HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20240528AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 28, 2024
3:30 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Armory Hall Remodel & Reuse: Project Update
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81855961130?
pwd=ihHCKmc224i7jpPgOvf4vi7V9bfe0L.1
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 818 5596 1130
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/k8EgzjOQF
1_Armory Hall Memo_2024.05.28.pdf
2_Exhibit A_Initial Armory Operating Budget - Year 1.pdf
3_Exhibit B_Budget Peer Review_Exec Summary.pdf
4_Exhibit C_Select Consultant Bios.pdf
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jen Phelan, Development Manager
THROUGH: Tyler Christoff, Public Works Director and Rob Schober, Capital
Asset Director
MEMO DATE: May 20, 2024
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024
RE: Armory Hall Remodel & Reuse: Project Update
_____________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is requesting confirmation of
certain project goals of the Armory
Hall remodel, based on initial work
undertaken and anticipated next
project steps.
SUMMARY AND
BACKGROUND:
Staff and the consultant team are
making progress on the Armory Hall
project since contract approval.
Several components of the project
have been undertaken including
development of existing conditions
floor plans, department interviews to
understand regulatory standards that will inform project design, restaurateur/food hall
operator interviews, development of an initial food hall operational budget, and a peer
review of the budget results. Issuance of an RFP for a food hall operator was also
undertaken, although no proposals were submitted.
This work session will inform City Council of the results from the development of an initial
food hall operational budget (Exhibit A, Initial Armory Operating Budget). This economic
aspect of due diligence will ensure awareness of the financial implications of operating
the building as a food hall. The budget, developed by Doug Winter and Garrett Simon of
Immersed, incorporates their experience in operating food halls (Parlor), restaurants, and
destination experiences (Exhibit C, Select Consultant Bios). In addition, Beau Breck of
Figure 1: Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society
2
Ripple Creek Properties, is also contracted to provide a peer review of the budget (Exhibit
B, Budget Peer Review) based on his direct experience in food hall development and
mixed-use real estate projects. To conclude the work session, Council will be asked for
confirmation on certain project goals as the consultant team moves onto the next steps
of the project.
Operating Structure. The contemplated structure proposes the City will provide all capital
to complete the improvements necessary for the food hall operations, including full tenant
improvements, due to the minimal projected return noted below, and engage a 3rd party
operator on a management agreement at market rates. The City will receive revenue
from rent payments and operating profits. There are different operating models that can
be used in the future management of the building, requiring varying degrees of City
involvement. A master operator model is currently proposed as it will require less City
staff involvement.
Initial Food Hall Operating Budget. The initial operating budget assumes five food vendors
and two bars within the shell of the building as the primary economic drivers. Key
assumptions in the model include:
• A master operator model where operator assumes all responsibilities of the bars,
kitchen tenants and daily property operations of the building.
• A percentage rate model where all kitchen tenants pay a percentage of their sales,
in addition to their base rent.
• Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are billed to kitchen tenants.
Assumptions are conservative, accounting for the Aspen market. The resulting budget
suggests that the food hall can produce a positive return on an annual basis, albeit a
modest annual amount of approximately $500,000.00 for the City. Ripple Creek has
noted that “due to the cost of construction, size of the property, intended use and goals
for attainability, the project is unlikely to attract private investment from developers,
operators, or tenants.” This is similar to internal discussions with Immersed where they
have indicated that any capital investment by an operator will most likely deter interest in
the project and aligns with the findings of an earlier market analysis by Design Workshop.
This initial model can be refined to better meet overall project goals, with additional
financial goal setting by City Council, furthering of the design work, and studying of
potential opportunities to improve financial performance.
Building Program and Product Deliverable. Built in 1892, Armory Hall has served the
community in various capacities and undergone many remodels over time. In November
2023, Council approved a resolution ranking the prioritized programming for the Armory.
Food/food hall, followed by community lounge, with support for affordable retail, flex
space, and a visitor center were ranked in descending order of priority while office space
was not prioritized.
3
The draft operational budget assumes that the building is operated solely as a food hall.
It is anticipated that the community lounge idea can be incorporated within the food hall
and the design team will be considering ways to incorporate spaces and uses that will
strengthen the opportunity to gather at the Armory. This level of design/space planning
has not yet been undertaken. Changes to the food hall program moving forward, by
incorporating more or different uses in the building, may affect the potential return.
Discussed by Immersed and reiterated by Ripple Creek, the cost of rehabilitation of the
building, systems modernization, and investment into the program (AKA bringing a food
hall to life) will require significant investment by the City. Essentially, both consultants
believe that the building will need to be planned “for turn-key space delivery or extensive
TI (Tenant Improvement) budget.” This is different from the current expectation to develop
a white box building. Full tenant improvements include finishes and inventory such as
glassware, liquor, etc., allowing for an operator to run the bar, select and manage food
vendors, as well as take care of day-to-day operations of the building.
DISCUSSION:
The project is moving forward with the goal of developing a design with enough definition
for potential operators to evaluate the risks and opportunities associated with submitting
a proposal. The current consultant team includes ‘in the field’ experts for food hall and
kitchen design, allowing for a schematic design that has the best chance to cast a wide
net of interest in the building. Flexibility to adjust the operating model based on Council’s
goals and future operator preferences will be maintained through the Schematic Design
phase.
The consultant team intends to progress concept development to 100% enhanced
schematic design (part 1A of the current contract) to enable reissuance of an operator
RFP. Meanwhile, the operating model will continue to be refined and a pro forma
developed matching the design. Public engagement to inform the community of design
progress and forecasted financials will be undertaken, as well as a follow-up work session
with Council. At the work session, City Council will be updated on design progress,
financials, outreach results, and any recommendations the team has to ensure the RFP
is attractive to a potential operator such as lease terms, potential restrictions, or operating
constraints. A final work session will be undertaken with Council at completion of 100%
enhanced schematic design.
To meet City Council and community goals 1, certain assumptions need to be clearly
defined. Following are a number of items that require Council direction:
1 Adopted ‘Guiding Principles’ (Resolution No. 23, Series 2022) to frame outreach, community discussion
and recommendations to Council:
• The building remodel will incorporate sustainable systems showing a commitment to the
environment.
4
1) Financial Parameters. The City is looking at substantial redevelopment costs
of the Armory to deliver a food hall to the community. Besides rehabilitation of the
exterior and structural/mechanical improvements that will be necessary for any
future use of the building, a food hall will require specialized mechanical systems
that will be expensive and burdensome to remove in the future. Mentioned earlier,
initial comments from the consultant team indicate that the city should ‘plan for
turn-key delivery’ of the building to an operator and anticipate a modest return. The
return is based on a building that is assumed to be operated solely as a food hall.
With the level of investment anticipated, the team would like to confirm that:
A) Council is targeting an investment of $18 - $23 million, previously discussed as
‘Somewhere in the Middle’ of remodel options.
B) Is the goal of Council to achieve the greatest return possible or simply be able
to maintain the building asset over time based on the modest returns
anticipated?
C) Is Council willing to consider a turn-key building or some level of Tenant
Improvement allowance?
D) Is affordability important to define in this process to clearly inform any potential
operators of city expectations and operating constraints?
2) Design /Program Parameters. The design and programming of the building will
affect the financial performance of the building. The following questions will inform
the design development:
A) The design team intends to develop a food hall program that provides the
flexibility to accommodate different operators over time, so as not to be
pigeonholed long term. Is this acceptable?
B) Development of a food hall, highest in ranking, most likely will not
accommodate other uses in the building. Is this acceptable?
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Spending authority for the design work and operational study work was approved with the
consultant contract for CCY Architects. No spending authority has been approved for the
remodel of the building. Taking the design from a white box to a tenant finish product will
affect the design contract scope and require additional funds.
• The Armory should be able to be used by a diverse range of people.
• The uses within the Armory should provide meaningful and affordable participation in programs
and offerings.
• The operational structure of the Armory should limit the public financial burden of operating and
maintaining the building.
• The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character.
• The programming of the Armory should contribute to a lively and diverse downtown.
• The programming at the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community.
5
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests direction on the questions posed within the memo.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Initial Operating Budget
Exhibit B: Budget Peer Review
Exhibit C: Select Consultant Bios
6
Description Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7 Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Total
Revenue
Bar Sales
Revenue - Non-Alcoholic Beverage Sales 4,500 4,500 4,700 2,200 2,000 2,800 4,500 4,500 4,000 2,800 2,500 4,400 6,600 50,000
Revenue - Beer 65,250 65,250 68,150 31,900 29,000 40,600 65,250 65,250 58,000 40,600 36,250 63,800 95,700 725,000
Revenue - Wine 22,500 22,500 23,500 11,000 10,000 14,000 22,500 22,500 20,000 14,000 12,500 22,000 33,000 250,000
Revenue - Liquor 132,750 132,750 138,650 64,900 59,000 82,600 132,750 132,750 118,000 82,600 73,750 129,800 194,700 1,475,000
Total Bar Sales 225,000 225,000 235,000 110,000 100,000 140,000 225,000 225,000 200,000 140,000 125,000 220,000 330,000 2,500,000
Other Income
Sales Tax Discounts 23 23 24 11 10 14 23 23 20 14 13 22 33 250
Tenant CAM 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 24,000
Service Charge Income 563 563 588 275 250 350 563 563 500 350 313 550 825 6,250
Base Rent Income 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 120,000
Percentage Rent Income 26,891 26,891 28,026 13,841 12,706 17,246 26,891 26,891 24,054 17,246 15,543 24,966 38,807 300,000
Total Other Income 39,476 39,476 40,637 26,127 24,966 29,610 39,476 39,476 36,574 29,610 27,868 25,538 51,665 450,500
Total Income 264,476 264,476 275,637 136,127 124,966 169,610 264,476 264,476 236,574 169,610 152,868 245,538 381,665 2,950,500
Cost of Sales
COS - Beer 12,398 12,398 12,949 6,061 5,510 7,714 12,398 12,398 11,020 7,714 6,888 12,122 18,183 137,750
COS - Wine 5,625 5,625 5,875 2,750 2,500 3,500 5,625 5,625 5,000 3,500 3,125 5,500 8,250 62,500
COS - Liquor 21,506 21,506 22,461 10,514 9,558 13,381 21,506 21,506 19,116 13,381 11,948 21,028 31,541 238,950
COS - Non-Alcoholic Beverage Sales 3,375 3,375 3,525 1,650 1,500 2,100 3,375 3,375 3,000 2,100 1,875 3,300 4,950 37,500
COS - Bar Consumables 4,646 4,646 4,853 2,272 2,065 2,891 4,646 4,646 4,130 2,891 2,581 4,543 6,815 51,625
Total COGS 47,549 47,549 49,663 23,246 21,133 29,586 47,549 47,549 42,266 29,586 26,416 46,493 69,739 528,325
Gross Profit 216,927 216,927 225,975 112,881 103,833 140,023 216,927 216,927 194,308 140,023 126,452 199,045 311,926 2,422,175
Expenses
Wages & Benefits
Hostess 4,287 4,287 4,468 2,207 2,026 2,749 4,287 4,287 3,835 2,749 2,478 3,980 6,187 47,830
Servers 9,732 9,732 10,142 5,009 4,598 6,241 9,732 9,732 8,705 6,241 5,625 9,035 14,044 108,566
Busser 7,211 7,211 7,515 3,711 3,407 4,624 7,211 7,211 6,450 4,624 4,168 6,694 10,406 80,444
Bartenders 17,149 17,149 17,873 8,827 8,103 10,998 17,149 17,149 15,340 10,998 9,912 15,921 24,748 191,318
Bar back 1,454 1,454 1,516 749 687 933 1,454 1,454 1,301 933 841 1,350 2,099 16,224
FOH Training 1,591 1,591 1,658 819 752 1,020 1,591 1,591 1,423 1,020 919 1,477 2,295 17,745
Manager Salaries 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 351,000
Manager Bonus 17,550 - - 17,550 - - 17,550 - - 17,550 - - - 70,200
Human Resources 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 2,500
Payroll Taxes 9,457 7,527 7,719 7,246 5,123 5,892 9,457 7,527 7,046 7,823 5,604 7,200 9,546 97,166
Unemployment Taxes 1,719 1,368 1,403 1,317 931 1,071 1,719 1,368 1,281 1,422 1,019 1,309 1,736 17,667
Group Insurance 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 24,000
Worker's Comp 645 513 526 494 349 402 645 513 480 533 382 491 651 6,625
Manager Meals 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 20,800
Employee Discounts 699 699 729 360 330 448 699 699 625 448 404 649 1,009 7,800
Total Wages & Benefits 102,287 82,324 84,342 79,081 57,099 65,171 102,287 82,324 77,279 85,134 62,144 76,900 103,512 1,059,884
Operating
Aprons & Uniforms 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,300
Linen & Drycleaning 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 4,225
First Aid Supplies 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 525
Decorations - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - 1,000 5,000 7,000
Help Wanted Ads 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 3,250
Glass/Silverware 450 225 450 225 450 225 450 225 450 225 450 225 450 4,500
Bar Supplies 300 150 300 150 300 150 300 150 300 150 300 150 300 3,000
Aspen Armory - Year 1 Operating Budget
Exhibit A: Initial Armory Operating Budget
7
Restaurant Supplies 120 60 120 60 120 60 120 60 120 60 120 60 120 1,200
Janitorial Supplies 480 240 480 240 480 240 480 240 480 240 480 240 480 4,800
Contract Cleaning 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 104,000
Pest Control 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 4,550
DJ/Band Expense 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 45,500
Printing Expense 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 1,846 24,000
Soaps & Chemicals 650 325 650 325 650 325 650 325 650 325 650 325 650 6,500
Disposables 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 32,000
Fuel Surcharge 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,300
Advertising 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 45,500
Marketing/Social Media 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 26,000
Goodwill 1,350 1,350 1,410 660 600 840 1,350 1,350 1,200 840 840 1,320 1,980 15,090
Guest Repair 1,350 1,350 1,410 660 600 840 1,350 1,350 1,200 840 750 1,320 1,980 15,000
Team Member Discount 900 900 940 440 400 560 900 900 800 560 500 880 1,320 10,000
Manager Repair 900 900 940 440 400 560 900 900 800 560 500 880 1,320 10,000
Repair/Maint. Equipment 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 6,500
Repair/Maint. Restaurant 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 19,500
Computer Maintenance 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 9,100
CC Processing Fee 5,558 5,558 5,805 2,717 2,470 3,458 5,558 5,558 4,940 3,458 3,088 5,434 8,151 61,750
Dues And Subscriptions 950 150 150 150 150 150 6,000 150 4,200 2,700 150 150 150 15,200
Gen Liab/Prop Damage Ins.6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 78,000
Professional Fees 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 9,750
Legal & Accounting Fees 250 250 2,500 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 5,500
Postage/Delivery 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 325
Office Supplies 240 120 240 120 240 120 240 120 240 120 240 120 240 2,400
Bank Fees 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 - 50 600
Telephone 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 - 250 3,000
Internet Service Exp 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 - 725 8,700
Equipment Rental/Lease 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 24,000
Water & Sewer 2,241 2,241 2,336 1,153 1,059 1,437 2,241 2,241 2,005 1,437 1,295 2,080 3,234 25,000
Trash Removal 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 - 1,200 14,400
Cable Tv 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 3,250
Utilities - Gas/Electric 7,207 7,207 7,511 3,709 3,405 4,622 7,207 7,207 6,447 4,622 4,166 6,691 10,400 80,400
Rent 28,125 28,125 29,375 13,750 12,500 17,500 28,125 28,125 25,000 17,500 15,625 27,500 41,250 312,500
Management Fees 13,004 13,004 13,556 11,075 6,113 8,870 13,004 13,004 11,626 8,870 8,741 11,026 14,383 146,275
Asset Managment Fees - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenses 101,271 97,676 105,368 71,646 67,383 75,728 106,321 97,676 97,903 79,278 75,341 90,947 128,854 1,195,390
Total G & A Expenses 251,107 227,549 239,372 173,973 145,616 170,485 256,157 227,549 217,448 193,998 163,901 214,340 302,105 2,783,599
NOI 13,369 36,928 36,265 (37,845) (20,650) (876) 8,319 36,928 19,126 (24,389) (11,033) 31,198 79,560 166,901
56,143 99,725
Total Revenues 264,476 264,476 275,637 136,127 124,966 169,610 264,476 264,476 236,574 169,610 152,868 245,538 381,665 2,950,500
COS (47,549) (47,549) (49,663) (23,246) (21,133) (29,586) (47,549) (47,549) (42,266) (29,586) (26,416) (46,493) (69,739) (528,325)
Salaries and Wages (102,287) (82,324) (84,342) (79,081) (57,099) (65,171) (102,287) (82,324) (77,279) (85,134) (62,144) (76,900) (103,512) (1,059,884)
Operating Costs (101,271) (97,676) (105,368) (71,646) (67,383) (75,728) (106,321) (97,676) (97,903) (79,278) (75,341) (90,947) (128,854) (1,195,390)
Total Profit (Loss)13,369 36,928 36,265 (37,845) (20,650) (876) 8,319 36,928 19,126 (24,389) (11,033) 31,198 79,560 166,901
8
Armory Hall - Opera.ng Budget Peer Review
RCP Review of Meriwether Pro Forma
May 9, 2024
Scope
Ripple Creek Proper;es (RCP) has been contracted by the City of Aspen to peer review the
concept opera;ng budget for Armory Hall. RCP’s peer review was completed on the revised pro
forma, named Aspen Armory Annual Budget – 2024 v.8 , received from Meriwether Companies
5/3/24 (the “Budget ”). The Budget is based on a concept design program anchored by two bars
(upstairs/downstairs) and five food vendors.
A summary of RCP ’s scope of work is as follows:
•Meet with project team to review design program and pro forma assumptions
•Evaluate pro forma operating budget
•Assess reasonableness of assumptions and identify improvement opportunities
•Summarize findings and recommendations
Executive Summary
The draft operating Budget is based on a “Master Operator” business model, whereby the bar
tenant also manages the asset, overseeing day-to-day property operations as well as the third-
party food vendors. The food vendor spaces could be individually leased, or under master lease
to a single chef-operator with multiple concepts. The Budget contemplates a percentage-rent
based model for both the bar-operator and food vendor spaces.
Overall, RCP concludes that tenant sale and percentage rent assumptions are reasonable, and
that operating expense estimates are defensible based on the market and data from similar
projects.
The Budget indicates that the asset can operate at a positive margin and return modest annual
cash flow. RCP believes there are a handful of opportunities to improve pro forma cash flow.
RCP recommends the city define and prioritize project goals so desired outcomes can be
measured and estimated by the pro forma. In addition to memorializing financial performance
goals, RCP recommends the city identify specific goals for management/operations as well as
attainability/sustainability.
As a possible alternate to the Master Operator model, RCP recommends the city study a
“Landlord” operating pro forma. The additional analysis may help the city evaluate project goals
and substantiate operating recommendations as the Schematic phase moves forward.
Exhibit B: Ripple Creek - Budget Peer Review
9
Assump.ons Commentary
• Percentage Rent - market-based assumptions
o BAR = 12.5%
o Vendors = 10%
• Tenant Sales - reasonable estimates
o Bar = $2.5MM/yr
o Vendors = $600k/yr
• Operating Expenses - appropriately conservative
o Master Operator model
o No gaps identified
• Billback Income - minimal tenant charges for CAMs, utilities, or operator services
o OPPORTUNITY: offset expenses through tenant billbacks, increase cash returns
• Other Revenue OPPORTUNITIES:
o Public Improvement Financing (PIF) income
o Storage Income
o Vending & Games
o Community Event Space planned – flexible space to monetize private events
Findings and Recommendations
Finding: Project goals regarding financial performance, operating control, and city management
requirements have not been clearly defined
Recommendation: Determine and memorialize project goals so city can measure performance
compared to pro forma estimates
Finding: Alternate operating models have not been analyzed
Recommendations: Study “Landlord” operating model to evaluate project goals and
substantiate operational recommendations
Finding: Pro forma contains reasonable assumptions for Master Operator model with no
identified data gaps; pro forma forecasts positive annual cash return based on percentage-rent
and $24k/yr gross CAM charges
Recommendation: Study program changes, plan enhancements, and other opportunities to
improve pro forma performance
1) Increase tenant billbacks for CAMs, utilities, and services (ex: marketing)
2) Plan community-use space in basement that can also be monetized for private events
3) Analyze other revenue opportunities, including PIF income, storage income, etc.
4) Gather and analyze third-party asset data to “size” tenants’ gross rent payments
10
Finding: Pro forma budget based on 13 four-week periods (hospitality/restaurant forecasting)
Recommendation: Consider transposing pro forma to 12-month budget, consistent with how
city will collect rent, pay bills, and receive operation reports
Finding: Due to the cost of construction, size of the property, intended use and goals for
attainability, the project is unlikely to attract private investment from developers, operators, or
tenants.
Recommendation: Expect minimal to NO out-of-pocket capital contributions from Master
Operator or other vendors; plan for turn-key space delivery or extensive TI budget
11
Exhibit C: Select Consultant Bios
Immersed|Merriwether: Food Hall specialists offering a business and
operator’s perspective. Invaluable resource for insights on design,
operating costs and development.
Website: https://meriwetherco.com/operations/
Meriwether Companies and Immmersed, its operating division, developed and operate Parlor food
hall concepts in Kansas City and Oklahoma City. The concept behind Parlor is to function as the
neighborhood living room, while offering the opportunity for entrepreneurs and chefs to bring their
food concepts to life in a collaborative environment.
We strategically focus on creating and managing additional venues under the Parlor platform,
leveraging our team’s expertise in this specific F&B segment honed over the last 8 years.
https://www.parlorkcmo.com/
https://www.parlorokc.com/
Ricca Design Studios: Internationally recognized for
sustainable culinary design, extensive food hall experience,
blending proven F&B concepts with cutting-edge innovation.
Website: www.ricca.com
Ricca Design Studios is an international foodservice design firm headquartered out of Denver,
Colorado specializing in front and back-of-house design for all food service-related spaces. With over
50 years of experience and a global footprint on all seven continents, Ricca Design Studios
understands the importance of creating spaces that blend with the aesthetic intent, while allowing
guests to enjoy and appreciate a distinctive culinary experience. Having projects all over Colorado,
including Aspen and other mountain towns, we intimately comprehend the needs and distinct
characters of these communities, bringing a localized touch to our global expertise.
Pioneers in sustainable culinary design, we proudly hold the distinction of being the first LEED-certified
culinary design consulting firm in the United States. Setting benchmarks in sustainable, energy-
efficient kitchen designs, our understanding of net-zero and electrification planning assures the
preservation of historical building integrity in every renovation. Our unwavering commitment to
environmental stewardship fuels innovative, sustainable solutions within foodservice design.
With the absence of an Operator on board, Ricca will provide our expertise, guidance, and leadership
in programming, concepts, operational structure, and affordable menu planning. Our planning
practice is led by former Operators with a boots-on-the-ground approach to analysis and planning. We
understand that great solutions come from focused, collaborative work.
Drawing from our extensive experience and our firm’s commitment to marry form with function, we
blend proven concepts with cutting-edge innovations and the latest culinary technologies. Guided by
a collective background enriched with deep operational insights, we design spaces that are attractive
and prioritize functionality and guest-centric experiences.
At the heart of our process is the value we place on the relationships with our clients and design team
partners. We understand that every successful project is based upon intently listening and
collaboration with our design team and stakeholders. We are passionate about foodservice design
12
Exhibit B: Select Consultant Bios
and our role as trusted guide through the life of the project and beyond. We are grateful for the
opportunity to provide a proposal for this amazing project and look forward to being part of the team.
Ripple Creek Properties: Commercial Real Estate Development,
investment, and consulting firm
Founded by Beau Breck in 2023, Ripple Creek Properties (RCP) is a commercial real estate
development, investment, and consulting firm based in Denver. RCP specializes in the acquisition,
capitalization, and development of mixed-use real estate projects. With a commitment to sustainable
building practices, RCP focuses on community-serving investments in Colorado mountain
municipalities, targeting primarily retail and for-rent housing for ground up and adaptative reuse
development.
Beau Breck is a commercial real estate developer based in Colorado. His 15+ year career has focused
on the acquisition, financing, and construction of mixed-use development projects. Prior to founding
Ripple Creek Properties, Beau was SVP at Cypress Equity Investments (CEI), leading the firm’s
Colorado office and a pipeline of projects totaling ~$500M. Prior to CEI, Beau was a member of
Denver-based LCP Development, where he participated in the capitalization and delivery of 10
projects totaling $200M development cost. Beau held pivotal roles for several award-winning LCP
projects, including Edgewater Public Market, an adaptive-reuse food hall and experiential-retail
property.
13