Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms in Massachusetts
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms in Massachusetts

121
views

Published on

Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms in Massachusetts

Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms in Massachusetts

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
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 forPublic Private Partnerships to finance publicinfrastructure 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 wasenacted in 2003 Downtown had development interest, but no privatedeveloper committed to major infrastructureimprovements DIF was pursued in hopes it would be catalyst forcoordinated, bolder development proposals Was introduced concurrent with zoning fordowntown mixed-use
  • 9. Key Features of 40Q Proposal 10-year history/political support Planning resources ($50k) available from TownMeeting allocation Land taking for roadway realignment Assembly of Town-owned 2-acre parcel forredevelopment through RFP Estimated Buildout: 150 housing units; 40,000 sfcommercial; 10,000 sf office
  • 10. Post Development Site Plan
  • 11. Downtown Marshfield:District Improvement Financing Project Costs Admin/Legal Property takings Roadway/sidewalks/streetscape: hard andsoft costs Long term debtrepayment Cost: $10.7 MM Revenue Sources Tax increment (1-5) Tax increment (maxbuildout) RFP proceeds forredevelopment Investment income Bond anticipation note 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 bondsand minimize the Town’s risk – secured by anenforceable agreement – would have beennecessary to win Town Mtg approval
  • 13. Regulatory framework for agreement I-Cubed is a more recent policy than DIF, andincludes some useful innovations that would behelpful – perhaps needed – to execute DIF Infrastructure Development Assistance Agreement(IDAA) Municipal Liquidity Reserve for each “AssessmentParcel”
  • 14. Division of Labor: Municipal Concept/vision Mapping Narratives Ensure consistency of development projectionsw/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: eminentdomain, housing key issues Major downtown landowner endorsed elements ofplan; presented counter-proposal to Board ofSelectmen Private initiative, private funding, within existingzoning and permitting Ongoing smaller-scale improvements
  • 17. Lessons learned re DIF Need committed development partner with specificdevelopment plan & timeline, willing to absorbmunicipal risk However, can approve District and Financing Planseparately to set baseline for future growth DIF requires an acknowledged need for infrastructure– not elective No realistic option for Revenue Bond under current DIFstatute
  • 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 inproximity 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 ProjectComponent: FY (occupancy) Use Sq. Ft. Jobs Total wages Avg. wages Retail sales
  • 23. For eachProjectComponent: Totalconst. cost Constr.Jobs Totalcomp. Avg.comp. Materials