Public Works Site RFP Issued:
Kirkwood Seeks to Recoup $12.5M

Kirkwood has issued a Request For Proposals for mixed-use development on 6 city-owned acres in the heart of Downtown. The city hopes the responses will yield a multi-faceted windfall for the community, but the stipulations listed in the RFP and the —$12.5 million the city has already sunk into facilitating such development— may mean that the hoped-for windfall is already out of reach. Here’s how we got here, what that RFP says, and why I’m skeptical that the good idea will actually yield the kinds of results we’re looking for.

$12.5 Million Hole

In October of 2023, the City of Kirkwood embarked on a multi-step process that they hoped would ultimately yield a once-in-a-generation transformation of Downtown Kirkwood. The idea was to take the city’s public works and recycling facilities that were located in an increasingly desirable part of town (next door to the $24 million Performing Arts Center, across the street from the currently under-construction mixed-use private development known as The Aria, and adjacent to the coming Grant’s Trail extension) and move them to a location that was more suitable for the kind of industrial uses those facilities entail. The City would then sell the newly vacated land so that it might be used for more substantial mixed-use economic development. That sale would pay for the costs of the new facility, the tax revenue derived from the ensuing development would, over time, yield a more robust tax base to fund city amenities and services, and the newly activated southeast corner of Downtown would help ensure the city could fully capitalize on the public investments it had made in the neighborhood.It was, on the whole, a good plan that aligned with the goals laid out in the city’s various long-term planning documents.

Unfortunately, the early execution and communication of the plan weren’t as well received. Chief among the complaints was the $12.5 million the city spent to acquire the 9-acre parcel that would host its transplanted facilities despite that property having appraised for just $3.21 million, a quarter of that amount, and having last sold in 2014 for $2.5 million.

Despite these complaints, the city administration and council argued that these reservations were largely misguided, that the number of properties that were suitable to host such facilities were limited, that industrial property values had increased substantially in the wake of the pandemic, that no comparable recent sales in the community existed to provide a reference point, and that the property hadn’t even been for sale, thus requiring that they offer the owner a premium for him to even consider.

Redeemed by the RFP?

Now the time has come to execute on the second piece of the plan: last week the city officially published the RFP that it hopes will yield a winning project for the community. Respondents have until 2pm on December 16th to submit their proposals. Here’s what the RFP says the city is looking for in the responses (in addition to a “acceptable purchase price”):

City Preferences

1. Include a description of how the proposed development complies with the “B-2” Central Business District zoning regulations, and include any proposed deviations from the “B-2” zoning regulations that are intended to achieve the community goals.
2. Include a mixture of commercial and residential uses subject to the preference for
   commercial frontage on the ground floor, and including consideration of a hotel as part
   of the project.
3. Incorporate traditional downtown/urbanism design, including a gridded street network
   and varied architectural elements that enhances the character of downtown Kirkwood.
4. Include public parking above the private parking requirements for the proposed
   development that can be utilized by the Kirkwood Performing Arts Center.

And here’s how they say they’ll evaluate those responses and (potentially) choose an ultimate winner

Selection Criteria

1. The degree to which the proposed development satisfies the City’s described preferences;
2. The degree to which the proposed development meets the City’s planning and zoning goals and requirements;
3. Experience and history of the developer in delivering similar projects;
4. Stability and credibility of financing/capital stack;
5. Substantiation of the developer’s financial wherewithal to complete the project;
6. Types of proposed uses;
7. Jobs created (i.e., direct construction and permanent full-time equivalent employment);
8. Credibility of any contingencies;
9. Responsiveness of the developer to the terms of this RFP; and
10. Timeline of development completion.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

As part of a piece looking at development opportunities along the full length of Grant’s Trail, I recently wrote up what I hoped the city would consider when issuing the Public Works RFP. My top recommendations were:

1. That the city consider including KPAC’s rear surface parking lot in the RFP so that respondents could develop the highly visible and trail-adjacent corner lot even as they compensated the city for the lost parking in less visible and less valuable interior portions of the development
2. That the city break up the 6 acres into several smaller RFPs to ensure a more natural pace of development, a higher number of qualified respondents (there aren’t a lot of development teams that can finance a project so large), more flexibility in altering the parameters of the development going forward, and more variety in the architectural vision
3. That the city encourage the reintroduction of a street grid on the property to encourage walkability and to facilitate development in the interior of the project rather than just along the streets at its periphery

Of these recommendations, only the last one was included in the city preferences: “3. Incorporate traditional downtown/urbanism design, including a gridded street network
and varied architectural elements that enhances the character of downtown Kirkwood.”

A reintroduction of a street grid, such as the rudimentary one I penciled out here:

Or a more substantial overhaul such as the one included in the DPZ’s 2017 Downtown Master Plan:

Is undoubtedly a net positive for the community (even as it makes traffic calming on South Kirkwood Road all the more important). But the fact that the City refused to include the KPAC parking lot for development (as DPZ did above with multi-family housing surrounding a central parking garage a la Kirkwood Station Plaza) or break up the lot to encourage more fine-grained development like that shown above is an unforced error and one that I think will yield proposals that the Council is much less satisfied with overall. This project is not like the Jefferson RFPs that the city issued and ultimately reneged on last year. We have a $12.5 million hole to fill, some response has to ultimately be chosen as the winner whether the council likes it or not.

Then there are aspects of the RFP that almost make me want to laugh: “2. Include a mixture of commercial and residential uses subject to the preference for commercial frontage on the ground floor, and including consideration of a hotel as part of the project.” The city got three proposals for boutique hotels on the Jefferson lot RFPs and rejected them all, so now we have to ask people to propose some more.

Even the request that the projects comply with all aspects of the B-2 zoning district besides the parking minimums where it wants developers to go and above and beyond what the code mandates is frustrating. The restrictions in the B-2 code limit how valuable the land is worth lowering the price the city will ultimately receive, but requiring additional parking over and above the code raises the cost of development and lowering the eventual sales revenue to the city even more.

One has to wonder whether the council actually wants the city to make its money back and return that value to its citizens, or if they’re just looking to add poison pills that make the project entirely infeasible right at the start. Given the council’s recent track record, I’m not super optimistic, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.