Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
MAPD 2010 - I-cubed dif-other financing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
229
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCINGMECHANISMS IN MASSACHUSETTSMAPD Annual Conference, Plymouth June 3, 2010
  • 2. Welcome, and Panel Objectives Review recent Massachusetts policies as vehicle for Public Private Partnerships to finance public infrastructure Policy context Examples & lessons learned Questions & discussion
  • 3. Speakers James Shea Esq.  Partner; Choate, Hall & Stewart Anne Thomas Esq.  Special Counsel; City of Somerville Elizabeth Bates MAA  Town Assessor; Town of Marshfield Angus Jennings AICP  Director of Land Use Management; Town of Westford
  • 4. Outline of Presentation Define the challenges Overview of policy options Policy framework for public/private partnerships Local example of I-Cubed Local example of District Improvement Financing Panel discussion
  • 5. A SMALL TOWN TRIES DIFDOWNTOWN MARSHFIELDElizabeth Bates MAA & Angus Jennings AICP
  • 6. DOWNTOWN MARSHFIELD:“OPPORTUNITY SITE”
  • 7. 1996 Downtown Revitalization Plan:Pre- and Post-Sewer Buildout
  • 8. History of Marshfield DIF Initiative Reviewed statute and regs in detail when DIF was enacted in 2003 Downtown had development interest, but no private developer committed to major infrastructure improvements DIF was pursued in hopes it would be catalyst for coordinated, bolder development proposals Was introduced concurrent with zoning for downtown mixed-use
  • 9. Key Features of 40Q Proposal 10-year history/political support Planning resources ($50k) available from Town Meeting allocation Land taking for roadway realignment Assembly of Town-owned 2-acre parcel for redevelopment through RFP Estimated Buildout: 150 housing units; 40,000 sf commercial; 10,000 sf office
  • 10. Post Development Site Plan
  • 11. Downtown Marshfield:District Improvement Financing Project Costs  Revenue Sources  Admin/Legal  Tax increment (1-5)  Property takings  Tax increment (max  Roadway/sidewalks/ buildout) streetscape: hard and  RFP proceeds for soft costs redevelopment  Long term debt  Investment income repayment  Bond anticipation note Cost: $10.7 MM  Revenue: $17.5 MM
  • 12. In retrospect: Key elements missing DIF provides two options:  1) Public / Private Partnership  2) Municipal Initiative As a practical matter, need PPP A developer commitment to underwrite the bonds and minimize the Town’s risk – secured by an enforceable agreement – would have been necessary to win Town Mtg approval
  • 13. Regulatory framework for agreement I-Cubed is a more recent policy than DIF, and includes some useful innovations that would be helpful – perhaps needed – to execute DIF  Infrastructure Development Assistance Agreement (IDAA)  Municipal Liquidity Reserve for each “Assessment Parcel”
  • 14. Division of Labor: Municipal Concept/vision Mapping Narratives Ensure consistency of development projections w/existing zoning Consensus building Documentation/assembly of application Close communication w/EACC and OBD
  • 15. Division of Labor: Private Sector Developer commitment to specific buildout  Supported by market / economic analysis  Renderings of post development condition  Traffic analysis of post-build conditions Cost estimates for proposed improvements Bond Counsel to review financials
  • 16. Summary of Outcome Proposal withdrawn after public hearing: eminent domain, housing key issues Major downtown landowner endorsed elements of plan; presented counter-proposal to Board of Selectmen Private initiative, private funding, within existing zoning and permitting Ongoing smaller-scale improvements
  • 17. Lessons learned re DIF Need committed development partner with specific development plan & timeline, willing to absorb municipal risk However, can approve District and Financing Plan separately to set baseline for future growth DIF requires an acknowledged need for infrastructure – not elective No realistic option for Revenue Bond under current DIF statute
  • 18. LOCAL BYLAW OPTION:COORDINATION OF MITIGATIONAngus Jennings AICP
  • 19. “Fair share” local bylaw Determine costs, incl. public / private share Identify potential contributors (direct abutters; or sites in proximity w/development potential) Allocate cost based on objective criteria such as:  Frontage  Land area  Traffic generation (ADT or PM Peak)  Assessed value  (Potential traffic generation)
  • 20. Potential methods of cost recovery Betterments BID Permitting mitigation
  • 21. Questions & Discussion
  • 22.  For each Project Component:  FY (occupancy)  Use  Sq. Ft.  Jobs  Total wages  Avg. wages  Retail sales
  • 23. For eachProjectComponent: Total const. cost Constr. Jobs Total comp. Avg. comp. Materials