Loading...
TIF #2 Board of Directors Minutes - 06/30/2005CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE #2 MINUTES J U N E 30, 2005 Members: Ben Filer, Chairman Al Flack, Jr. Ann Bishop James Welburn Charles Elmore, Council Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Karen Gagne, Planner III Darron Leiker, Interim City Manager Scott Taylor, Director of Public Works Jim Dockery, Director of Finance Lin Barnett, Transportation Planner, MPO Others Present: Andy Lee — Andy Lee Co./Blackburn Properties Jon Moller Absent: Susan Plies Mr. Ben Filer, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Staff requested that the Committee move forward with agenda items II and III prior to reviewing agenda item I. The Committee members were in agreement with the proposed change to the agenda. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Filer called for discussion on the minutes, there being no comments. Mr. James Welburn introduced a motion to approve the May 25t" meeting minutes. Ms. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. FINANCIAL PLAN REVIEW & DISCUSSION Mr. Filer introduced Mr. Clark who provided an overview of the Financial Plan completed that afternoon. He referred Committee members to page 4 and outlined development activity in the CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 1 OF 6 vicinity of the proposed zone from 2000 - 2004. Mr. Clark highlighted information about the projected increment for TIF #2 on pages 7-8 and explained in detail how staff derived the numbers. The potential increment was calculated by projecting a conservative development value (land +building) for vacant land parcels or those in the process of redevelopment. Once a value was established, City and County taxes were estimated for the property. This figure was subtracted from the taxes established for the base year of 2004 thus providing the increment. The potential increment for TIF #2 was calculated in four phases. Phase I consists of projects under construction and is estimated to result in a valuation of $8.1 million, an additional $34,072 in City and County taxes and include 5 projects. Phase II includes 3 projects in the review stage with estimated valuation of $13 million and additional $98,503 in City/County taxes. Phase III includes 1 project that is a secondary component of Phase II valued at $6 million with an increased tax base of $63,215. Phase III is anticipated to develop via big box retail establishments. Mr. Clark noted Phase IV was the most difficult to formulate as all the projects are speculative and are estimates from various property owners/developers. Staff anticipates the proposed projects will not occur until 2010-2011. A conservative approach to this phase estimated 4 projects valued at $26.3 million with an increased tax value of $266,502. Mr. Clark referred members to page 9, outlining the various increment scenarios based on the development phases for the proposed zone. Scenario I is based on Phase 1/11 and over the 20-yr lifespan of the zone will result in a $2.34 million increment; Scenario II is based on Phase 1/11 & III and that additional increment probably won't be available until 2010 but will result in $3.29 million by the twentieth year. Finally, Scenario III base on the inclusion of Phase IV may potentially result in a total increment of $6.22 million over the life of TIF Zone. Staff outlined the identified public improvement projects —these include estimates from both the City Public Works Director and from a developer with a proposed project in Phase II and III. The estimated costs for all identified public improvements within the proposed TIF #2 Zone are $5.46 million. The first priority for public improvements within the proposed TIF Zone is east of Lawrence Road and Trade Drive. These improvements are outlined on page 10 of the Plan and are estimated at $2.9. Mr. Clark informed the Committee that the proposed street connections are already identified on the City Thoroughfare Plan and TxDOT commissioned a study by Kimley Horn &Associates in 1998 to consider alternate reliever routes for Call Field. The results from the study were that state and federal dollars were unable to be utilized to assist with construction of the project however it would relieve traffic. This scenario would channelize Quail Creek, minimize floodway area, include utility revisions, construct Trade Drive (rename to Maplewood) from Lawrence Road to Wenonah and improve Lawrence Road by including additional signalization and a dedicated center turn lane. A secondary component of this scenario includes extending Trade Drive from Wenonah to Kemp/Maplewood intersection and related utility improvements. The total cost for Scenario I is $3.69 million. The other issue with final connection of Trade/Maplewood involves bisecting Tesco Park - an active municipal/neighborhood park. It is anticipated that the roadway alignment could be designed to salvage one of the baseball diamonds and ancillary structures while the other baseball field would have to be relocated. Mr. Clark informed members of potential funding sources available other than relying completely on the TIF increment. Mr. Taylor, Public Works Director, explained that the Quail Creek storm water channelization/floodway control project had already been identified by the CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 2 OF 6 City as a priority project on the Storm water Utility Plan. Currently the project is programmed as eighth in funding priority. Mr. Dockery, Director of Finance, explained that funds for Storm water Utility Plan are derived from the charge on City water bills noted for `storm water improvements.' The funds are then utilized for identified and prioritized drainage projects. The second priority for public improvements is the extension of Wenonah south of the Kell frontage road and connection with Trade/Maplewood. This project will also include costs associated with utilities, and rebuilding Gregory and Tarry Drive to connect with Wenonah. This component is estimated at $1 million. The final priorities include the realignment of Call Field/Rhea and Lawrence Roads at an estimated $573,500. The other project is to complete Trade/Maplewood from behind the City Transfer Station/Wal-mart area to connect with McNiel at a project cost of $173,250. Staff indicated that the Project and Financial Plan will outline potential public projects, the estimated increment potential for the zone along with other funding sources but it will not necessarily state the details of how each project will be funded. The detailed determination of project funding will be a policy decision of City Council. Mr. Clark reiterated that the Financial Plan is a generalized estimate to obtain an idea of whether the proposed Zone is a feasible project long-term. I. PROGRESS REPORT — PROJECT PLAN Ms. Gagne referred Committee members to the amended Project Plan on page 4 to clarify the reasoning for the TIF #2 area being eligible as a reinvestment zone. Staff indicated the area is characterized by obsolete structures, an inadequate street layout, abandoned railroad line and an area in the floodway. The majority of the proposed public improvements within TIF Zone #2 are of community wide value. The improvements include: a reduction of the floodway by channelizing Quail Creek reducing potential storm water surges downstream in residential areas; assisting in reducing traffic flow at Kemp/Call Field and Lawrence/Call Field while addressing projects recognized by City Council on the Thoroughfare Plan; and assisting with economic revitalization of an area not likely to develop without some form of public intervention. Ultimately by creating the TIF District it provides long-term community benefits through more orderly development and reduction of costs to the public. By developing a long-range plan today it can address needs for future rights -of -way, utility relocations and reliever routes. Otherwise these issues will be very costly in the future without preparing for continued, steady growth. The second change involves the Proposed Projects on page 14/15. Staff noted that the infrastructure projects were revised to correspond with those noted in the Financial Plan. Mr. Flack inquired about pages 7/8 of the Financial Plan noting that Phases I & II indicated a project year but there was no timeframe for Phase III. Mr. Clark stated that since Phase III is linked to a project in Phase II, it should be completed by 2008 with the increment being available by 2011. Phase IV is anticipated for development by 2014/2015. Mr. Filer commented that the further out in the life span of the Zone the less accuracy in developing the projections. He asked if the projects noted in Phase I, II and III correspond to priority I and II CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 3 OF 6 for the infrastructure improvements. Mr. Clark indicated not necessarily, the development projects outlined in Phase I are essentially completed and those in Phase II have either submitted site plans for review by the Building Inspection/Planning Divisions or have contacted to staff to discuss requirements and design. He noted that it is difficult to standardize future projects and the number of pad sites per lot when multiple factors (ie. economy, marketing, land costs, etc.) impact the development process. Staff noted that two plats have recently been submitted for land within the proposed TIF Zone. IV. ACTION STEPS Mr. Filer requested staff outline the next steps in this process. Mr. Clark referred members to a draft public hearing notice that will be mailed to 112 property owners within the proposed TIF boundary. He commented that a public hearing would be conducted in conjunction with the Wichita County Commissioners Court on July 18t" at 10:00 a.m. then followed by a public hearing with City Council tentatively arranged for August 2nd. Mr. Flack inquired about the additional road projects proposed in the Financial Plan along with their status and funding levels. Mr. Clark indicated the proposed street projects were already identified on the City's Thoroughfare Plan and on the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) transportation project list. Staff explained that when an area is platted for development and adjacent to a street identified on the Thoroughfare Plan the subdivision regulations require the property owner to dedicate right-of-way to assist in building the roadway. Mr. Clark explained that in the proposed TIF area the Ave Z and Tesco Park roadway segments of Trade/Maplewood Drive will probably have to be built at the public's expense as no private development is proposed along these street segments. Mr. Flack questioned whether there was a definite timeframe for the projects? Mr. Clark stated that there was no set timeframe but having a TIF Zone in place does help move some of the infrastructure projects ahead in the ability to finance their construction. Mr. Filer asked if staff had received any feedback from property owners along Avenue Z? Mr. Clark noted that at a recent MPO meeting on Tuesday, June 28t" property owners from that area were present and raised concerns regarding the street project and impact on Tesco Park. Mr. Taylor commented that the proposed alignment would greatly relieve traffic congestion along Call Field. Mr. Moller stated that he was a representing Wichita Engineering (Parcel #9) and he requested that the Committee consider expanding the boundary to allow property owners along Arthur Street between 3201 and 3511 inclusion with TIF Zone #2. He recalled that the State regulations have an allowance of up to 15% residential property. Both Mr. Filer and Mr. Clark responded that the State requires not more than 10% of the land area to be classified as residential within a TIF District. Mr. Clark further stated that the authorization to create the TIF Zone lies with the governmental entities (Wichita County and City of Wichita Falls) — they generally determine the boundary. Mr. Filer requested the level of residential development within the proposed TIF Zone. Ms. Gagne responded that the proposed Zone currently has 5.43% residential land uses (low/high density). Mr. Filer asked if the TIF District could be expanded in the future? Mr. Clark indicated that the existing TIF Zone #1 was expanded one time however it's no longer eligible for expansion. Mr. Moller responded that the residential property owners on Arthur Street should have the option to be included in the TIF Zone in order for increased commercial opportunities. Mr. Dockery expressed comments to the Committee and referred to page 14 of the Financial Plan. He noted that due to the timing of the development within the proposed TIF Zone, the CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 4 OF 6 City would probably have to look into other funding sources to assist with the infrastructure projects during the interim. Mr. Filer inquired whether the City would consider a capital bond to cover the gap between creation of the TIF Zone and the time when an increment is generated. Mr. Dockery responded that the proposed TIF funds to be generated might not be substantial enough to issue a feasible bond. As projects are completed and funds are generated within the Zone they may be utilized to pay back other sources of revenue. Mr. Clark added that the Quail Creek project would solve drainage issues beyond the TIF Zone boundaries and reduce storm water surges for residential areas downstream. This drainage project is identified as a community -wide benefit and priority so Storm Water Drainage Utility System funds may be eligible to assist with costs. Ms. Bishop asked if there was a timeframe established for the drainage project. Mr. Clark responded that one developer with land adjacent to the creek would like to begin construction by September 2005. Mr. Clark commented that staff recently contacted thirteen (13) Texas cities to find out: a) the type of incentives, if any, are offered to commercial/retail developments, and b) if any incentives are offered for downtown revitalization. Staff found two general scenarios for incentives: 1) cities in competition with each other (ie. Austin/Round Rock/Cedar Park, Denton/Lewisville, Sherman/Denison) tended to offer incentives on a reimbursement basis based on meeting specific criteria set out in a contract between the municipality and the development company; and 2) cities that were `stand-alone' such as Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland did not offer any incentives for attracting commercial/retail development. Councilor Elmore commented that Wichita Falls is in competition with all the cities staff researched — it is important to get development moving aggressively in our area. Mr. Andy Lee commented that his research found that many cities within Texas do offer incentives and he explained that Blackburn Properties is aiming to fast -track their development project in 6 months with the second phase of the project set at $6 million valuation. He added that they are in competition for lease with Abilene, Waco, Denton, San Angelo, etc. for retail projects. Mr. Lee stated that in his opinion, a lack of incentives and aggressive push from the community is the reason Wichita Falls doesn't have the same businesses located in other cities of similar population size. Mr. Filer commented that Mr. Moller's suggestion/concern to expand the proposed TIF boundary may be similar to other comments at the upcoming public hearing. Mr. Clark commented that it is important for the Committee to consider all suggestions then make a decision and move forward in presenting the Plan including the recent financial calculations and infrastructure projects. Mr. Clark requested a recommendation on the Plan from the Committee. Mr. Welburn commented about the Plan boundary and that there might be more comments regarding this issue at the public hearing. Mr. Welburn proceeded to introduce a motion recommending the current TIF Plan be presented at the upcoming public hearing. Ms. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Filer inquired about the final determination for the TIF boundary. Mr. Clark responded that Wichita County Commissioners and Wichita Falls City Council have the authority to determine the TIF boundary. Mr. Filer added that input would be received at both public hearings (County and City) and then a decision should be made regarding the final boundaries of the Zone. Staff noted that the Plan is a concept and the boundaries may change in the future based on development needs, etc. Councilor Elmore requested clarification on the public hearing dates. Mr. Flack stated the public hearing is set for July 18t" with the Wichita County Commissioners at 10:00 a.m. at the County Courthouse. Depending on their comments and CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 5 OF 6 feedback, it will then proceed for a second public hearing with City Council tentatively set for Tuesday, August 2nd as a component of a regular City Council meeting. Mr. Moller asked if the boundary amendment issue would come back to the Citizens Advisory Committee for consideration. Mr. Clark stated that the Committee considered his request to amend the boundary and they declined altering the proposed TIF boundary. Mr. Flack inquired about the TIF Zone's timeframe of 20 years and if that was a statutory requirement. Mr. Clark indicated that the timeframe is not stipulated in the state regulations. If all the goals and objectives of the Zone are achieved ahead of schedule the Zone can be closed and the funds will revert back to the taxing entities. V. ADJOURN Mr. Filer called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Welburn introduced a motion to adjourn the meeting that was seconded by Mr. Al Flack. The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 pm. The Chairperson requested staff forward a Notice of Public Hearing to each Committee member whenever notices are mailed to the property owners. BEN FILER, CHAIRMAN DATE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TIF#2 JUNE 30) 2005 PAGE 6 OF 6