Town Center Initiative 1 MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER STUDY INITIATIVE PHASE 2 City Council Work Session January 24, 2011 Bringing It all Together

Town Center Initiative

1

MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER STUDY INITIATIVE PHASE 2

City Council Work SessionJanuary 24, 2011

Bringing It all Together


2

Town Center:McKinney’s Identity

(Brand)

Actively Attracting

Investment(Business Plan)

• Incentives Program

• Governance Structure & Coordination

• Small Business Incubation

TIRZ(Project & Finance Plan)

Catalyst Projects(Development and

Tax Base)

• Parking Program• PID • Form-Based Code

• Multi-modal Infrastructure

• Destinations


Town Center “Business Plan”

3


Driving Catalyst Projects

4

• Leveraging

• Coordination of Public Entities

• De facto Master Developer context

• Attracting investment


Public Improvement District (PID) Fiscal Tool

Feasibility Analysis

5


Additional Tools - PID

6

What is a Public Improvement District (PID)?Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code allows any city to levy and collect special assessments on property within a defined benefit area of the city limits or ETJ. Revenue from the special assessments are then used to fund improvements (capital and/or O&M) within the benefit area.

• Property Value

• Any other manner that equally assesses property similarly benefited, such as a flat fee, provided that the collection entity is in agreement.

Method of assessment may be determined by:

• Library improvements• Art installation• Creation of pedestrian malls • Supplemental safety services• Other similar improvements (i.e. graffiti

abatement)• Supplemental business-related services • Costs associated with the creation,

administration, and operation of the PID

• Mass transit improvements• Off-street parking improvements• Park, recreation, and cultural improvements• Landscaping and other aesthetic improvements• Land acquisition in connection with an improvement• Affordable housing• Water, wastewater, health & sanitation, drainage,

street, or sidewalk improvements

Funds generated by the PID may be used to perform any of the following:


PID Feasibility Analysis

Key Assumptions

• 20 year horizon for PID duration

• Property assessed by value

• Evaluated rates from $.05 - $.15/$100 assessed value

• 4 Development Scenarios Baseline: current values ($71,481,928)

Scenario #1: inflation only (3% annually)

Scenario #2: medium redevelopment: current values (assumes $80/ft²), 3% annual inflation

Scenario #3: medium redevelopment: higher values (assumes $115/ft²), 3% annual inflation

7


Projected Appraised Values (of all properties within the PID)

Baseline Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3

2010 $71,481,928 $71,481,928 $71,481,928 $71,481,928

2011 $71,481,928 $73,626,386 $73,626,386 $73,626,386

2012 $71,481,928 $75,835,177 $75,835,177 $75,835,177

2013 $71,481,928 $78,110,233 $80,077,141 $80,937,664

2014 $71,481,928 $80,453,540 $87,305,637 $90,303,430

2015 $71,481,928 $82,867,146 $96,982,467 $103,157,920

2016 $71,481,928 $85,353,160 $105,012,037 $113,612,796

2017 $71,481,928 $87,913,755 $117,125,719 $129,905,953

2018 $71,481,928 $90,551,168 $126,071,401 $141,611,503

2019 $71,481,928 $93,267,703 $137,327,284 $156,603,350

2020 $71,481,928 $96,065,734 $147,209,816 $169,585,351

2021 $71,481,928 $98,947,706 $157,561,705 $183,205,329

2022 $71,481,928 $101,916,137 $168,402,219 $197,489,879

2023 $71,481,928 $104,973,621 $179,751,358 $212,466,618

2024 $71,481,928 $108,122,830 $185,143,899 $218,840,616

2025 $71,481,928 $111,366,515 $190,698,216 $225,405,835

2026 $71,481,928 $114,707,510 $196,419,162 $232,168,010

2027 $71,481,928 $118,148,735 $202,311,737 $239,133,050

2028 $71,481,928 $121,693,198 $208,381,089 $246,307,042

2029 $71,481,928 $125,343,993 $214,632,522 $253,696,253

2030 $71,481,928 $129,104,313 $221,071,497 $261,307,140 8


PID Feasibility Analysis: Overall Findings

Summary Totals by Rate per $100 Assessed Value (2010-2030)

Baseline Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3

$0.05 $750,560 $1,024,925 $1,521,214 $1,738,341

$0.06 $900,672 $1,229,910 $1,825,457 $2,086,009

$0.07 $1,050,784 $1,434,895 $2,129,700 $2,433,677

$0.08 $1,200,896 $1,639,880 $2,433,943 $2,781,345

$0.09 $1,351,008 $1,844,865 $2,738,186 $3,129,013

$0.10 $1,501,120 $2,049,850 $3,042,428 $3,476,681

$0.11 $1,651,233 $2,254,836 $3,346,671 $3,824,349

$0.12 $1,801,345 $2,459,821 $3,650,914 $4,172,017

$0.13 $1,951,457 $2,664,806 $3,955,157 $4,519,686

$0.14 $2,101,569 $2,869,791 $4,259,400 $4,867,354

$0.15 $2,251,681 $3,074,776 $4,563,643 $5,215,022

9


• 5,000 square foot building in McKinney with appraised value of $411,266 currently pays $2,408 each year in city taxes. That same building would pay:

○ $2,604 each year under a PID assessment of $.05/$100 assessed valuation○ $2,819 each year under a PID assessment of $.10/$100 assessed valuation○ $3,025 each year under a PID assessment of $.15/$100 assessed valuation

• 10,000 square foot building in McKinney with appraised value of $1,050,448 currently pays $6,174 each year in city taxes. That same building would pay:

○ $6,699 each year under a PID assessment of $.05/$100 assessed valuation○ $7,224 each year under a PID assessment of $.10/$100 assessed valuation○ $7,750 each year under a PID assessment of $.15/$100 assessed valuation

• 16,000 square foot building in McKinney with appraised value of $1,667,414 currently pays $9,763

each year in city taxes. That same building would pay:○ $10,597 each year under a PID assessment of $.05/$100 assessed valuation○ $11,430 each year under a PID assessment of $.10/$100 assessed valuation○ $12,264 each year under a PID assessment of $.15/$100 assessed valuation

PID Feasibility Analysis: Sample Assessment Scenarios

Creation of a Town Center Business Plan

10


PID Feasibility Analysis: Considerations for Moving Forward

Creation of a Town Center Business Plan

– Revising existing development codes/policies to respond to market and ensure consistency with vision

– Redesigning SH 5 as a walkable mixed use corridor

– Activating the new Municipal Complex and Entertainment District

– Creating a network of appealing pedestrian connections

– Phasing in the Town Center parking plan to facilitate market-responsive private investment

– Maintaining balance of reinvestment and neighborhood stabilization to retain affordability and historic community character

– Synchronizing development regulations, public capital investment, and economic development policies/strategies

Assuring that McKinney realizes the market forecasts outlined in the PID Analysis will require:

11


12

• Is development of a PID the right fiscal tool?

• What improvements/enhancements would the PID afford?

• What are the policy implications of establishing a PID?

• What are the public implications of establishing a PID?

• How would the PID interact with other fiscal tools (i.e., TIF)?

Considerations


Parking Rate Study

13


14

Parking Rate Study Review

• Is paid parking feasible (i.e. positive cash flow) under a certain set of assumptions?

• If a positive cash flow is feasible, can it fund a formal parking program (parking benefit district) and/or debt service a parking structure?

• What happens to cash flow if the rate of parking demand grows at 3% per year? 10%?

• Analysis conducted for 3 scenarios:

1. Assumes Year 1 establishment of a comprehensive paid parking program for all on-street and surface parking lots in downtown; no parking structure ever built

2. Assumes Year 4 establishment of comprehensive paid parking program to be implemented upon completion of a parking structure

3. Assumes Year 1 implementation of limited on-street meters (on Square Proper); with a Year 4 implementation of a comprehensive paid parking program and opening of a parking structure


15

Parking Rate Study – Summary of Results

If level of parking demand continues to grow at 3 or 10% per year; all scenarios will show a positive cash flow within 2-3 years (excluding the capital costs for the parking structure itself)

Assumptions include:• Significant enforcement activities• Investment in state-of-the art revenue collection system(s)• Reasonable hourly parking rates (~$1+)

Challenges:• Maintaining existing demand when transitioning to paid parking• Up-front capital funding for the parking structure


16


Scenario 1 – 3% Growth


17




18




19


Can the positive cash flow from the parking system assist in serving the debt on a $7 million dollar parking structure (in today’s dollars, and under these assumptions)?Servicing the debt would take approximately:

- 12 years @ 3% annual growth in demand- 8 years @ 10% annual growth in demand

Under Scenarios 2 and 3. Assumes positive cash flows are used solely for debt service

Can the positive cash flow fund and sustain a formal parking benefit district?The positive cash flow could be used to fund parking improvements such as enhanced signage, striping, lighting, landscaping; valet/shuttle service; marketing; enforcement; etc.


20

• Is a formal paid parking program the right fiscal tool?

• What improvements/enhancements would a parking program afford?

• What are the policy implications of establishing a a formal paid parking program?

• What are the public implications of establishing a formal paid parking program?

• How would a formal paid parking program interact with other fiscal tools (i.e., TIF)?

Considerations


Business Plan: Fiscal Tools

• Consensus?

• If yes, what is the Council’s direction for moving forward with PID and/or a formal paid parking program, or both?

Sustained revitalization of the Town Center will require a combination of appropriate fiscal implementation tools that are consistent with and complementary to the Town Center vision.


Progress of Town Center Form-Based Code

23


24

Development Regulations Process - work to date

• 2009: analyzed regulations (zoning, subdivision) that are barriers to realizing the preferred concepts of the vision

• Jan 2010: Council work session emphasizing importance of synchronizing public capital investments and development regulations

• March 2010: stakeholders public meeting

• May 2010: Council work session outlining approach and process by which a new form-based development code would be created to specifically implement the Town Center illustrative master plan

• Sept 2010: stakeholders public meeting


29

Results of Conventional Zoning

• Single use pods of development

• Buffers instead of transitions

• Lack of a transportation network

• Not pedestrian-friendly, not transit-friendly

• Narrowly stratified market

• Planned obsolescence, so constructed accordingly

• Scrape, rezone and sometimes re-subdivide to redevelop

• Value drops when intended use no longer viable


30

Results of Form-Based Zoning

• Codes encourage mixed use

• Transitions instead of buffers

• A network of transportation

• Easy to walk

• Broad market (age, socio-economic, lifestyle)

• Designed and constructed to endure

• Change of use within buildings instead of redeveloping

• Value holds when current use no longer viable


31

Economic Foundation of Form Based Approach


32

Becoming More Common

• Leander, TX• Farmers Branch, TX• Mesquite, TX• North Richland Hills, TX• Duncanville, TX• Roanoke, TX• Benicia, CA• Ventura, CA• Peoria, IL• Owensboro, KY• Auburn, CA• Sarasota County, FL


33

Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas – Before FBC


34

Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas – After FBC


Existing Development Pattern

• McKinney’s Town Center is “traditional”--was developed prior to conventional zoning and subdivision

• Designed with pedestrians and walking in mind

• Vibrant mix of uses and compact urban form (grid street network)

• Small blocks/small lots/narrow streets • Buildings closer to the street


36

Issues with current standards

• Existing zoning districts do not relate to Town Center Vision/Master Plan• Zoning is fractured and does support clear center, edge, and transitions as

identified in the Master Plan

• No adjacency predictability = more risk for developers/investors


42

McKinney’s Town Center generally consists of a traditional, compact, urban, pedestrian-oriented development pattern that existed and evolved for almost 100 years before the advent of contemporary zoning and subdivision regulations.

For the last 50+ years: conventional, suburban, auto-oriented zoning and subdivision development regulations have been unsuccessfully applied to the Town Center.

The Phase 1 process and community vision call for sustained long-term revitalization of the Town Center through emphasis on authentic urban, pedestrian-oriented built environment.

Form-based coding is the only regulatory tool available to successfully achieve the community vision for the Town Center.

The performance and long-term success of the TIRZ (and overall Town Center) depends on the implementation of the form-based code.

Bottom Line


Historic Downtown

Future Transit Village

Corridors (SH 5, Kentucky/ Tennessee, & US 380)

Residential Neighborhoods

Phase 1 Focus Areas


• Areas to be coded

• Degrees of change

• Method of implementation and integration with existing code

• Calibration and customization

FBC Considerations

• Preservation

• Targeted enhancement

• Evolution

• Transformation

• Freestanding

• Overlay


Illustrative Plan—Adopted 2008


Proposed Character Districts


47Proposed Regulating Plan


48

FBC Components

For each character district:

• Building form standards• Open space standards• Street standards• Block standards• Frontage type standards• Building type standards• Signage, lighting, landscape standards• Administration


49

Building Form Standards

• Primary role in defining physical form

• Simple diagrams, easy-to-read tables

• 2 pages per character district

• building placement

• building form

• parking/service access

• frontage


50

Public Space (Street) Standards

• movement type

• design speed

• curb radius

• pedestrian crossing time

• width (ROW, curb face to curb face)

• traffic, parking lanes

• landscape, lighting, sidewalk


55

Next Steps/Timeline

• Refinement/testing/internal review and coordination with Engineering, Fire, and Building Departments (Feb 2011)

• Stakeholder outreach, including public workshop and public review/comment period (March 2011)

• Formal approval process (April 2011)

Freestanding Code

• Complete draft (Summer 2011)• Internal review/stakeholder outreach and review (Sept/Oct 2011)• Formal approval process (Nov/Dec 2011)

Overlay Code


56

Town Center:McKinney’s Identity

(Brand)

Actively Attracting

Investment(Business Plan)

• Incentives Program

• Governance Structure & Coordination

• Small Business Incubation

TIRZ(Project & Finance Plan)

Catalyst Projects(Development and

Tax Base)

• Parking Program • PID • Form-Based Code

• Multi-modal Infrastructure

• Destinations

Documents

Town Center Initiative 1 MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER STUDY INITIATIVE PHASE 2 City Council Work Session January 24, 2011 Bringing It all Together