Laserfiche WebLink
o Caretaker <br />o Leasing Agent <br />o Maintenance <br />3. Significantly increases the city’s commercial and industrial tax base. <br /> The project proposed is a multi-family housing complex. <br />4. Demonstrates the ability to encourage unsubsidized private development through “spin off” development. <br /> Spin off development is unknown <br />5. Facilitates the development process and achieves development on sites that would not develop “but for” the use of TIF. <br /> The site has been vacant for over 10 years. Several developments have been proposed on the site, but <br />none of the projects ever came to fruition. <br /> Using the developer’s assumptions, Baker Tilly’s analysis suggests without financial assistance, this <br />project does not appear to be feasible. <br />6. Removes blight and/or encourages redevelopment of commercial and industrial areas resulting in high quality redevelopment and <br />private reinvestment. <br /> The proposed project is projected to enhance the city’s economic base as it removes and redevelops a <br />blighted property on a high-profile site. <br />7. Offsets redevelopment costs (i.e. contaminated site cleanup) over and above the costs normally incurred in development. <br /> It is unknown at this point whether the site has any soil contamination. <br /> Approximately $5.55M has been identified as site development costs in the application. Further <br />breakdown of the $5.55M is still being determined. <br />8. Aids the implementation of the Mississippi Connections Plan. <br /> Does not aid in the implementation of the Mississippi Connections Plan as it is outside of the plan area. <br /> <br />The proposed project meets public purpose objective #1, #2, #5, #6, and potentially #7. <br /> <br />Policy Considerations <br />1. Each Project is required to meet the but for test to determine the need for and level of assistance. <br /> Using the developer’s assumptions, Baker Tilly’s analysis suggests that without financial assistance, the <br />project does not appear to be feasible. The developer’s operating proforma without tax increment <br />assistance is less than 1.0x DCR and with assistance would be closer to 1.13-1.21x DCR, which is <br />generally an acceptable level required for this type of project. <br /> Baker Tilly’s analysis shows other potential methods to increase financial feasibility and reduce the <br />level of public participation needed for the project. Adjusting the assumptions related to land costs, <br />equity contributions and annual revenues (lease rates) all have positive impacts to the project; thus, <br />resulting in a reduction in the potential level of assistance that is needed and focusing on the <br />extraordinary redevelopment costs of the site. <br />2. Developers receiving TIF assistance shall provide a minimum of ten percent cash equity investment in the project. TIF is not to <br />be used to supplement cash equity. <br /> The developer indicated Owner Cash Equity in the Riverwalk Redevelopment project of <br />$6,311,255.00 equivalent to 20% percent equity in the project, which is higher than our minimum. <br />3. TIF will not be used in circumstances where land and property price are in excess of fair market value. <br /> The developer’s application identified acquisition costs of $2.464M. The applicant determined this <br />amount using the following calculation: 2.46m/178 units = 14k per door. <br /> Our consultant is awaiting an appraisal of the property to determine fair market value. <br />4. The developer shall demonstrate a market demand for the proposed project. TIF shall not be used to support purely speculative <br />projects. <br /> The 2018 Maxfield Housing Study Update references a need for 172 market rate units through 2025.