Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:38 am
The council ultimately is the one who approves how PICA funds are spent. From the website you link:
PIAC consists of 13 people, two from each council district and a chairperson, appointed by the mayor and City Council... ...This committee finishes its year by submitting its balanced five-year capital improvements program and neighborhood recommendations in early February.
Yes, that vote is today. So when asking the question "why would bunch approve this" (past tense)
he hasn't yet
The other question would be why would he approve this (future tense) and it's that the e-tax from 192 units, at the city household average of $54k is $103k per year.
Across ten years that's $400k higher than the PIAC money.
So even if the repayment doesn't work out, it's a net gain for the city.
if they spend 30% on items with a sales tax and 3% rate (it's more than that), the city makes $93k annually. So that's about $100k under the e-tax.
It's really a good deal for the city overall.
Last edited by flyingember on Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:12 am
PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.
Says it comes from 4th district pIAC funds. How is this better for 4th district residents? Why would Bunch approve this but not the old plan that didn’t take money from the 4th district pot?
I think you're missing where he said the Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC. So (and i'm not 100% on this), i think ultimately PIAC is made whole. Essentially they are using excess TIF funds and rerouting it to LUX via PIAC.
kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:38 am
The council ultimately is the one who approves how PICA funds are spent. From the website you link:
PIAC consists of 13 people, two from each council district and a chairperson, appointed by the mayor and City Council... ...This committee finishes its year by submitting its balanced five-year capital improvements program and neighborhood recommendations in early February.
Yes, that vote is today. So when asking the question "why would bunch approve this" (past tense)
he hasn't yet
The point is, its not the PIAC committee that came up with this deal. Its Bunch and Shields.
And that includes structural changes to a single family home. Scale up for a larger pool but it's in the original engineering of the building, it's probably not too far off that
Last edited by flyingember on Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:12 am
PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.
Says it comes from 4th district pIAC funds. How is this better for 4th district residents? Why would Bunch approve this but not the old plan that didn’t take money from the 4th district pot?
I think you're missing where he said the Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC. So (and i'm not 100% on this), i think ultimately PIAC is made whole. Essentially they are using excess TIF funds and rerouting it to LUX via PIAC.
And in fact, this is what is contemplated. Check ordinance here.
The preamble/whereas clause spells it out pretty clearly:
WHEREAS, the Fourth District Councilpersons desire to utilize $600,000 of 4th District PIAC funds to assist the Project with public infrastructure costs; and
WHEREAS, surplus revenues from the Midtown Redevelopment Tax Increment Finance Plan will be returned to the City upon the plans termination in 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Council intends to reimburse the 4th District PIAC funds from funds captured from the Midtown Redevelopment Tax Increment Finance Plan in fiscal year 2023-24,
However the actual ordinance language is a little less specific:
Section 8. Future Appropriation. The City Manager is directed to include an appropriation in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-24 sufficient to provide for reimbursement of the 4th District PIAC funds utilized for the Project up to a maximum amount of $600,000.00.
And that includes structural changes to a single family home. Scale up for a larger pool but it's in the original engineering of the building, it's probably not too far off that
That's for a home, would like to see the numbers specific to this building.
kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:01 am
The point is, its not the PIAC committee that came up with this deal. Its Bunch and Shields.
Yes, but what is different? Why vote no the first time and then come back with nothing new additionally? The TIF was dropped to 10 years but they are just pulling from another TIF passing through PIAC. How is this new plan a better deal for the city as a whole or the 4th district specifically? Or is this just a full reversal with a face saving change?
And that includes structural changes to a single family home. Scale up for a larger pool but it's in the original engineering of the building, it's probably not too far off that
That's for a home, would like to see the numbers specific to this building.
Every incentivized multi-family project probably has a pool. Most people are focused on saving the landmark building, rather than micromanaging the development proposal.
kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:01 am
The point is, its not the PIAC committee that came up with this deal. Its Bunch and Shields.
Yes, but what is different? Why vote no the first time and then come back with nothing new additionally? The TIF was dropped to 10 years but they are just pulling from another TIF passing through PIAC. How is this new plan a better deal for the city as a whole or the 4th district specifically? Or is this just a full reversal with a face saving change?
could be a face saving maneuver.
But if you considered that the TIF they are pulling from is unanticipated excess funds, then there really is a "new" element to this proposal. The money they are using is not due to the other taxing jurisdictions (they will receive their proportional payout of excess funds when the TIF closes) and so whomever had previously said they support 10 yr abatement vs. 15 can in good faith say they support this plan now that additional funds have been identified to bridge that gap.
(and by the way, my comment you responded to was just to point out that no one on the PIAC committee came up with this deal, but it is the council people who did- or at least are championing it...i'm rather neutral in regards to the maneuver they are making)
Last edited by kboish on Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Every incentivized multi-family project probably has a pool. Most people are focused on saving the landmark building, rather than micromanaging the development proposal.
However most incentivized projects were kickstarting troubled areas or had other public benefit. Incentives in areas with existing momentum need more scrutiny. Public aid for the pool would be acceptable if the building had broader public use like public market. And if they didn't do the pool, sounds like they could perhaps save the building w/out incentives. I think we're being played with notion that the building can't be saved w/out incentives.
Every incentivized multi-family project probably has a pool. Most people are focused on saving the landmark building, rather than micromanaging the development proposal.
However most incentivized projects were kickstarting troubled areas or had other public benefit. Incentives in areas with existing momentum need more scrutiny. Public aid for the pool would be acceptable if the building had broader public use like public market.
What supposed public benefits did other projects have? This is the first i am hearing of this. Every incentivized project prior to this was nearly always explicitly to aid the developers bottom line (ie. make the project "viable").
It seems arbitrary to pick on the pool. You could pick another element- like say parking (the previous frontrunner and more deserving poster child for our ire...and probably still is the MAIN driver of the need for incentives) or better yet, in unit laundry machines or dishwashers and say why are we subsidizing that?
Daves point, and i agree with it, is the pool is such an emotional misdirection to the larger issues involved in the incentives discussion.
The reason to point out the pool is because if they didn't do the pool, incentives probably aren't needed to save the building. P&L is an example of a project that had all kinds of significant public benefit, worth the incentives. Should all projects get incentives even in areas with existing momentum?
1. The Katz will have public retail space on ground floor.
2. The pool is a required amenity. Putting it on the rooftop of the Katz allows them to maximize revenue generating apartments in the new construction. The more units they can build, the less incentives they need which means pushing things (amenities) into Katz. Remember, this project is viable without incentives if you bulldoze the Katz and do apartments over it.
Adding retail space should be expected, not give any project incentives because it includes retail space. Using the entire ground floor for a public market is much more significant as a community center, and would be reasonable to provide aid for private pool on top. There can be much more reasonable balanced compromises than such giveaways for private use.
earthling wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:24 am
The reason to point out the pool is because if they didn't do the pool, incentives probably aren't needed to save the building. P&L is an example of a project that had all kinds of significant public benefit, worth the incentives. Should all projects get incentives even in areas with existing momentum?
The $600,000 in question is not the totality of incentives. It is the difference between 10 and 15 yr abatement. Plus they are getting construction incentives.
Lets also remember this is not a TIF they are proposing.
earthling wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:24 am
The reason to point out the pool is because if they didn't do the pool, incentives probably aren't needed to save the building. P&L is an example of a project that had all kinds of significant public benefit, worth the incentives. Should all projects get incentives even in areas with existing momentum?
The $600,000 in question is not the totality of incentives. It is the difference between 10 and 15 yr abatement. Plus they are getting construction incentives.
In other words if they don't get the $600,000 and still for some reason proceed by reducing the project- i'll bet its not the pool that gets cut.
^Bottom line, would have hardly any controversy if the project simply had broader public use element to it. Especially this building, which is perfect for a public market.
kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:15 am
could be a face saving maneuver.
And I'm not knocking a reversal on the councils part. I think too often these types of negotiations end because they fear the developer will walk away and give much more than they need to. With this change by the council, we are pretty sure we've exhausted every demand on the developer. They seem truly willing to walk away. We've reached the point where the developer will give no more. Council will now have to decide whether to take the best deal they can get or pass. I wish this type of hardnosed negotiation was all completed before council vote, but here we are.
