MAPD 2010 - I-cubed dif-other financing

395 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
395
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MAPD 2010 - I-cubed dif-other financing

  1. 1. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCINGMECHANISMS IN MASSACHUSETTSMAPD Annual Conference, Plymouth June 3, 2010
  2. 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. 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. 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. 5. A SMALL TOWN TRIES DIFDOWNTOWN MARSHFIELDElizabeth Bates MAA & Angus Jennings AICP
  6. 6. DOWNTOWN MARSHFIELD:“OPPORTUNITY SITE”
  7. 7. 1996 Downtown Revitalization Plan:Pre- and Post-Sewer Buildout
  8. 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. 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. 10. Post Development Site Plan
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 18. LOCAL BYLAW OPTION:COORDINATION OF MITIGATIONAngus Jennings AICP
  19. 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. 20. Potential methods of cost recovery Betterments BID Permitting mitigation
  21. 21. Questions & Discussion
  22. 22.  For each Project Component:  FY (occupancy)  Use  Sq. Ft.  Jobs  Total wages  Avg. wages  Retail sales
  23. 23. For eachProjectComponent: Total const. cost Constr. Jobs Total comp. Avg. comp. Materials

×