima Avenue to the west and Sixth Avenue to the
north. It was also agreed to limit the number of sites to 15. The parameters for
consideration of initial sites included:

    •   Location in downtown core or Foss Waterway
    •   Vacant and/or developable land (including renovation of existing buildings)
    •   Larger parcels (30,000 sf +)
    •   Central location
    •   Adjacent development potential
    •   Access to freeways
    •   Access to transit (Light Rail)
    •   City-owned parcels
    •   Foss Waterway Development Authority-owned parcels
    •   Privately owned parcels

After selection of the initial 15 sites, The Scott Group then developed evaluation criteria
for site selection. The criteria was established based on a combination of previous public
market reports, as well as input from interviews with 8 regional public and farmers
markets (These interviews are located in the Appendix). These criteria were placed in a
site matrix format and after individual sites were evaluated on a level from 1 to 4 (1=
poor, 4=excellent), while some items were assigned a “Yes” or “No” where appropriate.

It is important to note that a larger number of sites could potentially house a public
market, and this report was structured to objectively evaluate the initial selected
properties only, and to narrow the field to 4 sites. These recommendations, however, do
not preclude the owners of individual properties, or sponsors of a farmers or public
markets from promoting alternate sites. This exercise is merely an attempt to help the
City of Tacoma take a critical look at sites that would have a more probable and positive
economic impact as a location for the Tacoma Public Market.




The Scott Group                              53                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
The Scott Group   54   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Sites Descriptions
        Downtown/CBD

        1. UWT Warehouse: The University of Washington owns a 40,800 sf
           warehouse on the SW corner of S.19th & Market Street. The total lot is
           approximately 80,000 sf.

        2. UWT Campus/Street: There are a number of undeveloped lots in the planned
           UWT campus area, as well as the potential closure of Market Street. Long
           term plan is to fully develop these, but there will be open space and plazas.

        3. Post Office Bldg: The main Post Office, at the SW corner of 11th & A Streets,
           features a 27,000 sf floor plate. The long term use of the building is uncertain,
           and speculation is that a mixed-use development will eventually go there.

        4. Haub Brothers Property: The Haub Brothers Trust owns a number of
           properties located between S.12th & S.14th and bordered by Pacific Avenue
           and A Street. For the sake of this study, we considered the lot bordering
           Pacific Ave and Court A, located between 12th & 14th Streets and immediately
           west of the Post Office parking lot. The eventual plan for these sites will be
           high density mixed-use (office, retail, etc), so it was assumed that a public
           market would not fit this program.

        5. 15th & Broadway: The City of Tacoma owns the large, multi-leveled surface
           parking lot located immediately south of the Sheraton and immediately north
           of the Convention Center, bounded by Market Street, Broadway Plaza and S.
           15th. The site, which encompasses upwards of 85,000 sf, contains numerous
           easements and restrictions on it, in order to provide parking/access for the
           Sheraton.

        6. Park Plaza North Garage: This city-owned structure is located at 923
           Commerce Street and is adjacent to the downtown/Pierce Transit hub. The
           building contains a cluster of ground floor retail (owned by separate
           investors), and was the first choice for a public market location by a previous
           city-sponsored public market site analysis.

        Foss Waterway

        7. Bamford/Petrich Site: These two sites are located at the base of the Murray
           Morgan Bridge on the east side of the Foss Waterway. The Bamford site,
           owned by Kathryn Bamford and located north of the bridge and bordered by
           D Street to the east, is approximately 43,000 sf. The Petrich site, owned by
           Claire Petrich, is located directly south of the bridge, is bordered by D Street
           to the east and is approximately 103,500 sf. When combined with the city-


The Scott Group                              55                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
             owned right of way underneath the bridge, the combined properties
             encompass a site of approximately 200,000 sf, or approximately 4.5 acres.

        8. Johnny’s Seafood/Colonial Produce: These sites are located on the 1100
           block of E. Dock Street, ion the west side of the Foss Waterway. Johnny’s
           Seafood is owned by the City and is approximately 39,000 sf, while the
           adjacent Colonial Produce site is approx. 37,000. Combined the sites are
           greater than 78,000 sf. The warehouse on the colonial site is approximately
           28,000 sf, while the Johnny’s Building is approximately 10,500 sf. The
           additional property to the north would increase the total potential site to over
           100,000 sf.

        9. Municipal Dock/Site 9: Located on the west side of the Foss Waterway and
           directly north of the Murray Morgan Bridge, the Municipal Dock site is
           61,800 sf, while “Site 9,” which is located just south of the bridge, is 36,000
           sf. When combined with the RPW underneath the bridge, the potential
           site/hub encompasses approximately 106,000 sf, or close to 2.5 acres.

        10. City Marina: This site, owned by FWDA, includes city-owned right of way
            on D Street (used for parking). The marina site is approximately 28,000 sf ,
            and includes two 2-story office building/storage sheds with a total floor plate
            of 11,000 sf. The uplands site is 50ft wide at its widest, and the additional
            ROW adds 34 feet. The total site with the north end “triangle” of ROW is
            approximately 940 ft long. The site is the home of the mosquito fleet, and
            there are covenants on the property to provide storage for the fishing nets,
            which are currently stored on the ground floors of the shed/office structures

        South-Central Downtown

        11. Police Station Site: The former City-owned “Police Station Site” contains
            approximately 277,016 sf 6.35 acres and is located at S. 21st St & Jefferson,
            between the Brewery District and the emerging Upper Tacoma neighborhood.
            The site spans three streets, and is largely vacant land.

        12. Streets and Grounds: The Streets & Grounds complex of sites, all City-
            owned includes three key parcels: 1) the 27,000, 300’ long “Maintenance
            Shop” at 23rd & C Street, 2) a 45,000 sf. warehouse, located between Holgate
            & Hood Streets, and 3) the current maintenance yard, a 675 foot long parcel
            on Jefferson between S. 23rd & S. 25th and containing 68,000 sf of space.
            Combined, these parcels total 126,333 sf of land (2.9 acres), and 72,626 of
            existing building spaces.

        Dome District

        13. Freighthouse Square/Pierce Transit Plaza: This group of sites includes that
            portion of Freighthouse Square west of the Sounder station/hall, which bisects

The Scott Group                              56                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
             the complex. Currently that portion is largely vacant and is 19,000 gross
             square feet, not including upstairs mezzanine space. This grouping also
             considers the 14,000 sf plaza on the south side of the Tacoma Dome
             Station/Parking Gage, and the 22,700 sf “Pierce Transit Shed”.

        14. LeMay Museum: The LeMay Car Museum will be located on 10 acres, west
            of the Tacoma Dome and bordering D Street to the east. The museum may
            include a mixed-use or commercial component.

        15. Tacoma Dome: The Tacoma Dome is planning a bond-financed
            remodel/expansion. For the purpose of this study, the possibility of a market
            on indoor or outdoor space was considered.


Site Matrix & Definitions
The Scott Group developed a site matrix to assist in analyzing sites for their
appropriateness in housing a public market. A number of factors were considered in the
matrix. The matrix was useful in outlining and tracking those site characteristics
beneficial to successfully operating a market. There is not, however, one single grouping
of traits that insures a successful market. There are a number of characteristics that
contribute to a market’s success. Sites are strong in some areas and weaker in others;
some are excellent from a parking perspective but poor from a neighborhood character
perspective. Other sites are waterfront properties but the property owner is disinclined to
have a public market built on the site.

        Public Agency Owned
        If a piece of property is already owned by a public agency or the City of Tacoma
        the land could be contributed towards a public market effort, eliminating land
        costs from the overall development cost calculation. This is important to the
        extent that most Public Markets operations do not support heavy debt from their
        original capitalization. Lower debt burdens allow markets to support rent
        structures that are affordable to low-volume/narrow-margin vendors that are
        initially typical at public markets. Further, the contribution of such property is an
        appropriate disposition of a publicly owned parcel because of the direct benefits
        public markets bring to the general populace as well as the economic development
        benefits they engender.

        Compatible Zoning
        A public market is a commercial retail enterprise and any zoning that allows such
        activity is compatible with an effort to build a public market. However, markets
        are often mixed-use enterprises with elements of office, light industrial uses and
        housing interspersed with the retailing activities. Thus, the more flexible the
        zoning the greater number of solution options that can be crafted to fit the
        particular needs of Tacoma.


The Scott Group                               57                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Resident Proximity
        Though public and farmers markets tend to draw from a regional population, they
        are also developed to serve the growing residential populations of city centers.
        Though most market customers tend to arrive by car, residents of adjacent
        neighborhoods will walk to a public market. Thus, markets can benefit from
        locating close to higher density neighborhoods and growing urban centers.

        Worker Proximity
        Currently downtown Tacoma has a daytime workforce population of over 30,000.
        Due to the realities of carrying grocery bags and the need for refrigeration, office
        workers tend not to purchase much fresh food during the workday on a regular
        basis, even if a public market is conveniently located nearby. However, during the
        lunch hour they do frequent food court vendors and restaurants.

        Tax Incentives
        The City of Tacoma offers a number of incentives for new development in the
        downtown core, some of which are through downtown’s federally recognized
        “Renewal Community” status. For residential projects, there is a10-year tax
        abatement. For commercial development, the city offers a CRD program
        whereby an accelerated depreciation for up to $10M of a project’s value can be
        deducted over 5 or 10 years, allowing for substantial tax relief. This is offered
        throughout the downtown core. In addition the City offers business and ownership
        incentives such as:

             •    RC Wage Credits (employees that live within a designated area)
             •    No Capital Gains (space must be owner occupied for five years)

        These and other incentives are subject to a competition and/or timelines. The City
        of Tacoma’s Tax Program Technician would work with the Public Market
        developers to maximize available incentives.

        Owner Expressed Interest
        During the course of interviewing local property owners a number actively
        expressed an interest in having their property considered as a home for a public
        market. The benefits of a willing property owner are many, from streamlining the
        process of site acquisition, land lease or partnership structure, to ensuring a timely
        implementation schedule.

        Visibility
        Retail operators prefer sites that are highly visible from heavily-used
        transportation corridors, or that are in close proximity to a known or easily
        identifiable landmark. This strategy works by keeping the facility in the mind of
        the consumer as they pass the property. This strategy also helps by providing an
        easy to find location for those who may be unfamiliar with the area or with the
        facility’s location.


The Scott Group                               58                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Freeway Access
        Convenient freeway access is important in that it allows a public market to more
        easily capture customers from greater distances than the typical 1 to 2 mile ring.
        It also opens up the market to such customer generators as tour bus companies
        and other visitors that are just briefly passing through a city.

        Parking
        Parking is critical to any retail venture and public markets are no exception. This
        is not only an issue of ease of access but its critical to promoting actual
        purchasing. Retail customers are unwilling to purchase goods if taking them
        home is inconvenient. This means that convenient and ample parking will be
        important in the minds of the majority of the market’s customers. Many studies
        have shown that parking needs to be located within several hundred feet and that
        graded elevations, if too steep, become a problem.

        Public Transit
        Though arriving in an automobile is the preferred method for customers of a
        public market, public transit is also an important option, especially in cities that
        have developed rapid transit systems. Public markets are also populated by
        customers who visit the market more for the experience than for the opportunity
        to do daily or weekly shopping. This type of customer comes by car but they also
        come by public transit, since they are not planning to carry a large amount of
        purchased goods. Like parking, the proximity of transit, the topography and
        distance between the market and the transit stop effect the value of the
        connection.

        Neighborhood Character
        Factors such as pre-existing aesthetic character due to construction typology of
        industrial districts, turn of the century masonry, etc. can contribute to the overall
        market experience. Other neighborhood character factors include the overall
        pedestrian experience, which varies depending on existing uses such as water-
        related activity, concentrations of “artnic" shops and creative businesses, and
        those tenant’s typically unique or “funky” aesthetic alteration of community
        structures.

        Potential Market Hall
        Markets around the country can be found operating from historic buildings where
        they began at the beginning of the 20th Century, to brand new shed pavilions such
        as Pioneer Park Pavilion built last year in Puyallup. For both character and cost
        effectiveness, however, an adaptable structure that can be used as a market hall
        can save costs, time and help to generate a clearer concept or vision to garner
        public support for a new market. This may particularly apply for structures that
        are well-known or that have historic value.




The Scott Group                               59                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Pedestrian Activity
        A simple adage says that people like to be around people, and so does retail.
        Hence, a site that is located where pedestrian activity already exists would benefit
        the retail activity located in a public market. This, however, must be balanced
        against the separate goal of using a market to generate economic activity in
        struggling or transitional areas as well the reality that the higher the level of
        pedestrian activity the higher the site acquisition cost tends to become (the land or
        structures become more costly).

        Waterfront
        Urban waterfronts around the world are a tremendous draw for people, as they
        provide respite from the noisy bustle of concrete city environs. Locally, the
        waterfront also provides a connection to the culture of the Pacific Northwest, both
        historic and modern. In the context of a public market it also provides a
        connection to one primary food attracting customers to a market: seafood. While
        it is difficult to locate an urban market next to active farmland one can locate a
        public market adjacent to an urban waterway. For the interviews conducted during
        this feasibility study, the directors of waterfront markets acknowledged how the
        location alone was a strong draw for people.

        Views
        Views provide another strong attractor and amenity for people. Views of nature,
        downtown skylines, territorial or unique architectural features are all to be
        considered. For downtown Tacoma this could include views of Mount Rainier,
        the Foss Waterway, the tideflats, the downtown skyline, bridges and
        Commencement Bay. Sites that have access to a unique view amenity can
        leverage this view as an attraction as well as incorporate its use in promotional
        and advertising materials. An example of this is the familiar “Public Market” sign
        at the Pike Place Market, which is frequently photographed with its background
        views of the Olympic Mountains and Elliott Bay.

        Nearby Attractions
        It is beneficial to any venture that depends on a high level of traffic (as retail
        does) to have other attractions nearby. Not only does this allow ease of access for
        visitors between attractions, but it allows each of these attractions to benefit from
        the unique success, identity and additional customer base of the other.

        Development Catalyst
        Since the mid 1970’s when the modern movement to preserve or restart public
        market began in the United States many cities have used them to promote
        development in struggling or emerging urban neighborhoods. This is because
        successful public markets not only attract large numbers of people to areas they
        might not otherwise go, but they also tend to incubate and attract other creative
        and entrepreneurial businesses. This ongoing momentum in turn continues to
        attract additional retailers, developers and prospective residents, all lured to the
        area by the perceived “hipness” of the market and its surrounding district...

The Scott Group                               60                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Serve Growing Downtown Population
        Public markets serve as a general grocery amenity for the areas in which they are
        located. Currently downtown Tacoma is served by only one grocery store, the
        Stadium Thriftway. Though it is one of the nicer groceries in Tacoma, it is
        situated outside the downtown core, leaving new downtown residents with few
        convenient options. A public market would not only serve to bring a new grocery
        option to the Tacoma area, but it would also be sited in a location to better
        serving the growing downtown population.

        Site for Farmers Market
        Tacoma currently has a successful farmers market. Most public markets work
        cooperatively with and provide space for local farmers market. Though they
        provide competition for the permanent public market tenants, farmers market
        vendors are seen as essential in providing a link to the local agricultural
        community, and they tend to add a more authentic local flavor to the public
        market. This relationship is often realized by the public market providing the
        local farmers market space in the form of day tables or plaza space where the
        farmers market can set up one, two or more days a week during the growing
        season. This typically requires a site have space beyond that required for the
        permanent market hall building. This space can be in the form of a street, parking
        lot, plaza, park, etc.

        Market District Potential
        Public markets tend to attract creative young entrepreneurial businesses as well as
        developers of commercial and housing projects into the adjacent area surrounding
        a public market. This happens more easily when the area surrounding the
        market’s location is appropriately suited for such redevelopment; underutilized
        improvements and land is typically more affordable to buy or lease for
        redevelopment, while areas that are highly developed in their current use are less
        likely to maximize such development opportunity. This item includes
        consideration of a district’s zoning and parking potential, which is also important
        to realizing development potential of a market district.

Site Matrix
Below is the Site Matrix, which categorizes and evaluates the 15 potential sites for the
Tacoma Public Market. The top row includes 21 designated Site Evaluation Criteria and
on the left hand side are the 15 sites. For each site, the Site Evaluation Criteria are
measured on a scale from “1”, (meaning poor or N/A), to “4”, (meaning excellent), or,
otherwise “Yes” or “No” where appropriate.




The Scott Group                              61                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
     SITE MATRIX
     TACOMA PUBLIC MARKET STUDY




                                                                    Compatible Adjacent Zoning




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Serve Regional Population
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Serve Growing Dwtn. Pop.
                                                                                                                                                             Owner Expressed Interest




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Neighborhood Character




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Market District Potential
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Site for Farmers Market
                                              Public Agency Owned




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Development Catalyst
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Potential Market Hall
                                                                                                                      Workforce Proximity
                                                                                                 Resident Proximity




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Pedestrian Activity




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Nearby Attractions
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Freeway Access
                                                                                                                                            Tax Incentives




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Public Transit




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Waterfront
                                                                                                                                                                                        Visibility




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Parking




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     View
                                              SITE CONDITIONS                                                                                                                           ACCESS                                                   PLACE                                                                                                           GOALS
     DOWNTOWN
     1  Univ of Wa – Warehouse Bld (Temp)      Y                      Y                            3                     3                   Y                  2                        3             3                3               2           2                      Y                         2                  N            3        2                   2                         3                           3                          3                          1
     2  UW- Campus/Market St (Temp )           Y                      Y                            3                     3                   Y                  2                        2             3                3               2           2                      N                         2                  N            2        3                   2                         3                           3                          3                          1
     3  Post Office                            Y                      Y                            3                     4                   Y                  *                        3             4                4               3           2                      Y                         3                  N            2        3                   1                         3                           4                          1                          1
     4  Haub Brother Properties                N                      Y                            3                     4                   Y                  1                        3             4                3               3           2                      N                         3                  N            3        3                   2                         4                           4                          1                          1
     5  15th & Broadway (City)                 Y                      Y                            3                     4                   Y                  1                        3             3                4               3           2                      N                         3                  N            2        3                   2                         4                           3                          2                          1
     6  Municipal Garage (City)                Y                      Y                            3                     4                   Y                  2                        2             3                4               4           2                      Y                         3                  N            1        3                   1                         4                           4                          2                          1

     THEA FOSS WATERWAY
     7   Bamford/Petrich Property              N                      Y                            1                     3                   Y                  4                        4             2                1               3           3                       Y                        1                   Y           4        2                   4                         3                           3                          4                          4
     8   Johnny's Seafood (City) / Colonial    Y                      Y                            2                     2                   Y                  3                        3             2                1               3           3                       Y                        2                   Y           4        3                   3                         3                           3                          4                          3
     9   Muni Dock / Site 9 (FWDA)             Y                      Y                            2                     3                   Y                  3                        3             2                1               3           3                       Y                        2                   Y           4        2                   3                         3                           3                          3                          3
     10 City Marina (FWDA)                     Y                      Y                            1                     2                   Y                  1                        4             2                1               3           3                       Y                        1                   Y           4        1                   1                         2                           3                          2                          2

     UPPER TACOMA
     11 Police Station (City)                  Y                      Y                            3                     3                   Y                  3                        3             3                2               3           2                      N                         1                  N            3        2                   2                         3                           3                          4                          4

     BREWERY DISTRICT
     12 Streets and Grounds (City)             Y                      Y                            3                     3                   Y                  4                        3             3                3               3           3                       Y                        2                  N            2        3                   4                         3                           4                          4                          4

     DOME DISTRICT
     13 Freight Hs Sq./Pierce Transit Shed     N                      Y                            2                     3                   Y                  4                        4             4                4               4           2                      Y                         3                  N            2        4                   4                         3                           4                          4                          4
     14 Le May Museum Site                     N                      Y                            2                     2                   Y                  1                        4             4                3               4           2                      Y                         2                  N            3        4                   1                         2                           4                          4                          2
     15 Tacoma Dome (City)                     Y                      Y                            2                     2                   Y                  1                        4             4                3               4           2                      N                         2                  N            3        4                   1                         2                           4                          3                          2

          Key: Y= Yes N=No 1=Poor, N/A 2=Fair 3=Good
     :    4=Excellent


The Scott Group                                               62                                                                                                                                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Top Four Recommended Sites
The following are potential development scenarios for the four top recommended sites.
The summaries identify initial opportunities and constraints as well as the multiple
components that could make up a public market or market district.

Note on Parking Count:
For these four recommended sites, existing parking spaces were counted, including
streets and/or right of ways immediately adjacent to these properties. For instances where
there was open space or vacant land on site, potential surface parking spaces were
calculated at 1 stall per 375 sf. Additional parking could be provided in structured
parking located within adjacent mixed-use development.




The Scott Group                             63                                     05/24/05
Seattle WA
Site 1: Streets and Grounds Sites (Brewery District)

 3. STREETS & GROUNDS
 Concept: Mixed-use Market District, potential for artists live/work, adaptive reuse of brewery/warehouse area.
 Zoning: Warehouse Residential, 100'height (Commercial, Residential, Industrial)


 Primary Sites                                  Dimensions (approx)                              Potential Component/Use


 1. Former Maintenance Shop                     Property: 21,000 sf, (1 acre)                    Central Market Hall, Office/Mixed Use
 S. 23rd & Holgate St.                          Building Area: 30,000 sf (on 2 Stories)                s
                                                                                                 Farmer' Market Plaza
                                                Hard surface adjacent plaza 6,200 sf.


 2. Maintenance Shop                            Property: 15,333 sf (.35 acre)                   Additional market uses (west side)
 23rd & C St.                                   Building: 27,626 sf (2-storey)                   Mixed use on 2nd level and east side


 3. S&G Yard                                    Property: 68,000 sf. (1.56 acre)                 Parking (open lot, then future structured)
                                                                                                 Mixed Use (housing, commercial, retail)


 Adjacent Properties
 4. Form. Police Station Site                   Property: 277,016 sf (6.36 acres)                Future Mixed-use or master-planned
 S. 21st & Jefferson                                                                             development (UW, housing, etc)


 Parking (potential)
 Holgate Street (abutting FMS)                   15 spaces
 Maintenance Shop (street, angled)               24 spaces
 Jefferson St. (east side, abutting)             30 spaces
 S & G Yard (surface parking)                   190 spaces
                                       Total:   259 spaces




The Scott Group                                                       64                                                   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Opportunities:
  • City owned property identified for disposition
  • Ready immediately for mobilization of market hall development
  • Existing structures have historic/industrial character
  • Existing structure has excellent air and light, power and other infrastructure
  • Potential catalyst for development in heart of Brewery District
  • Adjacent warehouse structures available for potential mixed-use development
  • Site would serve growing residential community on hillside, downtown
  • Potential to improve appeal for city-owned “Police Station” site (located kitty-
     corner to the north west)
  • Housing development potential (affordable or market rate)
  • Compatible zoning could encourage industrial artists and creative business in
     adjacent buildings
  • Potential for a larger market district close to UWT.

Constraints:
   • Limited outdoor plaza for Farmers Market (perhaps temporary street closure)
  • Some of Streets & Grounds operations must be relocated (cost). Note: this is
      currently being explored by the City of Tacoma regardless of market’s location.
  • Visibility: Prominent lighted rooftop signage would likely be necessary to
      increase site visibility from I-5, 705 and Pacific Avenue.

The development of a public market district at the Streets and Grounds sites represents an
opportunity to initiate development in the Brewery District. Physically, the existing
structures and location on the urban grid bear a similarity to the Pike Place Market, hence
there is good potential for a larger mixed-use market district. The existing zoning,
Warehouse Industrial, allows for a variety of uses, including industrial and live/work or

The Scott Group                             65                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
artists and/or creative businesses, which tend to be attracted to public markets (eg. Pike
Place Market, Granville Island Market.)

The initial program would focus on 3 areas and potentially eventually a later 4th area:
   • Former Maintenance Shop (23rd & Holgate) for the Market Hall w/ additional
        uses
   • Plaza in front of Maintenance Shop (on 23rd), with 6,700 sf for a farmers market.
   • S&G Maintenance Yard (23rd & Jefferson) for surface parking, vendor uses
   • Potentially eventual growth into the former “horse barn” now occupied by S&G.

Central Market Hall

The 45,000 square foot vacant warehouse (Former Maintenance Shop) at 23rd & Holgate
would function as the Public Market Hall. The industrial character of this three story
concrete structure would provide a strong and appropriate identity for a public market in
this location. There is opportunity to incorporate entrances on multiple levels and have
three sides of the market structure open onto the street fronts. A successful Public Market
Hall in this location would act to energize adjacent properties on two sides. The main
market level could eventually include up to 15,000 net sf of vendor space, depending on
demand for expansion. The upper and lower levels of the structure could also support
market rate or non-profit uses, such as educational components or a business incubator
facility.

Farmers Market

The 6,700 sf of space in front of the warehouse could be reinvented as a “farmers market
plaza.” Additional space could be utilized for farmers market vendors as needed,
including portions of the Maintenance Shop across C Street, or through the temporary
closures of Holgate or Hood Streets (similar to the proposal for the Tacoma Farmers
Market to close 25th Street in front of Freighthouse Square on Tuesday evenings).

Parking and Transit Access:

The current S&G Yard seems a logical place for surface parking. The site could
accommodate up to 190 parking spaces. When this site is eventually developed, a parking
replacement agreement could be put into place (similar to the City of Tacoma’s
arrangement with the developers of the Marquart Building and adjacent parking lot.
The Link Light rail station is three blocks away.)

Ownership for Leveraging:

This scenario is unique in that the City of Tacoma currently owns the three primary sites.
The City’s primary focus could be on directing resources toward the establishment of the
public market hall itself in the former maintenance shop. Meanwhile, the City would
have options regarding how to best proceed with inducing development of adjacent sites
through land options, long-term ground leasing, a lease to sell, and participating
The Scott Group                              66                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
otherwise in a joint venture effort to assemble the surrounding components of a larger
market district. The City’s proactive sponsorship of a public market hall and district on
this site could leverage both public and private for-profit and non-profit resources.

Opportunities on Adjacent Sites

For the City of Tacoma, the development of a public market district at the Streets and
Grounds site could be a strategic way to improve/leverage the value of the 6.5 acre Police
Station site, which is located just to the northwest of the Streets & Grounds complex on
Jefferson. It also represents an opportunity to initiate a unique mixed-use neighborhood
within the surrounding Brewery District.

The zoning allows uses from industrial and residential to retail and commercial. Given
the nature of the surrounding buildings, (warehouses, brewery, storage uses), this could
be a zone for “urban pioneer” uses such as artist live/work studios, creative commercial
businesses and a mixture of both affordable and market rate housing.

This may be a timely opportunity for the City to strategically consider the site’s
development potential and the timing of the site’s disposition.




The Scott Group                              67                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                           Site 2: Freighthouse Square (Dome District)

 1. FREIGHTHOUSE SQUARE/DOME DISTRICT
 Concept: Centrally Located, Transit-oriented Market. Comparable Lonsdale Quay
 (North Vancouver BC)
 Zoning: UCX-TD: Urban Center Mixed Use, 75' Height (120' with housing).


 Primary Sites                           Dimensions (approx)                              Potential Component/Use


 1. Freighthouse Square                                            x380'
                                         main level: 19,000 gsf (50'   )                  Main Market Hall (13,000 sf net?)
 ( west of Sounder lobby)                2nd level: 5,400 nsf of office, 1,700 sf mezz.   Dry Storage/Offices/Incubator


 3. Pierce Transit Plaza                 Approx. 14,000 sf.                                     s
                                                                                          Farmer' Market


 2. Pierce County Shed                                           x75'
                                         Property: 22,700 sf (130' )                      Mixed Use, affordable housing
                                                             x120'
                                         Shed: 14,400 sf (120'   )                        extended "market" retail.


 Adjacent Properties


 4. Corner (?) Bldg. (D&25th)                          x125'
                                         16,250 sf (130'   )                              Mixed-Use: Housing, additional
                                                                                          market-type retail
 5. FHS Parking Lot                                    x75'
                                         22,500 sf (300' )                                Parking, Mixed-use.
 (west of FHS)


 6. Puyallup Site
 (26th between G & D streets)                          x130), 1.7 acres
                                         74,100 sf (570'                                  Mixed Use, Housing, Parking?


 Parking (potential)
 Sound Transit Garage*                   200 spaces                                       *2000 spaces may be available weekends.
 FHS Parking lot                         60 spaces
                                Total:   260 spaces




The Scott Group                                                    68                                                 05/24/05
Seattle WA
Opportunities:
  • Build on existing “Market Hall” structure” Freighthouse Square
  • Multiple developable lots
  • Adjacent to large public parking structure
  • Located at Rail, Bus, Transit Terminus
  • Program existing outdoor plaza (Tacoma Dome Station)
  • High Visibility (from Freeway, location of Tacoma Dome, future LeMay
     museum, etc)
  • Future infrastructure (D Street Overpass, Foss Waterway Park)
  • FS owner interested in participating
  • Tacoma Farmers Market testing site this spring

Constraints:
   • Farther from the downtown/residential core
  • Not perceived as desirable for high end development at this time
  • Public perception or stigma of Freighthouse Square as marginal/dated attraction
      (must “re-brand”)

The development of a public market district in the Dome District represents an
opportunity to reinvigorate the Freighthouse Square neighborhood with a new program
and focus, and to take advantage of ample parking and a location that’s both highly
visible and accessible from a regional level.

The initial program would focus on two primary sites:
   • Freighthouse Square (Public Market Hall): western 300’ of structure
   • Pierce Transit Plaza (Farmers Market)

The Scott Group                           69                                   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Reinventing Freighthouse Square:

This scenario envisions that the approximate 300’ long portion of Freighthouse Square
west of the Sounder station/lobby would be remodeled and “re-branded” as the Tacoma
Public Market. This portion, which is largely vacant today, features a total of 19,000 gsf,
which would result in a core market structure that could potentially accommodate 13,000
net square feet. Initially, however, the market could start out at a more modest size (9,000
sf) which could hold 25-30 market vendors. Existing upstairs office space could be
retained as market and other offices use, as well as potentially provide non-profit uses,
such as business incubator and agriculture/culinary educational programs. This second
floor space, which includes a mezzanine, could also be used as dry storage for the
permanent vendors.

Similar to the “open air” program followed by new and existing regional public markets,
a renovation would add a number of window openings into the side walls of the market
to the outside (E. 25th Street & Sounder platform), allowing an “indoor/outdoor” feel to
the market and vendor stalls with a connection to the street. Please see images for this
concept in the 2003 Downtown Retail Strategy Report by Maestri Design Inc. Flower
and fruit vendors would frame the main entrances of the market, while fish, meat, bakers
and dairy vendors would fill the core. The emphasis would be on fresh and specialty
foods and ingredients, since the food court at Freighthouse Square currently functions
well as a fast-food destination, and we anticipate that it would remain so under this
program.

Transit Access and Public Markets

Throughout the research phases of this market study, The Scott Group solicited feedback
from market managers, developers and tenants of both public markets and farmers
markets. Though transit access was deemed important by some, most interviewees cited
that convenient and ample parking was more important. The director of Granville Island
market (Vancouver BC) acknowledged that even though Vancouver is an extremely
dense and walk-able city, most of their customers and visitors came by car, particularly
because of the function of carrying groceries.

Though the Dome District/Freighthouse Square is well served by public transit, it is The
Scott Group’s belief that most of the patrons of the market would come by car, and that
transit (Link Rail) use would be used primarily as it is now: for office workers to grab
lunch at the Freighthouse Square food court and eventually for non-buying visitors
seeking the market’s experience. In this respect, the parking spaces at the Sound Transit
garage would be an important component. However, there are two positive transit factors
that should be noted:

    1. Sounder Ridership: It is estimated that Sounder ridership will triple when up to
       6 additional trains are implemented over the next 2 years. This amount could
       increase evening and morning business for market merchants.


The Scott Group                              70                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
    2. Future Development: Future development throughout downtown may be heavily
       concentrated at or near the Link rail stations. For those transit riders, a Public
       Market at Freighthouse Square would be no more than 8 minutes away via rail.

Ownership: Who would run the market?
In discussions with the owners of Freighthouse Square, they are very interested and
amenable to a scenario for a public market. They have planned on a similar proposal
(market), but acknowledge that the managing of FS has been a challenge (public
perception) and this project would require a substantial amount of capital. The owners
would also be amenable to a public-private endeavor, and would also consider the
benefits of a long-term lease to a non-profit or for-profit entity that could manage the
redevelopment of that portion of Freighthouse Square. The owners would also be
interested in an outright sale of that portion.

Tacoma Farmers Market’s Location of Choice:
The Tacoma Farmer’s Market (TFM) has identified the Dome District as their area of
choice for expansion, primarily because of its access, visibility and plentiful parking. In
addition, the outdoor plaza, when combined with the proposal to close a portion of 25th
Avenue, will provide ample space for the Farmers Market. The TFM also identified the
Pierce Transit Shed (across the street on 25th and adjacent to Pierce Transit Plaza) as a
potential interim site, until a final or more permanent location is found. TFM started a
Tuesday evening market at the Pierce Transit Plaza in April, 2005.

Opportunities on Adjacent Sites:
The Dome District also presents an opportunity to attract additional economic
development. There are several sites in the immediate vicinity that stand to benefit from
the successes of a public market, combined with increased transit ridership. Sites to the
north, west and south of Freighthouse Square all fall within the Tacoma Dome Mixed-
Use District, which allows for mixed-use structures of up to 100’. Future development,
such as the Tacoma Dome remodel and the new LeMay Museum, as well as planned
infrastructure such as the D Street overpass and proposed Foss Waterway Park (3 blocks
away), will add to the momentum and potential of this multipurpose district




The Scott Group                              71                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
                   Site 3: Petrich/Bamford Property/East Side of Foss
 2. PETRICH/BAMFORD PROPERTY

 Concept: Waterfront "World Market" with import, arts and maritime uses. Comparable
 Granville Island (Vancouver BC)
 Zoning: S-8, Foss Waterway, 100'Height, Mixed-Use (Commercial, Residential, Industrial)


 Primary Sites                               Dimensions (approx)                             Potential Component/Use


 1. Bamford Property                         Property: 43,125 sf), 1 acre
                                                                  x60'
                                             Shed: 19,000 gsf (320' )                        Market Hall/Crafts Market


 2. Petrich Property                                                  x230'
                                             Property: 103,500 sf (450'   )                  Market Hall in Shed
                                             Shed: 15,085 nsf (total bldg is 30,745 nsf)     Additional vendors in adjacent low-rise
                                             Other bldgs: 17,713 nsf                         structure
                                             Total Bldgs: 48,458 nsf


 3. ROW Under Bridge                         Property: approx. 54,460 sf.                    Surface Parking (145spaces @ 375sf ea)
                                             (gross area 67,500 sf, less 13,040 for bridge   Connecting uses, plaza & vendors
                                             columns)
 Adjacent Properties


 4. Wattles Property (Port)                  Approximately 17 acres of uplands               Marine-oriented, light industrial,
                                                                                             educational, research (Urban Waters,
                                                                                             Bates Boat Building, Sea Scouts, Industrial
 Parking (potential)
 City ROW (under bridge)                     145 spaces
 Bamford Site (surface, existing)             36 spaces
 Petrich Site (surface, existing)             57 spaces
                                    Total:   238 spaces




The Scott Group                                                    72                                                  05/24/05
Seattle WA
                   Petrich structure’s interior above


                  Bamford structure’s exterior below




The Scott Group                   73                    05/24/05
Seattle WA
                             Bamford structure’s interior above

Opportunities:
    •   Two existing structures that could function as Market Halls
    •   Build off of existing/new “Tideflat Traders” (world market goods), and specialty
        merchants that have opened in the last few years (DockMandu, Island Life,
        BamBam Pottery, very small garlic vendor, etc.)
    •   Existing structures could retain marine-oriented feel and artistic uses (Boat
        building, Dragon Boats, other sheds).
    •   Introduce Mixed “Light Industrial” uses to complement both the market and
        industrial setting (artist studios or industrial “live-work”)
    •   Uses could complement a planned Urban Waters campus
    •   Access will improve substantially with D Street overpass
    •   Highly visible location across from downtown and adjacent to Murray Morgan
        Bridge, which also provides easy auto access from downtown.
    •   Build on a model that’s similar to Vancouver’s Granville Island.
    •   Create a “funky” market district and an attraction that is “uniquely Tacoma”
    •   Both property owners are very interested in the concept
    •   Planned streetscape/access improvements to Murray Morgan Bridge
    •   Plenty of open space for Farmer’s Market.
    •   S-8 zoning and adjacent lots are compatible.



The Scott Group                              74                                   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Constraints:
    •   Physical separation from downtown core and growing residential area
    •   Currently not an established destination
    •   Not served well by transit
    •   Neighborhood concern over non-industrial uses on east side
    •   No guarantee on timeline for D Street overpass or the Bridge remodel.
    •   Zoning and/or linear nature of waterway may limit opportunity for market as
        economic development catalyst

The development of a public market district on the Petrich/Bamford properties on the east
side of the Foss represents an opportunity to create a market that incorporates Tacoma’s
unique maritime heritage. With boat building and the center for the dragon boats, this
waterfront hub could have a unique character and mix of uses, using many of the existing
metal and wood buildings as a campus for the market. The fishing fleet might participate
with direct seafood sales from boats.

The initial program could focus on three primary sites:
   • Petrich Property: includes a potential 15,000 sf market hall
   • Bamford Property: includes a potential 12,000 sf market/crafts hall.
   • Right of Way below Murray Morgan Bridge: provides over 50,000 sf for parking,
       open space for vendors (to connect both sites).

Building on the success of the Tideflat Traders:
The east side of the Foss Waterway is becoming a center for unique craft and import
stores, similar to new businesses that have opened up on First and Fourth Avenue South
in Seattle’s SoDo neighborhood. Craft and import merchants such as DockMandu,
BamBam Pottery and Island Life are creating a unique shopping opportunity in a very
unique setting. When we discussed the market concept with some of the merchants, they
believed that it would be great to have an additional draw to bring visitors to their shops
(interestingly, many of the local stakeholders that we interviewed for this study were not
aware of the location and density of shops that are located to the east side of the Foss
Waterway). The Tideflat Traders benefit from the plentiful parking and room for outdoor
displays. These “world market” vendors can rather easily be envisioned as an existing
component priming larger public market district.

A Marine-Oriented Market:

This location presents an opportunity to preserve marine-oriented uses, such as the boat-
building business and the dragon boats. As the core of the market would be food-
oriented, the unique marine-oriented businesses and working waterfront tenants would
lend a feel of authenticity to the market. There may also be opportunities for boats of the
Mosquito Fleet to sell seafood “right off the boat,” similar to what is done at Seattle’s
Fisherman’s Terminal. This mix of uses would be similar to Vancouver’s Granville
Island where there are industrial uses and a designated “maritime district.”



The Scott Group                              75                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
The addition of Urban Waters would also be a strong draw to attract other potential
marine-or industrial related uses that would complement the market, such as industrial
arts studios and lofts. In addition, the development of Urban Waters could prove a draw
for other education-oriented tenants, such as boat-building (Bates Technical College),
metal smiths/sculptors and/or culinary/agricultural programs. The number of odd
buildings and potential for upgrades and additions could result in a truly unique attraction
and a business incubator for the City of Tacoma in much the same way Granville Island
is for Vancouver B.C.

Addressing Community Concerns over Non-water dependent uses.

It is important to note that the S-8 zone allows all of the proposed uses, and allows a
substantial amount of flexibility for programming and/or master planning such an effort.
Though recent concerns have arisen over proposed non-water or non-industrial uses on
the east side of the Foss, it is important to note that there are already many new
businesses, such as the Tideflat Traders, that are neither industrial nor water-dependant.
The idea is that a public market in this district would build on the Foss Waterway’s
unique buildings and maritime history, but would also offer opportunities for today’s
businesses. It is not anticipated that additional heavy industrial uses will proliferate on the
Foss Waterway, especially given the amount of vacant land that is available for this use
on the east side of D Street.

However, with respect to the concerns over new uses on the east side of the Foss
Waterway, it should be noted that this concept is not one that envisions Class A office
space or high end housing. Rather, it represents an opportunity to provide a unique
amenity and tremendous potential business incubator in an area where zoning currently
supports that mix of uses. Since there is a proposed zoning amendment to the east side of
the Foss Waterway that could allow non-water dependent big box retailers (which is what
happened when Fred Meyer located on 10 acres in Seattle’s Fremont waterfront), The
Scott Group feels that a mixed-use waterfront market concept would be preferable and
compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity.

Opportunities on Adjacent Sites:

As implied in the above sections, though possible, it is not anticipated that uses such as
Class A office space or high-end housing would be attracted to a market in this
neighborhood. Rather, commercial/industrial and marine-oriented uses are envisioned.
The Port of Tacoma’s acquisition of the 17-acre Wattles Property could provide
opportunities for a multitude of marine-oriented uses, a similar program to the Port of
Seattle’s Fisherman’s Terminal. Educational and maritime opportunities, such as Urban
Waters could anchor the neighborhood’s commercial orientation, while at the same time
providing opportunities for complementary mixed-uses to add to the vitality and
economic viability of the overall district.

Ownership: Who would run the market?
Both owners have expressed interest in for allowing a market hall on an existing
structure, however the owner’s participation may likely be limited to a land lease or sale
The Scott Group                               76                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
scenario. In this case management and development of the market structure would be
provided by a third party entity. The City of Tacoma could also choose to participate as a
sponsor or “lessee” of the initial market hall structure, similar to the arrangement of the
Olympia Farmers Market.

Tacoma Farmers Market: A test location?:
In discussions with the property owners, Claire Petrich and Kathryn Bamford, The Scott
Group discussed the possibility of providing a “trial location” for the Tacoma Farmers
Market, as way to gauge the public’s response to the location. They agreed it would be a
boon for the existing import merchants, and perhaps a several month summer trial run
would be feasible. However, since then the Tacoma Farmers Market has disclosed that
the Tacoma Dome District will be the site for their Tuesday evening market, and at this
time there are no plans for additional nights.




The Scott Group                             77                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
         Site 4: Colonial Produce/Johnny’s Seafood (Foss Waterway)

 4. COLONIAL PRODUCE/JOHNNY' SEAFOOD  S
 Concept: Foss Waterway Public Market. Comparable Lonsdale Quay Public Market (South
 Vancouver BC)
 Zoning: S-8, Foss Waterway, 130'Height, Mixed-Use (Commercial, Residential, Industrial)


 Primary Sites                           Dimensions (approx)                               Potential Component/Use


 1. Colonial Produce                     Total Property: 56,100 sf (1.29 acres)
 1179 Dock Street                        Less Shorelands: 45,100 (1.04 acres)              Parking, Mixed-Use
                                         Warehouse: 27,792 gsf                             Market Hall/Mixed Use


          s
 2. Johnny' Seafood                      Property: 40,800 (.94 acres)
 (City of Tacoma)                        Less Shorelands: 31,200 (.72 acres)               Parking, Mixed-Use
 1199 Dock Street                              s:
                                         Johnny' 7,720 gsf                                 Existing or additional vendors



 Adjacent Properties


 4. Vacant Property                      Total Property: 30,600 sf (.7 acres)
 1147 Dock Street                        Less Shorelands: 27,000 sf (.62 acres)            Parking, Mixed-Use


 Parking (potential)
 Colonial Produce, Dock St. ROW          70 spaces
       s
 Johnny' Seafood, Dock St. ROW           35 spaces
 Vacant North Property                   72 spaces
                                Total:   177 spaces




The Scott Group                                                78                                                   05/24/05
Seattle WA
Opportunities:
    •   Use development momentum currently underway at the south end of the Foss
        Waterway
    •   Existing warehouse could function as Market Hall
    •   Potential for adjacent high-density development (130’ zone)
    •   Would be convenient to new residents planned along Foss Waterway
    •   Plentiful open space for Farmers Market
    •   Build off of Johnny’s successful location.
    •   Adjacent to planned hotel and condo project
    •   Waterfronts are proven attractions for markets

Constraints:
    •   Has fewer surface parking spaces than other three preferred sites (Parking has
        already been identified as a major concern for the west side of the Foss
        Waterway).
    •   Owner of Colonial Site is not committed to a Public Market concept, as site is
        currently for sale and may be relegated to “highest and best use.”
    •   Sites are very linear, so potential for a Market District may be limited to higher
        density development immediately adjacent to these sites.
    •   Currently the Foss Waterway is not well served by transit
    •   The west side of the Foss Waterway is not easily accessed by region (I-5, 705)
    •   Currently not an established destination
    •   No guarantee on timeline for D Street overpass or the Bridge remodel.

A New Attraction for the Foss Waterway
The development of a public market on the site of Colonial Produce and/or Johnny’s
Seafood is an opportunity to create a new waterfront attraction on the South end of Foss
Waterway, which is close to the Museum of Glass and to the new boutique hotel planned
at Site 4. This location would serve the growing population on the west side of the Foss
Waterway, and would be centrally located, given the planned development that will occur
on the north end of the waterway.
The Scott Group                              79                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
This site is also the long-standing home of Johnny’s Seafood, the most widely recognized
seafood vendor in the south sound region. Having Johnny’s as an adjacent and anchor
tenant is very desirable for the market mix, and this location would offer the least amount
of disruption to Johnny’s existing operations. The initial program could focus on two
primary sites:

    •   Colonial Produce: includes a potential 27,000 sf market hall
    •   Johnny’s Seafood: includes 7,700 sf City-owned Johnny’s Seafood.

The program would also consider the adjacent right of way off of Dock Street and the
15th Street ramp. The vacant site to the north should also be considered, for its current
and future potential for parking spaces, as well as high-density mixed-use development.

Opportunities on Adjacent Sites:
The adjacent sites are zoned for high density development, and it would be anticipated
that a public market at this location would attract higher end businesses, retail and
housing. The high-rise zoning (130’ feet) will likely result in market rate uses to warrant
the cost of construction at this intensity. Developing additional and/or replacement
parking will be an important element of this market as the adjacent sites are developed,
since there is little or no street parking.

Ownership: Who would run the market?
The owners of Colonial Produce and Johnny’s Seafood have expressed interest in the
market concept, however it is unlikely that they would manage and own a public market
per the specifications of this study. Recent discussions with the Foss Waterway
Development Authority, the owners of Johnny’s and Colonial Produce indicate that a
smaller market was discussed or envisioned at this site that would primarily serve the
Foss Waterway and the downtown core. However, the recommendations of this report are
for the development of a Regional Public Market that is centrally located in downtown
Tacoma and programmed with the initial critical mass of vendors necessary to serve the
Pierce County/South Sound region.

If interested in pursuing a public market venture, a possible scenario could be a joint
venture with the owners of Colonial Produce and a market development entity, with the
City participating in a joint venture or long term land lease if it is chooses to retain
ownership of the Johnny’s Seafood, and if that site is incorporated into the overall market
project.

Farmers Market Site:
Currently there is plenty of open space that could be adapted for the Tacoma Farmers
Market, although that would most likely reduce the availability of surface parking. An
alternative could be to house a seasonal indoor/outdoor farmers market within the
Colonial warehouse, since the size (27,000 sf) may be initially too large to house the
permanent public market alone.


The Scott Group                              80                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
Section XV: Development Models
The development process is a multi-disciplinary concern that incorporates the following:
market demand; site criteria and planning; design concepts; construction costs; ownership
and operating entities; financing structures and return on investment (whether monetary
or other). It is inherent in the earliest of initial development project models that many
assumptions are incorporated.

As a project’s development process advances, these unknowns and assumptions are
refined and eventually eliminated. The intent of this study has been to provide a starting
place for this process of refinement. The preliminary nature and scope of this study
however, assumes economic projections that are very conceptual in nature. Recognizing
the scope of this study began with no capital resources identified and more than a dozen
potential sites, the potential variables remain many. They include: land sales prices,
construction costs, potential City capital contributions and many more. These variables
ultimately determine capital costs and cash flow and a public market project’s overall
economic feasibility. The additional undertaking of refining the costs associated with the
recommended sites beyond a very conceptual estimate is reserved for a later study.

Participants in the Development Process
The role contributions and proficiencies required to develop and run a public market are
varied, broad and inherently different. They can include: an enabling landowner, a
developer entity; an operating or market management entity; oversight boards and/or
agency entities, task-force or advisory committee entities, etc. Successful regional
examples of public markets and market districts projects demonstrate that any of these
roles, or all of these roles, can be assumed by a single entity, but it is more typically a
collaborative effort of mutual interest.

The list of potential participants should include collaborative combinations of private for-
profit, private non-profit, governmental and quasi-governmental agencies. Our
observations are that agencies, such as the City of Tacoma, will advance an initiative to
institute a public market program that is customized to the political will, financial
resources and private interest participation that can be secured behind the initiative.

Cost Estimations Excluded from This Study
        Land Costs Excluded Generally, most real estate acquisitions are financed with
        the use of debt. Typically 70%, 80% or as much as 90% of cost can be acquired
        with debt, (referred to as “financial leverage.”) Leasehold interests can require
        very little front-end costs. Land acquisition costs or specific costs of a leasehold
        interest in space for a market are highly site-specific and the economics of
        individual parcels will vary. They are also often negotiated over time under
        complex terms. A Seller’s or Leasor’s minimum price might be highly subjective
        and/or subject to change, etc. The public market, as a Buyer or Lessee, will have a

The Scott Group                              81                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
        ceiling price supported and limited by its capital resources plus available
        operating revenues.

        This study’s scope has been to narrow down a collection of 15 potential sites to
        several prospect sites for consideration to advance upon. Determining specific
        comparative land costs of those sites has not been part of the scope of this initial
        study. The land costs to a market hall project might vary greatly depending upon
        all terms negotiated with a site’s existing controlling interest. Whatever the case,
        the actual land costs must be added to total development costs of a market project.

        Tenant Improvement Costs Excluded The scope of this study has not included
        generating conceptual design or performance specifications for tenant
        improvements for vendor stalls as they might relate to, for example: security
        features; provision of utilities; aesthetic amenity; etc. It does not consider
        specialized equipment such as, for example: iconic public market signage; an
        appropriate trash compactor if a trash compactor is appropriate; etc. As such, this
        study does not offer costing estimations for tenant improvements that might exist
        in a future Tacoma Public Market. However, it might be useful to recognize that
        once a tenant improvement budget is determined (after appropriate design and
        performance specifications are established for a Tacoma Public Market model), it
        could be assumed these costs would be roughly similar for most proposed sites
        and these costs must be applied to any project’s overall development costs.

Conceptual Hard Cost Estimates
The scope of this initial study does not include generating detailed and/or verified hard
cost estimates. Hard construction costs will vary depending upon characteristics of the
specific chosen site. Aspects such as hazardous materials abatement and structural
upgrades can substantively effect, perhaps even double, these costs. The costs proposed
herein are therefore highly conceptual in nature and represent a best guess using typical
$/sf estimates for renovation vs. new construction costs.

Conceptual Soft Costs Estimates
The scope of this initial study does not include generating detailed and/or verified
development soft cost estimating. Examples of development soft costs are:

    •   Consultants (technical assistance for feasibility, organizational, site control
        negotiation, financing etc.)
    •   Legal (for title and acquisition docs review, creation of an entity, etc.)
    •   Design (architect, structural, mechanical, civil, etc.)
    •   Hazardous Materials
    •   Development Fee
    •   Financing Costs (loan fees, appraisal (?), etc.)
    •   Funding any operating reserve fund (ramp-up)

The Scott Group                               82                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
The development soft costs utilized for purposes of this study are estimated to be 25% of
estimated hard construction costs. The business and development-related experience of
the study’s authors suggests utilizing a convention of 20% to 25% of hard costs proposed
to arrive at a reasonable estimated soft cost. The 25% convention represents this study’s
conservative best-guess place-holder in initially considering soft costs. Actual soft costs
will vary depending upon numerous characteristics and factors of the development
process. They will vary depending upon, for example: ownership structure; cost-incurring
requirements of funding sources; length and level of public process incorporated; etc.

Cost Estimates – Top Four Sites
The conceptual construction costs proposed are based upon substantive development
experience of the authors’ of this report. They were validated by a cursory tour of
selected sites by an architect, Jeff Oaklief of Johnson Architecture and Planning.
Johnson Architecture and Planning is an experienced Seattle-based firm with extensive
adaptive re-use (renovation) and new construction experience. The architect’s qualified
summary write-up for selected sites can be found in the appendix of this report.

The architect’s costs represent conceptual construction “hard costs” only. These hard
costs assumptions include demolition and build-out required to bring the space to an
appropriate market hall level (industrial shell) including necessary code required flooring,
electrical, plumbing, lighting, heating and permanent fixtures. These costs do not
represent specialty equipment that may be required or installed by vendors, furniture,
signage, etc. The conceptual construction hard costs on the top four selected sites are
estimated below. All are based of a 19,000 sf gross market shell.

    1. Streets & Grounds Site:          $950,000        based upon 19,000 sf @ $50/sf.

        The existing structures are larger than this study’s proposed model of 19,000 that
        could serve as a viable market hall and retail space. This site has previously
        undergone hazardous materials abatement and needs little demolition. There is
        pre-existing infrastructure including restroom area, offices, heating, window
        openings, etc. The space is City-owned vacant and unused.

    2. Freighthouse Square/Dome District Site: $760,000                 based upon 19,000 sf
       @ $40/sf.

        The architect’s conceptual cost assumption included, specifically, the area from
        the Sounder commuter train entrance lobby area westward, including the
        restaurant at the west end of the structure only. This area is adjacent to and does
        NOT consider the existing food court area at Freighthouse Square. At the time of
        this study the site area is currently in retail and office, but is largely vacant on the
        main floor. The status of any lease is unknown to the authors of this study.




The Scott Group                                83                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
    3. Bamford/Petrich Site:

             a. Bamford:                 $2,137,500      based upon 19,000 sf @ $90/sf.

                  This site’s existing shed structure is approximately the size of this study’s
                  proposed base model of 19,000 gsf, and could initially serve as a viable
                  market hall and other related uses. The structure’s immediate surroundings
                  appear likely to allow for attached or nearby addition. This site is currently
                  used by a manufacturing related tenant. The status of the lease is unknown
                  to the authors of this study.

             b. Petrich:                 $1,140,000      based upon 19,000 sf @ $60/sf.

                  The existing structures comprise more space than this study’s proposed
                  model of 19,000 sf., and they could serve as a viable market hall plus
                  other related uses like retail. This site is currently in manufacturing use.
                  The status of any lease is unknown to the authors of this study.

    4. Colonial Produce/Johnny’s Seafood:                $N/A.

        At the time of Johnson Architecture and Planning’s tour of sites this site had not
        risen to become one of this study’s selected sites. It was not toured by the
        architect and thus no validated conceptual cost estimation is available for
        inclusion at the time of this writing.




The Scott Group                                 84                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT COST SCENARIOS (EXCLUDING LAND AND TI’S)



    ADAPTIVE RE-USE/REHAB OF EXISTING SHELL STRUCURE SCENARIOS



                                                       Assumed
                                          Assumed           25%                                     Assumed
                                         Construction Development                                 Total Costs
                           Market Type   Hard costs    Soft Costs        Gross SF $/Gross SF   (less land & T.I.’s)


Freighthouse Square Site   market hall      $760,000        $190,000       19,000    $50                  $950,000
Streets and Grounds Site   market hall      $950,000        $237,500       19,000    $63                $1,187,500
Clair Petrich Site         market hall    $1,140,000        $285,000       19,000    $75                $1,425,000
Kathy Bamford Site         market hall    $1,710,000        $427,500       19,000    $113               $2,137,500
Colonial / Johnny’s Site   market hall           NA               NA       19,000    NA                         NA
Portland Public Market
(renovation portion)       market hall    $2,292,500        $573,125       28,000    $102               $2,865,625
              AVERAGE                     $1,370,500        $342,625                 $80                $1,713,125




    NEW CONSTRUCTION SHELL STRUCTURE SCENARIOS



                                                       Assumed
                                          Assumed           25%
                                         Construction Development                                 Total Costs
                           Market Type   Hard costs    Soft Costs        Gross SF $/Gross SF   (less land & T.I.’s)


Puyallup Park Pavilion     market shed                              $0     10,000    $200               $2,000,000
Bellingham Farmers
Market                     market shed                              $0     15,400    $182               $2,800,000
Olympia Farmers Market     market shed                              $0     16,000    $47                  $750,000
Portland Public Market
(new construction
portion)                   market hall    $2,812,500        $703,125       14,500    $242               $3,515,625
              AVERAGE                                                                $168               $2,266,406




The Scott Group                                        85                                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    New Construction vs. Adaptive Re-Use
    The examples in the table above distinguish conceptual and built projects according
    to the characteristic of being a market structure from new construction or being an
    existing structure adaptively re-used for a market. The cost differences reflect the
    anticipated differences between these two construction types. Clearly, the examples
    suggest lower front-end capital requirements for the adaptive re-use scenarios
    proposed herein.

        Determining the Gap
        The project’s financing gap is the difference between the project’s uses of
        financing and project’s sources of financing. A “backdoor” approach to feasibility
        can begin to demonstrate how much a developer might spend for project costs as
        information regarding some level of resources committed or potentially available
        becomes clearer in the refinement process. See the calculations in the table
        below.

        The Front Door Approach
        A public market developer could use a front door Analysis. In this approach the
        developer’s determines what can be built based on projected rents and private
        capitol costs (cost of loan). This approach ignores the potential for securing
        capital sources that may be available to a public market because of its particular
        mission or role in a city.

        The Back Door Approach
        A public market developer could also use a backdoor approach where the
        developer’s driving calculations consider not only the projected rents but
        resources that can be secured other than future rents. These resources are secured
        by the developer in trade for intangibles returned to their investors, such
        “development catalyst”, “business incubator” or “downtown amenity.” These
        intangibles would not only apply to public entities but private development
        entities that might control enough surrounding property to risk “seed” investment
        in order to position the balance of their property for higher value or development
        value.

Financing the Gap
The challenge of a project such as this is to identify the potential financing “gaps” after
grants, contributions and incentives, as well as potential shortcomings with regard to the
primary non-profit’s (the public market) ability or inability to service debt for a new
structure. After identifying the potential net operation income and the potential mortgage
that it could support, the next steps are to identify potential public or private funding
sources to fill in these gaps.




The Scott Group                              86                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
        The Net Operating Income & Debt Support

        This model assumes a bare-bones scenario and does not assume the programming
        of ancillary revenues, sub-letting opportunities, etc. that market stakeholders
        could develop to carry additional debt. The net operating income from the
        Tacoma model’s operations, like other markets, suggest a low cash flow, but
        perhaps as much as $40,000 will be available annually ($3,300/ monthly) for
        servicing debt. Assuming an interest rate of 6.5% to 7% amortized over 30 years
        this cash flow represents a potential loan amount of roughly $500,000.


             FINANCING GAP                                    Conceptual in   Conceptual in
                                                                  New         Adaptive Re-
                                                              Construction        use
             Uses
             Land costs                                            ???             ???
             Hard costs (see previous table average)               NA          $1,370,500
             Soft costs (see previous table average)    25%        NA           $342,625
             Tenant Improvement costs                              ???             ???
                                                               $2,266,406      $1,713,125
             Sources
             Loan (serviced debt)                               $500,000        $500,000
             Municipal Contributions                              ???             ???
             Stakeholder Capital (raised/contributed)             ???             ???
                                                                $500,000        $500,000

                                     Financing Gap             $1,766,406      $1,213,125




Section XVI: Conclusions & Recommendations
Based on the examination of this initial feasibility study, it appears that the City of
Tacoma is well positioned and could very likely support a viable moderately-sized public
market hall in its downtown core. The study proposes a Tacoma Market Hall Model that
will serve both as a vital downtown anchor and a potential catalyst for additional mixed
use development. As evidenced by the interest and successes of both smaller and larger
cities many cities in the Pacific Northwest have already built or are currently planning or
coordinating their permanent market structures. A public market in downtown Tacoma
would serve as an amenity convenient to its immediate and larger target market area
containing over 740,000 residents.

This study proposes a Tacoma Public Market Model with vendor gross sales of roughly
$4.5 million from existing potential gross sales opportunity, (utilizing conservative
capture rates), in excess of $18 million. The study’s conclusions are based upon on detail
of local demographics, including population per capita expenditure on grocery and food-

The Scott Group                                         87                                    05/24/05
Seattle WA
related goods, in the market analysis of the report. It assumes a moderately-sized public
market hall of 19,000 sf (9,500 net sf of leasable vendor area), which would contain
approximately 25 vendors.

The City of Tacoma currently has the advantage of plentiful site opportunities and a
generally underdeveloped downtown core with relatively inexpensive land values.
Increased demand for housing and other mixed uses will be changing the economics of
the downtown core in coming years. Consequently, the present time is an appropriate
time for the city leaders and local stakeholders to seriously contemplate a public market
amenity for its downtown core. This study’s research suggests distinct economic
advantage in the adaptive re-use of an existing structure (vs. new construction) assuming
a market hall structure with an estimated development cost of approximately $1.7 million
plus costs of land and tenant improvements.

From fifteen initial sites, four were chosen as the most probable and viable locations for a
public market, and with the greatest potential for promoting additional economic
development. The sites are: The “Streets & Grounds” Site: (Brewery District);
Freighthouse Square/Pierce Transit Plaza: (Dome District); Petrich/Bamford Site: (East
side of the Foss Waterway); Colonial Produce/Johnny’s Seafood: (West Side of the Foss
Waterway).

The report has generated an initial list of possible stakeholder participants in development
and operations of a Tacoma Public Market. The development could potentially include
collaborative combinations of private for-profit, private non-profit, governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies. Our observation has been that agencies, such as the City of
Tacoma, will ultimately advance an initiative to institute a public market program
customized to the local political will, the financial resources and the private interest
participation that can be secured behind its initiative. Moreover, Tacoma’s program, like
all other public market programs will also be uniquely different from any other example.

During the research phase and in discussions with stakeholders, The Scott Group
collected information on the various public grants and funding sources that were used by
the municipalities in their efforts to build a public market. The funding strategies and
public funding sources varied and show a great deal of creativity. In addition, TSG
researched federal, state and county grant sources as well as noting those sources
identified in previous studies provided by the city. The report has also proposed a host of
financing methods and tools the City might explore to effectively joint venture with local
stakeholders as well as provide incentive for private investment. Specifically, Impact
Capital, (Seattle), has expressed interest in potentially providing initial resources required
for initiating on the first next steps. A specific objective of this study has been to bring to
light a variety of resources potentially available when stakeholders advance efforts to
build a Tacoma Public Market.




The Scott Group                               88                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
Section XVII: Next Steps
The larger intent of this study has been to provide an initial roadmap and a set of
common understandings upon which stakeholders might advance along in the process of
developing a public market. The following are specific potential next steps and
recommendations to take the Tacoma Public Market to a next stage of realization.

Creating an Initial Public Market Task Force
To further generate public support and advance the development of the Tacoma Public
Market, the authors of this report would recommend that the City’s role be one of
disseminating this information and encouraging private party stakeholders including for
example, non-profits, private business interests and developers, a PDA, a civic
organization, etc. to take the next steps in initially chairing a Public Market Task Force.
The Task Force would comprise various stakeholders and agencies, such as the ones
interviewed and/or identified in this report. This core advisory panel could include the
directors of the Tacoma Farmers Market, as well as various interested property owners,
vendors, businesses and other civic leaders and citizens.

This task force’s purpose and overall mission would be to garner public and political
support for development of a market, and to lead on obtaining funding through grants,
fundraising, etc. Community outreach, presentations, etc, would be recommended to help
the region visualize what the Tacoma Public Market could be, and what other
components could comprise the overall market development concept. This task force
would also assist in an eventual recommendation and/or formation of an entity that will
manage the market.

Leverage City Assets
The City might seek to creatively leverage value from underused or it’s functionally
obsolete assets. For example, when the City elects to initiate disposition of City-owned
property that may be a viable site for a Public Market it is suggested that proposals which
incorporate a Public Market component as part of the site’s redevelopment plan receive
preferential consideration in the disposition process. In this approach it may be
achievable to leverage a Public Market, and further, enhance other assets of the City’s in
a more effective disposition program. The Streets and Grounds sited identified in this
report may potentially be one such site.

Refine the Site Analysis
Additional site analysis would be necessary to gauge interest and identify the one or two
most feasible sites. This could involve:



The Scott Group                              89                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Property Owner Discussions: Individual discussions and establishing a
        framework for negotiation with property owners of sites
    •   Site Assessments: Conducting a detailed site assessment, including due diligence
        determining:

             o Owners interest in sale, lease or JV scenario
             o Review of existing environmental documents and conditions
             o Review of existing leases

    •   Consider Other Sites: Consider additional sites not considered herein and
        follow up on expressed interest or concerns from stakeholders
    •   Community Input: Solicit added input from community

Refine the Financial Analysis
Further evaluation would be necessary to draft a detailed comparison analysis of the
recommended or probable sites for the Tacoma Public Market. The following categories
or assumptions would be explored further:

    •   Soft Cost Estimates (permits, consultant fees, etc)
    •   Land Costs
    •   Conduct Sensitivities/Options Analyses
    •   Initiate Conceptual Design (with architect/design consultant) for top one or two
        sites
    •   Develop Tenant Program: a performance spec/Tenant Improvement budget for
        vendor stalls, and market details (signage, materials, equipment, etc)
    •   Consideration of Ancillary Income Generators
    •   Further Developing Ownership Scenarios: with input from property owners
        stakeholders, (public, private, joint ventures, etc.)

This document was designed as an initial summary and resource that can be used to
advance the development of a public market for Tacoma. The next steps will help
advance the concept to the minds of the general public, and will hopefully attract both the
public and private interest and resources that combined advance a Tacoma Public Market.




The Scott Group                             90                                      05/24/05
Seattle WA
                                    Bibliography
Books/ Regional and National Studies

    Public Markets and Community Revitalization
       ULI, Projects for Public Spaces 2004

    Dollars and Sense of Shopping Centers
       Urban Land Institute, 2002

    Public Markets & Community-Based Food Systems
       Project for Public Spaces, 2003

    Portland Public Market – Two Site Feasibility Study
        Urbsworks, Inc. 2002

    Portland Public Market- Ankeny Plaza Site Analysis
        Portland State University, MBA Team:
        Shirley Farmer, Erin Gault, Meredith Peterson, Karen Shah

    Residential Market Analysis for Downtown Tacoma
       Real Vision Research, Inc. 2004

    Pike Place Market Proposed 2005 Budget
        Pike Place PDA, 2004

    Olympia Farmers Market 2004 Policy Manual
       Olympia Farmers Market Board, 2004

    Tacoma Farmers Market Ford Foundation Application Package
       Aileen Bacon, Tacoma Farmers Market Foundation 2004


Articles

    From Tacoma News Tribune, June 3, 1927
       “Mammoth Market to Open Saturday”
       “New Market Here Sets High Mark”

    From Daily Ledger:
       “Tacoma’s New Market”- December 5, 1891
       “Tacoma’s New Market: New Project Proves and Unexpected Success on Opening Day”
       -August 11, 1893




The Scott Group                               91                                05/24/05
Seattle WA
Appendix I: Market Interviews
                         Pike Place Market (Carole Binder)- Seattle, WA




Interviewees:      Carole Binder, Executive Director
Organization:      Pike Place Market
Date:              12-23-04

Summary:          One of the most recognized and successful markets in the country, the “Market”
                  is actually a 9-block district of historic structures that house everything from
                  fishmongers to senior housing and high-end restaurants. There is an adjacent
                  “park” and gathering space, while the heart of the market itself is a linear series
                  of open air sheds, connected to larger, interior spaces and corridors. The heart of
                  the market is on one level, however the Hillclimb and Post Alley connect to
                  upper and lower levels of indoor and outdoor uses. The market is managed by a
                  Public Development Authority, which also oversees the development and
                  rehabilitation of properties.
I. History:
    •   Market was founded in 1907.
    •   Urban Renewal proposal in the late 1960’s to demolish market for high-rise
        development.
    •   Keep the Market campaign, voters saved the market.
    •   PDA was funded by Federal Urban Renewal Grants

II. Financial/Management Structure:
     • Pike Place Market Public Development Authority (PDA), under City of Seattle, manages
        all market operations as well as new development and renovation projects.
     • 80% of structures within historic district are owned by PDA
     • PDA committees/boards include:
            o PDA Council: 12-member volunteer board (4 members appointed by mayor, 4
                members appointed by the Market Constituency, 4 by the PDA council)
            o The Market Constituency (public forum for participation)
The Scott Group                                   92                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
             o    PP Market Historical Commission (design, historic review. Headed by City’s
                  Dept. of Neighborhoods)
             o    Pike Place Merchants Association
             o    Market Foundation

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • Market Foundation
            o PDA Goal: Preserve and restore the Market as a thriving, food-oriented
              center
            o Housing Development: Develop opportunities for low income and senior
              housing.
            o Business Incubator: Daystalls provide good business incubator opportunities

IV. Constraints/Issues
    • Storage: They currently have 700-800 sf. of cold storage. Demand is easily for double
       that amount.

VI. Pike Place Market Components
    • Commercial Tenants: 300 in the district, 225 are managed by PDA.PDA manages
       175,000 sf of space.
    • Vendor Mix
            o Market Vendors (produce, fish, bakery, meats, dairy)
            o Crafts (daystalls)
            o Prepared foods (to go, specialty foods, etc)
            o Well known anchors: Pike Place Fish, Jack’s Fish Spot, DeLaurenti, Sur la Table,
               Starbucks, Market Spice
            o Food Vendors: 45 food vendors in the market, not including restaurants.
            o Daystalls: 100 farm businesses yearly using the daystalls.
            o Restaurants/cafes/food bars: More than 4 dozen.
            o Lease Rates: $8-$40 sf base rent. CAM, percentage rates additional.

    •   Housing: PDA manages 300 housing units, mostly low-income and affordable senior
        housing.
    •   Misc. Components:
        A number of programs for kids 6-12 years old

VII. Misc. Detail
    • Housing Revenue: $300,000/yr

VIII. Misc. Comments/Advice from Interviewee:

    •   Vendor Mix: extremely important balance (several of each). Though market is thought
        of as “upscale in nature,” core is to offer affordable products and encourage all income
        levels to shop there.
    •   Popular Local Vendors: Helpful to have some locally known vendors anchor the market
        (Johnny’s Seafood)
    •   Encourage Internal Competition: 2-3 of each vendor type is optimal (currently, market
        only has one butcher left).
    •   Housing is an integral part of the market’s success and vibrancy

The Scott Group                                93                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   New Market Tax Credits: and other incentives would be very important if developing a
        market today.
    •   Private Fundraising: Having a foundation/endowment is important.
    •   Tapping into High Volume Vendors: 15-20% of the businesses support 80% of the
        market revenue.
    •   City Funds: Can the City (Tacoma) issue bonds?
    •   History of a City Market: Its important for City’s to revive the history of their own
        markets.
    •   High End Restaurants: Are attracted by the presence of an urban market, and they
        support and provide publicity for the vendors.
    •   Viewing Opportunities: wherever possible, create opportunities to see people baking,
        cleaning fish, preparing foods, etc.
    •   Local oriented, not tourist. In summer, traffic is 70% tourist, in winter its 40%.
    •   Location: Close to residential, office population a plus. PPM is also close to a number of
        downtown bus lines. Whether by foot, transit or car, a major component of the market
        location is that is should be easily accessible and visible to the target market.
    •   A People Place: Market is natural gathering place, or place to people watch.
    •   Should be a low-cost, low-maintenance structure:
    •   Event Days: Market sponsors theme days.
    •   More Storage, Freight Elevators: Market is short on dry storage. Recycling/Garbage
        and Load/Unload zones all happen on the same street, in the heart of the activity.




The Scott Group                                 94                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                               Pike Place Market (George Rolfe)
Founding director of the Pike Place Market Public Development Authority (1974-1980).




George Rolfe is presently a graduate-level professor of real estate development at the
University of Washington, Seattle and prior to that an active Seattle real estate developer.
He was the first employee of the Pike Place Market PDA when it was formed by the City
of Seattle in the early 1970’s.

I. On The Pike Place Market History: The Pike Place Market’s buildings were
developed by Arthur Goodwyn, who also developed Tacoma’s Crystal Palace Market.
The high point of the market was in the 1930’s and after the market fell in hard times
during and after WWII (similar to downfall of Tacoma’s market). By the1960’s the
functional market (food vendors) had reduced to about 1/5th of its former size. Goodwyn
eventually ran into financial trouble and sold the market structures to a local family
interest. A group of architects rallied the City to protect the original market structures,
many of which had fallen into disrepair.

II. Financing/Fundraising:
    •   A total of $30M (in the 1970’s) was spent on acquiring, renovating and re-programming
        the market. The PDA raised $17M in private capital, while $12-13M in public funding
        was obtained.
    •   Lesson: If the City will act as loan guarantor for market’s first phase, it will be easier to
        obtain lender financing (might want to focus on a Tacoma-based bank) assisting lender in


The Scott Group                                  95                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
        securing its “private mortgage insurance.” Also, it is critical for financing to convey a
        message the City really is serious.
    •   Utilize “Loan Loss Reserves” as a tool: the City commits a budgetary set-aside equal
        to, for example, 10% of the public market’s debt obligation functioning as an
        enhancement to obtain financing. The City’s commitment is not actually expended
        unless/until the market fails to perform on its obligation.
    •   City initiated the PDA: The City of Seattle initiated the PDA, but did not directly
        control it.
    •   Key to Market’s Success was making it economically viable: Base rents were set low
        enough to attract a diverse mix of merchants. However, rents should be high enough that
        “working merchants” are attracted (“…not part time craft vendors that play cards all
        day.”). Percentage rents ensure that the market ownership would also benefit from the
        upside if the market became very successful.
    •   Plan for Expansion: Start smaller
    •   The Landlord’s Job (the market operator) : get people to the market (marketing)
    •   Size of Stalls, Aisles: Goal is to make it feel crowded. Arcade should be 11’-15’ wide.
        Stalls are approximately 11’x10’.
    •   Experience and Authenticity: The market “experience” is full of energy and
        authenticity.
    •   Emphasis on Fresh: People feel that the market represents a healthy alternative to
        grocery stores.
    •   Parking: Parking is rate and location sensitive. Need a management entity to determine
        rates. Some would argue that parking ratio should be 4 per 1,000 square feet of space.
        However, the key is not how many you have, but where they are located (eg. having 88
        short term stalls directly in front of and around the market may prove more valuable than
        having a 300-car garage that’s 4 blocks away.)
    •   Bringing on Private Partners and RFPs: A City (Tacoma) should consider discussions
        and negotiation if it is approached by a private sector entity on the concept of a public
        market. A public market is a risky venture for any private entity to undertake. Due to the
        higher risks associated and the inherent dynamics of an RFP, without a specific monetary
        price pre-determined or pre-determined specific package, an RFP will attract a private
        sector response to risk that incorporates either or both the lowest “package” and/or the
        lowest price.
    •   Build Market First: The market (amenity) must be built first to realize the future value
        and development potential of adjacent or nearby lots (i.e. don’t expect a developer to step
        forward to propose to do everything at once or to follow through if one did. Any equation
        (City’s) must incorporate benefit compensating risk.)




The Scott Group                                 96                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                             Granville Island Market- Vancouver, BC




Interviewees:       Ken Tunnicliffe, Director
Organization:       Granville Island Market
Date:               1-05-05

Summary:          One of the most successful markets in North America, Granville Island is a
                  government-owned “Market District,” with the actual Market Hall as its heart.
                  Granville Island offers an equally important emphasis on unique “culturally-
                  oriented” uses on adjacent properties, including theaters, industrial art galleries
                  and an arts college. Respecting the island’s historic industrial and maritime uses,
                  the Granville Island plan does not call for the elimination of existing industrial
                  uses and structures and includes an operational “maritime district.”
I. History:
38-acre Granville Island was created in 1915 by the Federal Government for industrial uses.
In 1950’s, island was under pressure from increased density and mixed-use development in the
surrounding area. Most of the industrial users had left by the 1970’s.
An independent Granville Island Authority (an arm of the Federal Government) took over
management of the island in 1973 with the mission of making Granville Island a “people
and cultural place”.

II. Ownership/Management Structure:
• Owned by the Granville Island Authority
• Managed by The Granville Island Authority.
• Federal Government created The Granville Island Authority in 1973, deeded the land to the
    Authority along with a $25 million grant.

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities

The Scott Group                                   97                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Original Goal: Change the land uses to support the growing residential community by
        making the island a “people and cultural place”
    •   Public Market: The market is debt free and rents are set according to typical shopping
        center structure.
    •   Market District: The balance of the island is subject to long-term land leases (up to 45
        years) that are kept at below market in order to keep/attract tenants such as theater
        groups, arts foundations, etc.

IV. Constraints/Issues
    • Centrally Located, but poor transit access: Granville Island has become such a
       destination, the fact that it is not well served by transit has not appeared to affect its
       success.
    • Storage: They currently have a central 700-800 sf. of cold storage facility. Demand is
       easily for double that amount. Dry storage is not provided so vendors have been using
       their mezzanine office space for this purpose.
    • Parking: There are 1428 stalls on the island. The district could use more but there are
       additional off island parking lots close enough to be used by customers that help relieve
       the pressure.

VI. Location / Program Criteria
    • Public Market / Central Market Hall: Phased renovation and new construction of
       several old commercial warehouse structures.
    • Size: Gross Market: 42,000sf , Net Leasable: 21,000 nsf. (50% efficiency)
    • Vendor Size: Avg. 300 sf, largest is 800 sf
    • Vendor Mix: Typical mix with fresh foods representing the majority of vendors though
       prepared or fast foods, crafts and imported world food products are represented as well.
    • Average Sales psf: $1800/psf. Vendor Mix:
    • 50 Permanent Vendors
    • 47 Daystalls
    • Lease Rates: Minimum Rent: $40 psf. Fast food is $50 psf.
    • CAM rates $38-52 psf. Rates are high to reflect amount of common space, clean up and
       maintenance.
    • Lease Structure: 3-yr lease. Market assesses a percentage rent, whichever is higher.
       Percentage rents range from 4-9%.
    • 4% Produce, Meat, Baker
    • 5-8% Prepared or “fast” foods.
    • 9% Confectionary
    • Seasonal Farmers Market: Up to 25 vendors set up outside on Thursdays (not winter)
    • Market District: The remainder of the island is comprised of a number of uses all of
       which operate under long term land leases (which include all improvements). These
       leases are considered “under market” so that the Authority is able to encourage “cultural”
       users and other uses compatible or synergistic with the Market. Tenants are expected to
       do all TI work.
    • Cultural Uses
    • Emily Carr College of Art
    • Arts Club Theater
    • Industrial Arts/Gallery District
    • Maritime District: Marine-oriented industrial, commercial and retail uses are
       concentrated into this “sub-district” on the island.
The Scott Group                                 98                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Industrial Cement Factory
    •   Central City Community Center
    •   Parking: Several single and multi-leveled garages totaling 1428 spaces. The market
        contains both free and paid parking.
    •   Misc. Components:
    •   A number of programs for kids 6-12 years old
    •   Co-op/Social Housing opportunities

VII. Income / Operations
    • Gross Income: $42 Million Canadian. $6 Million in net revenue, of which $300,000
        goes to cultural grants. The Public Market generates 50% of the gross income, parking
        generates 20% and land leases generate the remaining 30% of gross income.

    •   Principal Customer Market:
            o 40% men / 60% women
            o 60% of visitors come from within 3 miles.
            o Not a commuter market
            o Not a lunch hour market
            o Despite 2,500 students not a student market

VIII. Misc. Comments/Advice from Interviewee:
   Markets must be self-sustaining: Revenue must be enough to cover operations, plus
       reserves.
   Transit: Served by a Water Taxi to the adjacent waterfront high-rises. They are considering
       expanding the service to the growing Concord Pacific development.
   You must change/break existing shopping patterns of inner city residents and workers.
   Must be a reason to “go there.” Goal is to be a vibrant and diverse “people place.” Look for
       sites that have potential reason for people to go there or to naturally be there (i.e., don’t
       just put a market in the middle of nowhere)
   Keep the Market on One Level. Upper level/mezzanine space could be used for dry storage
       or non-retail uses.
   Distribution of Vendors: Don’t put similar vendors next to each other, in order to encourage
       “wandering” and comparison shopping. GIM clusters vendors into “3 sections” that
       include similar diverse mix.
   Granville Island is not a “lunchtime crowd” spot. Since local residents and downtown
       workers have to drive here, they usually will eat lunch closer to downtown. The
       perception is that when you come to the market, you are coming to shop, or coming for
       an hour+ stay.
   Market Should be for Everyone: A place for people to come and enjoy without having to
       spend anything. It should feel safe, and the nature of offering “unique foods” will attract
       diverse clientele, both lower income and high income.
   Market must feel clean: Though the overall feeling is industrial, market should be kept in
       clean condition (trash, stalls, displays, etc)
   No National Tenants: ever (but they can have their start in the market)
   “No T-shirts” – market should stay true to food-oriented, and daystalls should offer
       authentic crafts, not tourist-oriented t-shirts.
   Organic Produce is not as successful inside Market: GIM prefers seasonal/outdoor farmers
       market to offer organic produce.
   Busiest Days: Sales increase progressively from Thursday-Sunday. In January, market closes
       on Mondays for maintenance.
The Scott Group                                  99                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    Art College: Though they don’t spend much, the presence of 2,500 art students adds to the
        “hustle and bustle” of market atmosphere, which many customers enjoy.
    Active Truck Loading is Good: The Market encourages load/unload throughout the day, as
        it is “authentic” to a working market, and adds interest to the streetscape.
    Most Visitors Drive: Even though over 100,000 people live with a close radius, most of the
        market visitors drive across the bridges. Most visitors want to load their own cars full of
        goods, rather than walk or use public transit (Note: the market is not served by the
        Skytrain)
    Market is “Geographically Contained”: It is a place, point of reference and destination
        within the City.
    Shopper Profile: Age: 25-45 Sex: 60% women Notes: They generally do not attract
        many teens or seniors
    Waterfront Markets have a very strong appeal




The Scott Group                                 100                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                             Portland Public Market- Portland, OR




Interviewees:     Ron Paul, Bureau of Planning
Organization:     City of Portland, Portland Public Market
Date:             12-29-04

Summary: The City of Portland is initiating the development of a permanent public market at
the location of the current Saturday market. The market will consist of new construction as well
as the renovation of an historic structure, and will feature a large outdoor plaza for the Portland
Farmers Market. The Portland Development Commission has an extensive background in urban
development, and will use financing mechanism such as Tax Increment Financing for the public
market. Currently a more detailed feasibility study is underway

Others to Contact/Follow Up
   • Joseph Readdy
   • Marcie Mackerelli, Urbsworks, Inc (did initial study)

I. History:
Portland has a rich history of public markets. In 1933, the Portland Waterfront Market was
considered one of the world’s largest markets, with 220,000 sf of floor space and 200 merchants.
The Saturday Market has been running in Ankeny Plaza for 20 years.

II. Financial Structure:

The Scott Group                                 101                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
Needs to be seeded with Public Capital. Market will not work as a private endeavor, since the
market rents are structured to support operations and expenses, but not debt service. Market space
or structure m8st be debt-free in order to be feasible for these tenants.
Structured as a municipally-owned asset managed by a privately owne3d entity. Management is
with a contracted with a private, non-profit.
Another model under consideration would be management under Metro (MERC), a regional
agency that also manages the Convention Center and Expo Center. Metro has taxing authority,
and can tap solid waste fees, etc.

    Estimated costs would be covered by:
            Public Funds: 2/3
            Private/Fundraising” 1/3
    Tax Increment Financing: City’s primary funding mechanism. (Can we use in Washington
        State?)
    Federal Funding: Project has received almost $500k in federal funding:
            $70k: USDA Ag. Marketing Services Grant
            $100k: HUD EDI (Economic Development Initiative) for preliminary design
            $300k: Interiors Dept (Save America’s Treasures- Historic Bld.)

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     Market is to be a catalyst for development in new Market District bridging Old
         Town/Chinatown and the Waterfront.
     City anticipates the market will attract up to $500 Million of development within 6-blocks.
     Placemaking: Goal of creating a people gathering hub for the City. Public Market must
         benefit the public, especially considering the use of public resources.
     Encourage market rate housing in an area where they are currently a number of lower-income
         properties and social services. Goal is to revitalize but not “gentrify”
     Multi-phased. Adjacent parcels are to be controlled by the PDC and considered for expansion
         of market.
     Incubator for small businesses.

IV. Constraints
Parking is perceived as a big issue. City is planning on building a parking structure w/ 250
spaces, 1 block away. Financing is uncertain.

VI. Location/Program Criteria
    • Locate in an area that has development potential, where Market can leverage additional
       development. A transitional, but not a blighted neighborhood in the downtown area.
    • City chose not to locate market adjacent to Pearl District because:
           o Location of Whole Foods
           o Area already heavily developed, lessoning opportunity for a Market District.
    • Would like there to be residential within ¼ mile, or proximity to office
    • There should not be a supermarket within ¼ mile
    • Close to rail and bus transit. City was interested in sites that were close to Union Station
       regional transit hub.
    • Each site contemplated was within 1 or 2 light rail stops from the convention center.
    • Primary Market Components:
           o Market Hall, with mezzanine. 16,000-24,000 sf



The Scott Group                                 102                                            05/24/05
Seattle WA
             o    Transitional Market: Indoor/Outdoor daystalls, seasonal, bridge from Market
                  Hall to Farmers Market. Under canopy, 1,000-2,000 sf, 20-30 vendors. Daystalls
                  are 254 sf
             o    Farmers Market: Seasonal outdoor market

VII. Details
    • Market Vendors/Mix
            o Merchants can include some prepared foods, produce, etc.
            o Uses to complement farmers market and offer tenants that are not usually found
              in open air markets (on-site baking, seafood, fresh meats, cheeses/dairy, wine)
            o On-site vintner for sale and production of wine, showcasing Oregon wine
              industry (regional attribute)
    • Marketing “Flavor”
            o Market should be food-centric heart of the City
            o 75% of goods should be locally-grown. Imported goods must be labeled.
            o Some prepared foods will be available, but City does not want a food court.
            o Ethnic Diversity: Engage the City’s ethnic communities
    • Restaurants
            o Two restaurants are planned for the mezzanine level to provide higher income
              and to attract more round-the-clock activity.’
    • Lease Structure
            o Average rents proposed: $21 psf
            o Spaces average 10x10 and 10x15
            o Percentage rents are anticipated for uses with higher sales (fishmonger,
              restaurants, etc)
    • Ancillary Uses
            o Office Space
            o Condominiums
    • Regional Population: 1,600,000
    • Street Vacation: City is proposing a street vacation for the farmers market

VIII. Wish List/Misc. Comments
   • Define the Market: Understand the qualities you want embodied in the market. Portland
       wanted to focus on all food-related vendors, including food-related crafts and prepared
       foods
   • Collaborate with Farmers Market: Make sure the existing farmers market is
       considered, consulted with and made welcome, even if they don’t; end up participating in
       the public market (eg. the Portland farmers market is still going to exist as it is on 3 days
       in 3 locations throughout downtown)
   • Public Market will not succeed if at odds w/ farmers market
   • Relationship with vendors is very important
   • City has an MOU with the Farmers Market
   • Get all stakeholders interested, involved: Discuss with grocers, landowners, tourism,
       offices, chamber of commerce….build strong local support.
   • Endowment: Market needs an endowment to cover depreciation. Income from vendors
       should be structured such that amount is left to contribute to endowment.
   • Tap into local vendors: If possible, try to include well-known local vendors as local
       anchors (such as Johnny’s Seafood)
   • Parking! Parking! Parking!

The Scott Group                                 103                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
                           Olympia Farmers Market- Olympia, WA




Interviewees:     Charlie Hanny, Bob Sullivan, Manager
Organization:     Olympia Farmers Market
Date:             12-29-04

Summary           The Olympia Farmers Market is a publicly owned open-air shed structure built
                  to house the local farmers market. It operates seasonally, and the Market leases
                  the space from the City (owner), who in turn pays the Port of Olympia for a
                  long-term land lease. The market has become a hub for organic produce, and
                  gross sales are approaching $4million/yr.

Others to Contact/Follow Up
   • John Moore, Port of Everett. Formerly with Port of Olympia, was major proponent of the
       Market
   • Steve Pottle, Bob Von Shoel, Port of Olympia Commissioners
   • Clarita Mattox: City of Olympia

I. History
    • Current Market Organization has been in place since 1975, but a farmers market has been
        operating since the 1920’s.
    • Previously on a vacant lot leased for $1/yr from City

II. Financial Structure
     • City Bond was proposed in 1995, but failed (60% required, 59.2% achieved)
     • City folded Market financing into a larger “parks & recreation” Councilmanic Bond.
     • Market was expanded to four days a week: Thurs-Sun 10:00-3:00 (136 days/yr)
     • Port leases land to City. Market pays lease to City.

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • Turn underutilized land at the Port of Olympia into a “Market District.”
     • District would be area for downtown to grow towards the water.
     • Former industrial zoned waterfront was rezoned to mixed-use
     • Market Mission: To develop and foster local produce in Thurston, Mason, Lewis and
        Grays Harbor County (to become a super-regional market center). Maintain Status as a
        Farmers Market.

The Scott Group                                104                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
IV. Constraints
    • Some merchants viewed it as competition
    • Downtown Thriftway did not want a permanent market structure

V. Results
   • Anthony’s Homeport Restaurant committed to adjacent parcel as soon as market signed
      its lease
   • Market sales increased 2000% percent during first year in permanent structure (sales
      went from $175,000 in open air lot to $1.8 Million first year in permanent shed)
   • Gross Sales for 2003 were up to $3.7 Million.
   • New Development in the Market District includes:
           o Mixed-use office and retail building
           o Two restaurants
           o Major Senior Housing Development (200+ units)
           o Hotel
           o Conference Center (planned)
           o New Marina and adjacent Mixed-use district (planned)
   • Major Tourist attraction in Thurston County (many more repeat visits than Capitol Bldg)

VI. Location/Program Criteria
    • Location close to the water, esplanade
    • Very family-oriented
    • Good Freeway Access

VII. Details:
    • Market Vendors/Mix
            o 80 stalls
            o 132 vendors (seasonal rotation)
            o Two fruit vendors are the “anchor” stalls
            o Regional Produce (Western WA), Eastern WA. Ok.
            o Some small prepared/fast food vendors
            o Bakeries, Meats/Seafood, mostly produce (organic)
    • Marketing Budget: $45,000 yr. Radio, paper, posters
    • Foundation: “Friends of the Olympia Farmers Market”- non-profit foundation set up by
       the
    • Board: 7-member vendor board.
    • Staff: 3- Manager, Assistant, Maintenance
    • Security: Drive-by security provided by the Port and City of Olympia.
    • Regional Population: 90,000 (includes Olympia and surrounding areas)
    • Regional Attraction: many regular visits to the Market come from the Tacoma area.
    • Hosted Events: Taste of the Market

VIII. Wish List/Misc. Comments
   • Need More Space: so vendors could expand
   • More Parking: Currently they have 242 spaces, would prefer 500. They are looking at
       building a parking structure (eventually)
   • Parking for Tour Busses: should be anticipated
   • Good/Adequate Rest Rooms
   • Consistency: is important. Avoid “theme days” and keep all market days the same.
The Scott Group                                105                                    05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   WORK WITH VENDORS! Get much input form vendors up front in terms of vendor
        mix, services, etc.
    •   If considering Crafts be sensitive to mix of crafts and food vendors. Limit or standardize
        craft vendors.




The Scott Group                                 106                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                             Depot Market Square- Bellingham, WA




Interviewee:       Tara Hardesty, Development Specialist
Organization:      City of Bellingham, Planning and Community Development
Date:              1-05-05

Summary           The City of Bellingham is financing the construction of “Depot Market Square,”
                  an open air pavilion as a permanent home for the Saturday Farmers Market. At

The Scott Group                                 107                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
                  this point the market will continue to operation only on Saturdays and it will be
                  seasonal. The site is designed to double as a parking lot for all other days. The
                  City used a creative combination of federal and state funds and private support to
                  finance the estimated $2.8 million structure.

Follow up/others to contact: Steven Trinkhouse, Terra Organica (may be involved with a
              separately proposed public market

I. History
    • Saturday Farmers Market has existed for 12 years. Site is currently a parking lot.
    • Current Farmers Market also operates The Saturday Bellingham Market a Wednesday
        market in Fairhaven, and a Tuesday market in Barclay Village (east of I-5).
    • The two daily markets outside of downtown will remain in operation.

II. Ownership/Management Structure
City of Bellingham will own the structure and underlying land. The City Parking Department will
manage the property. The Depot Market will be managed by the Depot Market Board, which
includes market vendors.

    •   Funding Sources:
           o $214 k: Economic Development Initiative Grant (EDI): Whatcom County.
           o $450k: Capital Programs Fund Grant, State of Washington
           o $836k: Real Estate Excise Funds, City of Bellingham
           o $300k: Street Funds, City of Bellingham (curb, sidewalk, parking surface)
           o $150k: Wastewater Funds, City of Bellingham (public restrooms)
           o $550k: Private Sector (fundraising, etc)
              $2,500,000

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • Market is to be heart of city’s new “Market District.”
     • Site is adjacent to former industrial land that is slated for mixed-use, including the 132-
        acre Georgia Pacific Mill.
     • Plans are underway for up to 800 market rate units to be built on 5-acre parcel adjacent to
        the Market lot.

IV. Constraints/Issues
    • Parking may be an issue. Generally, parking is found in angled parking in front of
       adjacent parcels. It appears that the construction of the market will eliminate 40-50
       parking spaces, and there will be approximately 60 available on-site while the market is
       open.
    • Initial Reception was not too positive, as farming vendors did not feel that their
       considerations were listened to in the original design. So the project was redesigned with
       vendor input.

VI. Location / Program Criteria
    • Public Market Components
           o Size/SF: 15,400 sf vendor area
           o Market Pavilion: Open air structure with 7000 sf of space, with a “viewing”
                mezzanine, inspired by European markets. Pavilion will feature a 930 sf retail
                space, which may be leased by a caterer, and offered jointly as a
The Scott Group                                  108                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                cooking/teaching venue for the Whatcom Community College Culinary Arts
                Program.
            o Permanent and Daystall Sheds: 8,400 sf of vendor space in two linear covered
                sheds that are perpendicular to the Pavilion.
    •   Vendors: The market currently operates with 80 vendors.
    •   Parking: 60+ onsite stalls provided. Pavilion doubles as indoor parking venue.
    •   Spark Development: Locate in area that has development potential, where Market
        could leverage opportunity for re-development. A transitional, but not blighted
        neighborhood in the downtown area.
    •   Current Location: Location is where current market operates so impacts and benefits to
        the surrounding area will remain similar.

VII. Income / Operations

Gross Income: The City is not operating the market facility as a profitable or break even facility.
They are more interested in the business and development the Market will generate. The lease to
the Depot Market on Saturdays will increase from $125 to $200 per day.
The Saturday Farmers Market or Depot Market will be operated by the Depot Market Board.

VIII. Misc. Comments/Advice
   • Local merchants are very supportive of the Market
   • One business leader stepped up to provide a guarantee on materials acquisition.
   • Very important to listen to the vendors, but do not allow them to make programmatic
       decisions.
   • The effort to build a market was started by the Local Rotary Chapter.
   • Purchasing Whatcom Co. Bridge: The fundraising foundation for the Depot Market
       Square is in the process of purchasing a surplus steel bridge from the DOT for $175k.
       The purchase is being made via a solid waste firm that has been given the salvage rights
       to the bridge, which is just north of Mt. Vernon. The value of the steel, to be used as part
       of the framing of the pavilion, is estimated at $432k.




The Scott Group                                 109                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                            Pioneer Park Pavilion- Puyallup, WA




Interviewees:     Sonie Waltier Hanson, Assistant Director, Farmer’s Market Manager, Puyallup
                  Main Street Association; Sarah Harris, Pavilion Supervisor, Puyallup Park
                  Pavilion; Ralph Dannenberg, Parks and Recreation Department Director.

Organization:     Parks & Recreation Department, Main Street Association
Date:             12-29-04

Summary           The Puyallup Pavilion was built by the City of Puyallup on municipal land
                  with councilmanic bonds. They currently operated it with an expectation of it
                  creating a long term cash flow to the city. They also built an adjacent 1,800sf
                  restaurant space that used separate funds but will be operated by the same city
                  staff as the pavilion. The primary purpose of the facility was to be a home for
                  the Puyallup Farmers market but it was designed and is operated by the city as
                  a multipurpose facility.

I. History
Puyallup has had a vibrant farmers market for 22 years. It was created by the Puyallup Chamber
of Commerce but is currently run by the Puyallup Main Street Association.
Originally the Pavilion was to be the permanent home for the Puyallup Farmers market.
However, as the project progressed through the political process it was changed to be a true
multi-purpose facility with the farmers market as the primary user.
The construction was funded by through a councilmanic bond to be paid off with hotel and motel
taxes.

II. Financial Structure
The Scott Group                                110                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   The pavilion construction was paid for using a $2,000,000 councilmanic bond to be paid
        off with hotel and motel taxes. The logic was that the market brings tourists.
    •   The proforma estimate is that the facility will generate approximately $200,000 a year in
        revenue.
    •   The facility is operated by a city property manager who leases out the facility.
    •   Many facility operational costs such as maintenance, custodial and landscaping are
        carried in the larger city budget.
    •   The farmers market has first right of refusal on utilizing the space.

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • Permanent facility that can house the Puyallup Farmers Market.
     • Spur development in the Puyallup core.
     • Provide Puyallup with a mid sized all purpose facility and keep that market local.

IV. Constraints
    • The multi-purpose character of the facility makes a good but not great fit for the Market.

V. Results
   • The Puyallup Farmers Market uses the facility Friday’s , Saturdays, and Sundays for half
      of the day for 6 months a year.
   • Within the first 2 months of operation the manager had leased the facility for 50 events
      and estimated first year income will be $200,000

VI. Location/Program Criteria:
    • On historic Puyallup Central park along with the new Puyallup Central Library.
    • Plenty of surrounding parking (both street and lot)
    • Adjacent to Main Street.

VII. Details
    • The public market is operated by the Puyallup Main Street Association.
    • Market Vendors/Mix
            o Floor scored with 10x10ft squares
            o 120 vendors (seasonal rotation)
            o 60% of vendors are farmers
            o Limit crafts
            o Some small prepared/fast food vendors
            o Bakeries, Meats/Seafood, mostly produce
    • Fee Structure: 22% of gross vendor fees or $20,000 a year.
    • Marketing Budget: N/A
    • Foundation: None
    • Board: Market is operated by the Puyallup Main Street Association.
    • Staff: 3- Manager, Assistant, Maintenance
    • Regional Attraction: many regular visits to the market come from the Tacoma area.

VIII. Wish List/Misc. Comments
   • Need More Space: for storage and kitchen space (because of the events that also use the
       facility).
   • Better Sound Muffling: The hard durable surfaces designed with the market in mind
       create to much sound reflections for other events.
The Scott Group                                111                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   More Parking: Currently they have 230 off street parking spaces shared with the library.
        Will be getting 20-40 more spaces next year.
    •   Better Truck loading: Access for loading could be better (drive into the facility)
    •   Lighting: More intense lighting for the market.
    •   Electrical: Could have more.




The Scott Group                               112                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
                        Lonsdale Quay Market- North Vancouver, BC




Interviewees:   Gary Matheison, CEO. Brian Dunkey, General Manager
     Organization: CCS (Continental Commercial Systems Corp), Lonsdale Quay Market
Date: 1-05-05

Summary           A successful, privately owned “public market center” with a ground floor
                  primarily offering an upscale public market experience. The second floor is
                  more traditional retail and the project is capped by 2 additional floors of hotel.
                  The quay is located on the North Vancouver waterfront and alongside the
                  primary transit hub (including the bus and “Seabus” terminal).

I. History
    • North Vancouver was very industrial but began to redevelop in the mid 1980s.
    • Market was developed in mid 1980’s (in anticipation of World’s Fair) by Intrawest with
        25 other partners.
    • Sold to CCS.


The Scott Group                                 113                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
II. Ownership / Management Structure
    • Owned and operated by CCS.

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • When originally built the Quay was designed to act as the retail hub of Northshore transit
        center.
     • Market would anchor master-planned linear waterfront development and serve the
        residents.
     • Market would capture the 5,000 workers in the adjacent commercial core.

IV. Constraints/Issues
    • Commuters are not really shoppers
    • Second floor retail is difficult
    • Farmers Market was not well-received by indoor merchants, but management has found
       that the two uses together bring much more foot traffic.
    • IGA grocery moved in 3 blocks away 2 years ago and has affected the market
    • Only 90 parking stalls

V. Location / Program Criteria
    • Quay Components: The Quay is comprised of 2 stories of “market hall” each 21,000sf
       net and 2 stories of hotel at 50,000 sf.
    • Market Components
           o Size: Gross Market: 42,000sf , Net Leasible: 21,000 nsf. (50% efficiency)
           o Vendor Size: Average vendor 500 sf , Average fast food 250 sf
           o Vendor Mix: The ground level “market” has a typical mix of fresh foods but
                they also have a fair sized food court as well as limited crafts and food related
                products.
    • Vendor Mix:
           o 60 Permanent Vendors
           o 20 Daystalls
    • Lease Rates: $30-60 psf NNN
    • Lease Structure: Base + percentage + NNN
    • Seasonal Farmers Market: Up to 25 vendors set up outside on Thursdays (not winter)
    • Parking: 90 spaces underground, 30-40 spaces at adjacent City-owned lot. First 2 hrs
       free, otherwise $1.50 hr.


VI. Income / Operations
Net Operating Costs are @ $15-17 psf.

VII. Market
    • Regional Population: 180,000 (includes all north shore areas)
    • Transit Hub generates 3-4 million visits
    • Market Visits: 3 million people per year.
    • 5000 employees within 3-4 blocks
    • Weekdays shoppers of locals employees
    • Weekends shoppers are families

VIII. Misc. Comments/Advice from Interviewee

The Scott Group                                114                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Transportation Connections are Vital: Constant flow of commuter traffic is helpful.
        The failure of one a similar market in Vancouver is attributed to the fact that it was out of
        the way, and was not served by transit. 3-4 million annually
    •   Second-level Retail is Ongoing Struggle: They have very high turnover, would suggest
        another use, such as residential, if other income is needed to offset costs
    •   Carts Program very successful: and is a good revenue stream.
    •   Non-food vendors should be food-related if on main level: eg. Kitchen Store,
        Cookbook store, Wine shop.
    •   Focus on Unique, Fresh Food: it will draw all incomes, but will feel like a “gourmet
        focal point” (inherently upscale is implied as it is a strong draw for new downtown
        residents).
    •   Customers: Lots of downtown workers during the week, very family oriented on
        weekend
    •   Managing Market is difficult: Lots of interaction with merchants day-to-day. Important
        balance with merchants: get them involved, but do not let them take over daily decision
        making (i.e. Establish Boundaries).
    •   Market is not an income generating property: Cities should not look at this as an
        investment to make money on, but a smart economic tool.

IX. TSG Comments/Observations:
    • Very successful program
    • Focused, food-oriented ground floor market
    • Plenty of indoor seating and “food court” uses adjacent to the water
    • Large open spaces (1. Main market hall, 2. Food Court/Public Seating area.
    • Even Food court vendors were encouraged to offer deli-style prepared foods to go.
    • All “mom n pop” shops, but with good design standards (signage, materials, etc).




The Scott Group                                 115                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
                           Westminster Quay- New Westminster, BC




Interviewee:       Nick Marini
Organization:      Westminster Quay
Date:              1-05-05

Summary           Westminster Quay is a privately owned “public market” located in New
                  Westminster, BC. The market was developed in the late 1980’s as part of the
                  redevelopment of a former waterfront industrial property to mixed-use, including
                  a 1.5 mile Esplanade with a large residential community. The site is across the
                  train tracks from downtown, and is not immediately served by transit. The
                  market has had substantial vacancies, especially on the second level, and has a
                  scattered mix of retail tenants and food vendors, a mix more common with the
                  1980’s “Festival Markets” such as Harborplace in Baltimore. The quality of local

The Scott Group                                 116                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
                  food vendors, as well as the display and quality of space, is below the standard of
                  the other markets we have reviewed. Though rents per square foot are very high
                  ($50) compared to other markets, sales per square foot are apparently lower. A
                  new IGA grocery store opened 3 blocks away, and has been very well received
                  by the high end condominium population.

I. History
    •   There was an existing outdoor farmers market on this site for years. When the larger
        parcel was developed the city conditioned it on the development of a Market Hall
    •   When market originally opened, ground floor was exclusively food-oriented.
    •   When originally opened the market was extremely successful but poor management of
        vendor mix and overly aggressive rents (up to $100 psf) drove vendors away

II. Ownership / Management Structure
    • Privately owned and operated. Previous owners sold to new owners several years ago.
    • Leases were structured with comparably high rents ($100 psf) to help pay debt service
       and meet expected returns of original owners.

III. Development Objectives, Opportunities
     • Market was designed as retail focal point for New Westminster’s revival in the late
        1980’s.
     • Market would anchor master-planned linear waterfront development and serve the
        residents.

IV. Constraints/Issues
    • Location: Site is located on the waterfront, which is separated from downtown by train.
    • Visibility: Site does not have good visibility from freeway or from downtown, though
       there is rooftop signage that can be seen.
    • Lack of Transit Connection: There is a connection to the Skytrain (subway) from
       across the train tracks with a skybridge (In theory, this should be a close enough
       connection).
    • Parking: The quay only has BLANK stall of its own and therefore leases and additional
       BLANK stall at the cost of X DOLLARS annually.


VI. Location/Program Criteria
    Primary Market Components
           Size: Gross Market: 75,000 sf , Ground floor Net Leasable: 22,500 nsf, 2nd Level
               Retail Net Leasable: 22,500 nsf (50% efficiency)
           Vendor Size: NA
           Vendor Mix: The vendor situation is not ideal. The market saw many of its tenants
               leave and its tenant mix degrade to the point where there are few “public market”
               like vendors and they are mixed in with a few low grade fast food vendors and
               other general retailers.
    Average Sales psf: NA
    Lease Rates: Minimum Rent: $50 psf NNN.
    Lease Structure: 3-yr lease.
    Seasonal Farmers Market: Up to 25 vendors set up outside on Saturdays (not winter)

VII. Market Details:
The Scott Group                                  117                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Size/SF: 45,000 sf net vendor area (22.5k on each floor). 75,000 GSF
    •   Regional Population: 55,000. Adjacent waterfront development: 4,000
    •   CAM Charges are high
    •   Average operations costs are $18 psf. Market needs to gross $2M/yr for adequate returns.
        Current gross sales receipts are $1.8 M. Goal is $2.5M.
    •   Parking: Market pays $200,000 a year to lease parking lots.

VIII. Misc. Comments/Advice:
   • Stay with the program: Focus on food-oriented market. Don’t try to “offer everything”
       such as crafts vendors, clothing, and tourist-oriented merchants.
   • Consistency: Make daily experience consistent for visitors, no “theme days.”
   • City needed more than just the market on the waterfront. Not enough regional or adjacent
       attractions
   • Adjacent casino has not been good for business. The patrons do not come to the market,
       as the casino has onsite eating/drinking establishments.
   • Need 2 -3 of everything: They have only 1 baker, produce, meat, flower & fish.
   • You want flowers or produce when you first come in (for color, festive look, etc)
   • Branding is important. The previous owners charged a lot for rent, so the market does
       not have a good reputation among vendors.
   • Public Subsidy is needed to offer lower prices so that vendors can be successful, and
       reinvest in their own stalls. Low rent is the only way to go.
   • Space for Weekend Vendors: is needed and is important
   • Second Floor Space: Should be a different use: Office, meeting, hotel or residential, but
       do not put the market on separate levels.
   • “Culinary Heart of the Region” – focus should be on gourmet and regional foods and
       products (Note: Tacoma finally has a cluster of high-end restaurants downtown to help
       foster that image).
   • Try to get a cooking school, culinary arts program.
   • Pub -does very well.
   • Marine Access: it would be nice to have marine access, or to be able to sell fish “off the
       boat.”
   • Need to screen vendors: Want to make sure that vendors have engaging “personalities”
       to sell the experience.
   • Residents Want Better Quality: which is why most of the waterfront tenants drive
       across the overpass to shop at the IGA store.

IX. TSG Comments/Observations:
    • “Market” component of the main floor feels like a “symbolic” market feel in order to
       retain the image of what Westminster Quay once was.
    • Westminster Quay is similar to Freighthouse Square in terms of atmosphere, quality of
       vendors, and diversity of uses (though FS does not feature a public market component)
    • Public Seating faces the water.
    • Food Court-style vendors are located throughout the building, on both floors.
    • Restaurant looked “tired”- old carpet, dated look.
    • What is the “image” of Freighthouse Square.
    • Smooth Jazz music piped into market “takes place” of the noise and bustle that should be
       there.


The Scott Group                               118                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
Appendix II: Stake Holder Interviews

1) Tacoma Farmers Market
1-25-05
Melisa Evangelos, Aileen Bacon, Richard Hines, Market Board
    • “Tacoma may be limited by number of vendors” - should look into quantity of vendors,
        both in Tacoma Farmers Market and in regional farmers markets (Olympia, Puyallup,
        etc). Note: there was concern over whether there would be enough TFM merchants to fill
        the space. We suggested to them that the idea of a Public Market center is that is would
        be a regional (South Sound) draw, and consequently it may prove very attractive to
        vendors.
    • Mission of TFM is food centric. They have Eastern Washington vendors. Also
        importance of preserving farmland.*
    • The TFM does not have very high sales per customer. Part of the problem could be
        attributed to the fact that it’s in the middle of the day, and the middle of the CBD: many
        nearby workers come for their lunch break, and then grab “a few apples”
        and head back to the office. The hours may not encourage purchase of larger amounts of
        groceries, which would have to be stored at the office.
    • Stalls range from $20-40, with farmers paying 5% of all sales over $200, while other
        vendors pay 6%. Taxes to city amount to $400/wk ($5/per vendor).
    • 5,000-6,000 adults are there on a typical summer day, with up to 9,000 adults on a special
        events day.
    • TFM has a great local reputation, but that hasn’t translated into big dollars yet.
    • They have gotten rid of many of the crafts vendors, and now make sure that “artisan
        crafts” are featured (not knick-knacks, sunglasses, etc)

 TSG discussed the opportunity for TFM to expand. Could they test a Saturday market?
   • TFM concerned that most of their vendors already have commitments at successful
      Saturday markets.
   • They are planning to expand this year by trying a Tuesday night (note: several farmers
      and public markets have informed us that Monday-Tuesday are the slowest days, with
      business increasing as the weekend approaches)

TSG discussed the “chicken and egg” scenario about opening a market on a more popular or
weekend day. The competitive weekend markets are in cities with much smaller populations.
Once established, a weekend or Saturday market in Tacoma may do quite well. We also
discussed the importance of the permanent Public Market component, which serves to bring year
round customers and a steady flow of traffic (especially on weekends). The Case Studies have
said the combination of the Public Market and the adjacent seasonal Farmers Market together
bring in much more foot traffic, which is an obvious benefit to both.

    •   TFM would be amenable to a Public Market/Farmers Market center or district. They have
        concerns over maintaining affordable rates to ensure the success of their vendors. We
        noted that many cities use an approach to keep rates low and reasonable to ensure the
        success of the markets, but they also can include mechanisms to benefit from the upside
        if the market is a very successful endeavor.



The Scott Group                                119                                        05/24/05
Seattle WA
The TFM also shared thoughts about what elements would be ideal, or what they’d like to see in a
location for a public/farmers market center:
    • Parking is a big deal, as much free parking as possible
    • High visibility
    • Need to create a real people place
    • Not necessarily in the heart of the CBD – “room to breathe”
    • View of the water would be nice
    • Playground/place for children. They’d like to attract families.
    • Location/neighborhood doesn’t matter per se, as long as it can be easily found. They are
        amenable to Tacoma Avenue (Police Station site).
    • Freighthouse Square area/Dome District seems ideal because “so many pieces are in
        place” including parking transit, other attractions, open space (plazas) high visibility.

*Note: Throughout our readings and interviews, we have heard repeatedly that the markets also
perform an important social function: to serve as reminder of the importance of preserving
farmland (both urban and rural). This is usually factored into the market “mission” and serves
as an educational/outreach component.


2) Foss Waterway Development Authority
1-21-05
Sue Dowie, Dir. of Planning, Don Meyer, Executive Director
    • Think that the Foss Waterway would be a great location for a market, but are concerned
        over parking.
    • A public market would be a great complement to the existing (and proposed)
        development, and should be tied in to help improve connections to the CBD.
    • Either the west or east side could be considered, though the Port is growing cautious
        about the “gentrification” of the east side of the waterway.
    • Consider the Colonial Produce site. There have been meetings/discussions with Colonial
        Produce and Johnny’s Seafood about a market concept at this site. Their concept was for
        something smaller that might serve the downtown core.
    • Johnny’s Seafood has been interested in remodeling to incorporate a take out restaurant,
        open up to the esplanade, etc.
    • They would not recommend considering the Maritime Center building, because currently
        there is another use planned for it.
    • Also, look at opportunities at the sites adjacent to the Murray Morgan Bridge.


3) Port of Tacoma
1-25-05
Bob Emerson, Director of Real Estate
    • TSG approach was for B.E. to consider that there may be viable sites on either side of the
        Foss Waterway, and that some market models are compatible with marine and industrial
        uses.
    • Thinks that a Public Market would be a great attraction in Tacoma.
    • TSG discussed the model of Granville Island, which houses industrial uses (concrete
        plant) and also has a designated “Maritime District” for marine-related and dependent
        uses.
    • Thinks that the Dome District is an optimal site for a public market.

The Scott Group                                120                                       05/24/05
Seattle WA
4) Urban Waters
1-27-05
Ray Corpuz
    • Thinks that the West side of the Foss is better alternative, because of proximity to CBD
        and momentum on the west side.
    • The idea of a market has been floated for years. Thinks that Muni Dock/Site 9 would be a
        good location, because of adjacent connection to Murray Morgan Bridge.


5) Kathryn Bamford
1-27-05
Owner, BamBam Pottery

Note: Through discussions with KB and Claire Petrich, we chatted about the possibility of a
unique waterside market that would incorporate marine and industrial uses, as well as arts and
unique retail (Tideflat traders). Both properties feature large shed structures that could
accommodate a public market hall. There is a lot of open space in and around the buildings and
under/adjacent to the Murray Morgan Bridge, which could be resurfaced for parking. In
anticipation of the MM Bridge renovation and the construction of the D Street overpass, this area
will become more easily accessible in the coming years.

TSG discussed KB’s property, what her plans are for it and what she thinks about the idea of a
public market.
   • Thinks the idea of a public market is a very good one, and would complement the
        “Tideflat Traders” that have opened up on the east side of the Foss
   • She owns a shed structure that she has thought about for a market hall.
   • She and Claire Petrich have discussed it. She likes the idea of a “funky” market district
        that includes importers, artisans and marine-oriented uses (Granville Island model).
   • She is planning on improving the landscaping along the shoreline and installing metal
        sculptures. She’s an advocate for industrial arts.
   • She would welcome the opportunity to “test the market” by offering one or more open
        lots for the TFM to try a summer weekend market.


6) Claire Petrich
1-27-05
Owner, DockMandu

TSG discussed the east side Foss “World Market” concept with CP. She thought it was a great
idea, and thinks that it could create a natural hub on the east side of the Foss, while still
maintaining uses that are compatible with adjacent industrial land.

    •   Said that onsite shed/warehouse could be used for Market Hall
    •   Would welcome the opportunity to work with TFM or City of Tacoma, to make it
        happen.
    •   Thinks that the east side of the Foss is in transition, but should be different from the west
        side of the Foss. Not a place for luxury housing, but something that can become a unique
        destination.

The Scott Group                                  121                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
7) Johnny’s Seafood
2-8-05
Gary Gerontis, President
TSG’s goal was to discuss the plans for Johnny’s Seafood to renovate, as well as the rumors of
the market concept between their site and Colonial Produce. We let him know that there will be a
number of sites considered, and that even if their site(s) were not chosen, it would be important to
have Johnny’s as a visible anchor, and on the flipside it would be advantageous for Johnny’s to
participate.
    • He has explored plans to renovate their city-owned structure to allow for public viewing
        of warehouse, restaurant/café component.
    • If City asked Johnny’s to participate in a Public Market that was not on the Foss
        Waterway, GC said they would prefer to have adjacent warehouse/distribution uses
        (would not like to separate his retail from wholesale locations.
    • If relocated, would like up to 15,000 sf. Would need most for warehouse, loading.
    • Site on the Foss Waterway holds nostalgia for Johnny’s Seafood.

Note: Thus, if another site is ultimately chosen for the development of a public market, it would
be advisable for the City (or private sponsor) to consider the needs for Johnny’s Seafood, as they
would be an important draw. There could also be an opportunity for them to operate a cafe’/fish
n’ chips style seafood component, which could add strongly to the mix of vendors.


8) Colonial Food & Produce
(via phone) 2-7-05
Kevin Trucco, Owner
TSG’s goal was to find out what KT’s goals for the Colonial building were, and whether he was
committed to the “rumored” public market concept between Colonial and Johnny’s.
    • The building may or may not be for sale. KT is considering holding onto the property,
        and could participate in a JV.
    • The concept of a market has been discussed, but KT also knows the value of the land and
        the importance of a profitable use. Hence KT is not necessarily wedded to the idea of
        converting the building and/or site to a public market.
    • Colonial Produce is wholesale distribution, so a retail concept is not a priority.
    • Skeptical on whether public (City) participation would be beneficial.
    • Thinks that the building itself is sturdy and worth saving, for whatever use.
    • One consideration is the truck access to Johnny’s Seafood (building is owned by the
        City).


9) Tacoma Dome
1-27-05
Jody Hodgson, Asst. Director
TSG asked JH what the options were for the redevelopment of the Tacoma Dome. We wanted to
find out if there were concessions, restaurants and/or plaza improvements planned. The idea to
explore was whether there may be an opportunity to tap into the TC remodel bond by offering
space/capital for a market component.

    •   Plan for Dome may include a smaller venue. Not too much focus on restaurants/ancillary
        uses (LeMay Museum may be planning these uses)
The Scott Group                                 122                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   Thinks the public market would be a great idea, but thinks it should be closer to rail
        station.
    •   Doesn’t think that the use would be compatible with the program the TC is trying to
        achieve with the remodel. They believe its very import to stay with their program.


10) Keith Stone
(former owner, Freighthouse Square)
1-21-05
    • Originally inspired by Faneuil Hall (Boston, Rouse Company)
    • Had market merchants in there, but they did not do well
    • There wasn’t much else to come down for in downtown Tacoma, so FS changed its focus
        and the food court and antique shops became more prominent.
    • Thinks that the Dome District is perfect for the concept now, especially considering the
        infrastructure and transit improvements.


11) Pierce Transit
1-25-05
Lynd Simonsen, PR Officer
    • Pierce Transit is very supportive of development that supports Transit awareness
    • PT has been in discussion with Mercy Housing, Tacoma Farmers Market, about use of
        Sound Transit Garage spaces, and using garage structure for weather protection. Also, PT
        agrees that market vendors would help activate the plaza space.
    • Good opportunity for PT transit shed to house a market structure or some sort of
        complementary use. PT is interested in selling. Leasing is not preferable
    • TSG discussed opportunities for the PT Shed as a temporary “test site” for a farmers
        market. PT is interested in disposing the property, and indicated housing would be a
        preferable use.

Note: PT is interested in the sale of the property adjacent to the Tacoma Dome Station, but
perhaps an interim (short term) lease could be considered if they were willing to let the farmers
market try this location. Since a permanent Market solution may not be implemented for several
years, it may be worthwhile to identify temporary or transitional opportunities to test either the
farmers or public market concept.


12) Sound Transit
2-15-05
John McClane, Real Estate Acquisitions
Sound Transit is in the process of acquiring a right-of-way for the Nalley Valley line. This will
primarily consist of joint use agreements with Burlington Northern on its rail spur but there may
be occasional properties that are purchased. A likely group of these will be in the vicinity of the
East 25th Street and A Street intersection. There are several property owners in this area that
Sound Transit is currently negotiating with in an attempt to not purchase the entire property but
mitigate the impacts of building over the property’s parking by replacing the parking on an
adjacent property.
    • Sound Transit is supportive but not sure how they might help at this point



The Scott Group                                 123                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
    •   They will have property surrounding the East 25th Street and A Street intersection. But
        currently they have disposition plans for acquired property (replacing parking they are
        taking)


13) Intercommunity Mercy Housing
(via phone) 2-15-05
Walter Zisette, Vice President, Director of Community Development
TSG’s goals were to discuss the status of Mercy Housing’s interest in redevelopment of Pierce
Transit’s “Blue Shed” building adjacent the light rail station (across from Freighthouse Square)
and to get a sense for its initial interest level in accommodating either a farmers market or a
market hall below and/or in a front plaza area.
    • Mercy is interested in exploring redevelopment scenarios with either a farmers market or
        a larger market hall with a preference for a market hall perceived as being able to
        generate higher rents and consistent income.
    • His interest in the blue shed property continues (inactively waiting) while Pierce Transit
        resolves issues surrounding its federal obligations as they relate to property disposition.
    • When asked, “What could the City do to help advance a mixed-use project?”, responses
        were:
             o 1.) Advance City engineers to resolve hazmat concerns surrounding the
                 site/neighborhood (Brownfield grants?);
             o 2.) Provide resources for a mixed-use capacity study;
             o 3.) Consider incentives for the adjacent private property owner to sell for greater
                 opportunity to incorporate some for-profit / non-profit partnership on a larger
                 redevelopment site.


14) University of Washington
1-25-05
Fred King, Director of Real Estate
    • UW would consider allowing land or lease of existing (vacant) warehouse on Market
        Street to use for an interim site for the farmers or public market.
    • Market Street could be used as a “street fair” location.
    • Schedule for long term development allows for a short-term use, perhaps 3-5 years
    • UW is willing and supportive if the Farmers’ Market group is interested in hosting
        something there.
    • UW’s goal is not necessarily profit- but would like to see properties in used or improved.


15) Metropolitan Development Council
1-31-05
Sandra Burgess, Economic Development Director
Teresa Lemmons, VP Real Estate
Steve Garrett, Board Member, Food Geographer

    •   TSG discussed the South Carolina Coastal Community Development Corporation, which
        was able to receive a $1M USDA grant for the business incubator component of its
        farmers market and food center. The BI component included a large commercial kitchen
        as well as a business center where tenants/vendors could access on-line linkages to food

The Scott Group                                 124                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
         industry databases, food distributors, etc. The BI component helped the smaller vendors
         learn to expand their customer base and help with organization/distribution *

         *Note: During several of our interviews discussion came up about a similar BI
         component for Tacoma, which could feature components unique to “Wired City” such as
         access to Click! Internet, and an opportunity for customers to be able to email orders to
         the vendors (or a combination of vendors) for quick pick up. TSG believes this component
         is worth exploring, and is something consistent with Tacoma’s recent efforts to be at the
         forefront of wired technology.

        Business Incubator (BI) Component:
    •    MDC is supporter and sponsor of business incubator efforts at Salishan.
    •    A “BI” component for the public market could help access additional grant money
    •    Educational component should be looked into. Contact local culinary schools,
         farm/agricultural programs (CWU, WSU, etc).

         Other Uses:
    •    MDC might be interested in a housing component, if there were an opportunity. TSG
         discussed opportunities for affordable housing for sites that could include the Dome
         District, Police Station (Tacoma Ave) site.
    •    Child Care: look at Pike Place Market daycare center as an example.

 Other Grants/ Resources:
   • Center for Enterprise Opportunity
   • Health & Human Services Grants
   • OCS Funding
   • Enterprise Community (USDA) Grants
   • New Market Tax Credits


16) Tacoma Boys
2-1-05
Paul Heist, Owner
    • Has already been courted by the owners of Freighthouse Square. They have not given it
       serious consideration, because they don’t want to be the only ones there (i.e. FS needs a
       boost and new image.)
    • PH said he worked hard to improve the Tacoma Boys image when he purchased them,
       and that something similar would have to be done to improve the image of Freighthouse
       Square.*
    • They would be interested in participating or anchoring a public market. Thinks that the
       city could support it and that it would be good for downtown.

    *TSG notes that various stakeholder comments of a similar nature suggest the possibility of
    an “image issue” associated with Freighthouse Square. If so, a “re-branding” strategy
    would be required to provide a Tacoma Public Market with an independent new/different
    identity.


17) Freighthouse Square
2-16-05
The Scott Group                                125                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
Gary Pieterman, Manager
Robert Hardy, Owner
Barry Griffiths, Owner
The owners of FHS expressed some of the challenges of the property, and have already
considered a remodeling/repositioning of the west portion of the structure into the “Freighthouse
Market.” However, they did not indicate a timeline or investment strategy/approach.

    •   Owners have a similar concept and are very interested in a public market concept.
    •   Freighthouse Square has lost additional tenants since the new owners took over.
    •   Would be interested in considering a long term lease, JV and/or sale of that portion of the
        structure.
    •   Are very interested in the concept and believe it is most appropriate for their site.
    •   Willing to talk with City of Tacoma and other stakeholders to see what next steps to take,
        what the possible scenarios are, and what resources may be available.


18) Bates Technical College
03-23-05:
Cheri Loiland, Director, Instruction, Home & Family Life (including Culinary Arts)
    • TSG discussed potential of an educational component (Culinary Arts) as part of the
       public market, a concept which is being incorporated into the new Portland and
       Bellingham Markets. Public and Farmers Markets can expand their mission, focus and
       regional impact by incorporating educational programs from culinary arts to agricultural
       programs and food-oriented business incubators.
    • BTC’s future focus is to expand their “continuing education” options. They are interested
       in economic development and would like to become more actively involved in the greater
       Tacoma region.
    • Cheri indicated that they would be very interested in next steps, and being considered for
       participation in this concept/project. BTC could be interested in a multitude of food/bio
       educational options, which could include classroom space, a test kitchen, training center
       and/or a café.


19) Haub Brothers Trust
John Barline, Attorney/Owners Rep
    • They are supportive of the concept and feel that Tacoma needs an attraction and amenity
       like that.
    • Believes that a public market downtown would be complementary to what they hope to
       develop on their downtown properties, which could include vertical retail and high
       density commercial/mixed-uses.
    • Likes the idea of a market closer to downtown, presumably to help make the area
       attractive for other types of retail.


20) LeMay Car Museum
02-02-05:
Alan Grant: Project Architect (via phone). The LeMay museum may consider incorporating
some retail/commercial uses. Their site was considered as a possible location for a market
structure and/or outdoor plaza for a farmers market. They are exploring a variety of retail options
at this time.
The Scott Group                                 126                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
21) Marcato
Hennery and Rodger Herbert, Partners
Rodger is the lead in the Marcato Development. They currently have 6 phases planned for the
property and are currently in sales on Phase One. Mr. Herbert is interested in the concept of a
public market and suggested that they best location for a market if it were to be put on their
property would be the North East corner of the property in the parking lot of the existing Office
building.


22) Kathy Casey (Kathy Casey Food Studios and Dish D’Lish)
President. Kathy is a local “celebrity chef” and president of Kathy Casey Food Studios, a food
and beverage development, resource and event center located in Seattle. She also owns Dish
D’Lish, a prepared food vendor located at the heart of Seattle’s Pike Place Market, and will
soon be opening a second location at SeaTac Airport.
    • Kathy in interested and aware of the redevelopment of downtown Tacoma
    • Acknowledges that the new upscale restaurants will help develop Tacoma’s reputation as
        a culinary hotspot. Believes that the City should really get behind marketing the new
        downtown dining scene, especially in lieu of national retailers downtown.
    • Would be interested in looking at the concept and possible space when the market is
        further under development.


23) Sur La Table
Susan Faw, General Council and VP of Real Estate Development. Sur la Table originated at the
Pike Place Market, and has since grown to become one of the nation’s premiere cookware stores.
    • Was surprised to hear of how much development is occurring downtown.
    • Believes that Tacoma still has a stigma and needs to work on developing a reputation for
        being a “foodie” city.
    • Sur La Table locates in cities where they know people like to eat and cook: it will be
        important for Tacoma to emphasize the success of the new restaurants, as well as
        continued success of upscale grocers such as the Metropolitan Market in Proctor.
    • Sur La Table typically looks for a 5,000 sf space. Instead of “national” retailers, Susan
        thinks that food-oriented vendors, retailers and other components would prove attractive
        to an upscale kitchenware store such as Sur La Table.
    • Is interested in taking a look at Tacoma, and would like to be updated as the public
        market concept progresses.


24) El Gaucho
Chad Mackay, Operations Manager.
(To be added))


25) Chihuly Inc.
Mary Kiliman, Spokeswomen
    • Ms Kiliman was contacted regarding the historic powerhouse located adjacent to the
       Streets and Grounds Site. She noted that Mr. Chihuly was currently using the
       powerhouse as a shipping and receiving warehouse and had no immediate plans to do
The Scott Group                                 127                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
        otherwise. She did however note that Mr. Chihuly would like to see “something special
        happen there that benefits Tacoma” eventually.


26) Impact Capital
4-5-05
Roberta Schur, Program Officer
(Impact Capital provides community-based organizations with various tools needed to develop/
promote economic development and to provide vital services in rural, urban, and suburban areas
throughout Washington by leveraging investments, offering tailored loans, and building capacity
through technical assistance and operating support.)
    • TSG approached the Seattle office of Impact Capital to establish their initial interest level
        in participating in assisting a non-profit organization in establishing a Tacoma Public
        Market. The response was supportive. They expressed explicit interest in participating in
        a role that considered providing funding and resources needed by a non-profit.
    • The list of potential resources Impact Capital might potentially provide is long and
        includes: capacity grants; Phase I pre-development loans; Phase II pre-
        development loans; subdebt acquisition bridge loans; commercial tenant
        improvement loans.
    •   It was suggested that if a non-profit without commercial experience were to engage in
        establishing a public market, that it might consider partnering with an entity that did have
        relevant commercial experience.




The Scott Group                                 128                                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Appendix III: Johnson Architecture Report




                     ! !" "
                     ! ! #
                    %
                  $% & ' %
                      ( )* + '
                   ! !


                  , - .       (( /



     % 0 - 1 / -     ( %                  *      -/ %         * ( '
      2 * *        1                             0      % (
     % % (   *                                  * 1 % ( 3 '0 '!   - 0
    1          (      %                             1    (      /
                        0             %          4          (     (
                 %                          !            !


&           -     (           *       %0 ' (
                                      *           (
   *    -     (!            1 /%0 -   05       /- %
      *    -   -    ( /0 *       *
                                 6   -        (
      7
 (* - 2          ( 1(      (        3     %    * 8 *
  9               1 1              /    /
    &      (          1 0 '6 0             -
( 1(     7   / -     0 '    ' -        (    (  -  %
    /

: ( ' 0 %/            1   /3


  %
$% & ' %
$     ;                   )       -

The Scott Group                       129                         05/24/05
Seattle WA
                              ; 1      - ?
                                •               @       - %
                                      6           (                              /
                                       1        */               7
                                  •   + (                            -
                                       3
                                  •   + (           @        (       %

                              A       1 - ?
                                  •    B-                    (
                                       6                %-               '
                                                 7
                                  •   :(        *        -@
                                  •   :(        8         4              9        %
                                                1
    (             1   *   3       %        <#       = %> <"




                                  ; 1      - ?
                                    •      &
                                    •        ( 8                 4           9
                                           %                 1

                                  A      1 - ?
                                       • )
                                       • B-                              1
                                       •                         (       -

                                       •   ,        1/ - (
                                                          (* -

    (             1   *   3       %        <        = %> < "




The Scott Group           130                                                    05/24/05
Seattle WA
                                                  ; 1     - ?
                                                    •     C    -        -
                                                    •     &
                                                    •         8             4        9
                                                              %              1

                                                  A       1   - ?
                                                      •                 (        -

                                                      •   : ' %@  0  0
                                                      •    (   - %
                                                          ( = (* - -


    (             1        *                 3        %       <   = %> < #




                                                  ; 1     - ?
                                                    •     C   -   -
                                                    •     &
                                                    •     D 8      4   9   %
                                                          1
                                                      •   ) 1   /*   %   E
                                                          (

                                                  A       1   - ?
                                                      •        '              6 1   (
                                                                7 *          -0   3 (
                                                              !0 '          0 / %;A; (              -

                                                      •       (     -   %(       = (* -
                                                              -

    (             1        *                 3        %       <   = %> <


Each structure’s esthetic brings its own intangible benefit and impact to a potential public
market. From a visual and experiential standpoint, in their current configuration, the
buildings rate as follows: Freighthouse Square, the Petrich Site, and a close tie between
the Bamford Site and Streets and Grounds for first place… The Bamford Site has great
interior space, but Streets and Grounds has a better existing window configuration.



The Scott Group                             131                                          05/24/05
Seattle WA
Appendix IV: National Markets
Ann Arbor Farmers Market, MI; Ann Arbor, Michigan;
     315 Detroit Street
     (734) 994-3276
     Market Manager

Boulder County Farmers market, Boulder, CO;
      Boulder County Farmers' Market
      P.O. Box 18745
      Boulder, CO 80308
      Email: info@boulderfarmers.org
      Phone: 303.910.2236
      http://www.boulderfarmers.org/

Bloomington Community Farmers Market, Bloomington, IN
      Showers Building 401 North Morton
      P.O. Box 848
      Bloomington, IN 47403
      Marcia Veldman
      812-349-3738
      www.city.bloomington.in.us/parks/farmers/

Broadway Market, Buffalo, NY;
     999 Broadway,
     Richard Fronczak
     716-893-0705
     director@broadwaymarket.com
     http://www.broadwaymarket.com

Chinatown Night Market, San Francisco, CA;

City Market, Kansas City, MO;
      3rd to 5th Streets, Kansas City, MO

Crescent City Farmers Market, New Orleans, LA;

Capitol Market Charleston, WV
      800 Smith Street
      Charleston WV, 25301-1234
      Phone: (304)-344-1905
      http://www.capitolmarket.net

Dallas Farmers Market, Dallas, TX;
       Dallas Farmers Market
       1010 S. Pearl Street
The Scott Group                             132         05/24/05
Seattle WA
        Dallas, Texas 75201
        214-939-2808 Phone
        214-939-2719 Fax
        http://www.dallasfarmersmarket.org

Dane County Farmers market, Madison, WI;
      Farmers' Market
      P.O. Box 1485, Madison, WI 5371-1485
      Directors Bill Warner
      Judy Hageman (608-424-6714)
      http://www.madfarmmkt.org

Eastern Market (DC), Washington, DC;
      7th St. & North Carolina Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C.
      (202) 544-0083.
      http://www.easternmarket.net

Findlay Market, Cincinnati, OH;
      Findlay Market
      Market Manager
      1801 Race St
      Cincinnati, OH, 45202
      Phone: 513-665-4839
      Email: info@findlaymarket.org

French Market, New Orleans, LA;
      French Market: 504-522-2621

Granville Island Market, Vancouver, BC
      Granville Island Administration Office
      1661 Duranleau Street,
      2nd Floor
      Vancouver, BC
      V6H 3S3
      604 666-6655 Tel
      604 666-7376 Fax
      http://www.granvilleisland.com/en

Italian Market, Philadelphia, PA;
        South 9th Street between Wharton and Christian, Philadelphia, PA
             s
        Chef' Tour of the Italian Market: 215-772-0739

Ithaca Farmers Market, Ithaca, NY;
       Steamboat Landing, 3rd Street, Ithaca, NY
       The Ithaca/Tompkins County Convention & Visitors Bureau: 1-800-28-ITHACA


The Scott Group                           133                              05/24/05
Seattle WA
Lexington Market, Baltimore, MD;
      Lexington Market
      400 W Lexington St
      Baltimore MD 21201
      Phone: 410-685-6169
      Email: infor@lexingtonmarket.com

Market Squre
     Market Street between Union Avenue and Wall Avenue, Knoxville, TN

Pike Place Market, Seattle, WA;
       Pike Place Market PDA
       85 Pike Street, Room 500
       Seattle, WA 98101
       Phone: (206) 682-7453
       Fax: (206) 625-0646
       Email: info@pikeplacemarket.org

Portland Public Market, Portland, OR
       City of Portland
       Bureau of Planning - Special Projects - Arts & Culture
       1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 4100
       Portland, Oregon 97201
       Ron Paul
       rpaul@ci.portland.or.us

Portland Public Market, Portland, ME
       Portland Public Market
       25 Preble Street
       Portland, ME 04101
       Tel: (207) 228-2000
       Fax: (207) 228-2003
       Email: information@portlandmarket.com

Reading Terminal Market, Philadelphia, PA;
      General Manager: Paul Steinke
      Reading Terminal Market,
      12th & Arch Streets
      Main Number: 215-922-2317
      E-mail: info@readingterminalmarket.org

RFK Stadium Farmers Market, Washington, DC;

The Ridge Market
      6142 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati, OH
      513-631-3273

The Scott Group                           134                            05/24/05
Seattle WA
        doug@improvepr.org

River market, Little Rock, AR;
      Markham and Rock Streets, Little Rock, AR
      Parks and Recreation Department: 501-371-4770

Rochester Public Market
      280 North Union Street, Rochester, NY
      Jim Farr: 585-428-6866

San Luis Obispo Farmers Market, San Luis Obispo, CA;
      Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
      San Luis Obispo Downtown Association: 805-541-0286
      info@downtownslo.com

Soulard Market
      Just South of Choteau on Broadway-7th Street, St. Louis, MO
      Soulard Market Office: 314-622-4180
      market@stlouis.missouri.org
      http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/soulardmarket/

Sweet Auburn Curb Market
      Atlanta, GA
      Phone: (404)659-1665

Union Square Greenmarkets, New York, NY;
      Union Square Park and Greenmarket
      14th Street and Broadway, New York, NY
      212-460-1200

Washington DC Fish Market
     Maine Avenue SE, Washington, DC

Vietnamese Market, New Orleans, LA

West Side Market, Cleveland, OH
      (216) 664-3387.




The Scott Group                         135                         05/24/05
Seattle WA

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:11/21/2011
language:English
pages:143