Item 3.b.: Updated_Staff Presentation on SCW Financial Analysis — original pdf

Backup

South Central Waterfront SCW Financial Analysis & Calculator : September 23, 2020 South Central Waterfront Advisory Board| Austin, TX THE SCW VISION: Community Benefits Financially feasible Public/Private Partnerships to make the district: ● GREEN: Retrofitting 17 new acres of connected parks, trails, plazas and open spaces across a patchwork of properties ● CONNECTED: Insert .6 miles of new streets, add over 2 miles of refurbished and new sidewalks, and include transit options, to create a walkable and transit- friendly district ● AFFORDABLE: Incentive and support affordable housing to ultimately equal 20% of the district’s new residential units Context of presentation: 1. Council Resolution on SCW (Feb. 2020): …”The City Council directs the City Manager to provide a briefing to City Council on the status of the update to the financial and economic assumptions [for a] Tax Increment Financing Plan.” 2. The “Statesman PUD” is in process. 3. Impending creation of the Austin Economic Development Corporation (AECD). Underlying questions to presentation: 1. How does the calculator address a portion of the Council directive? a. Given the limits of the calculator, how do we complete the TIRZ market feasibility & absorption/revenue forecast to fully address the Council directive? 2. How might the financial calculator inform the “Statesman” PUD review? 3. How might the financial calculator inform the impending AEDC? Updating the infrastructure plan: The big shift WATERFRONT PARK INTERNAL STREETS BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION CROCKETT SQUARE E Riverside 2016 SCW Plan 2020 Modified SCW Plan ● Block Structure reflects idealized district vision ● Barton Springs Alignment: ○ ○ ○ ○ Requires City Leadership to facilitate cooperation between two major property owners - Cox & Crockett Requires City Initiative and Public Funding to complete the construction Park & Pedestrian Plazas - 9.6 acres; flexible layout Crockett Square - 1 acre plaza; flexible layout + Green Connector ● Open Space Requirements: ● Block Structure follows the flexible guidelines laid out in the 2016 Plan and reflects on- the-ground realities ● Barton Springs Alignment: follows property boundary between Cox & Crockett Barton Springs on Cox property consistent w/ 2019 PUD proposal ■ This shift requires Cox to dedicate ~1.6 acres to Barton Springs Rd. that would otherwise have been on Crockett ● Open Space Requirements: Key Open Spaces change slightly to accommodate the altered grid structure Cox Property requirement ~ 9 acres Park & Pedestrian Plazas Crockett Property - 1.3 acre plaza; flexible layout + Green Connector ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2020 Updated SCW Illustrative Plan SCW Infrastructure Projects: Basis for TIF project plan OPEN SPACE ~ 17 acres parks, trails, plazas 34%, $85,250,220 RECLAIMED WATER 1%, $2,210,819 UTILITIES 13%, $32,471,510 $251,928,285 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE 0.8 miles refurbished roads 0.6 miles new roads 30%, $75,796,628 STREETSCAPE 20%, $51,213,632 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 2%, $4,985,476 Importance of Statesman site to the district 35 properties = 97 acres Statesman site ~ 19 acres (20% of the District’s properties area) In the SCW Vision, the Statesman contributes: 62% of District’s Open Space 18% of District’s New Streets 32% of District's Infrastructure Cost ($80 M) Buildout for Financial Analysis: Hybrid Buildout @ Statesman vs “Statesman” PUD Hybrid PUD Buildout for full district: Hybrid vs PUD 6.4 M SF New: 7.4 M SF New: Hybrid PUD 3.9 M SF new development outside Statesman 3.5 M SF @ Statesman 3.9 M SF new development outside Statesman 2.5 M SF @ Statesman l t n e m p o e v e D w e N 2.3 M SF existing remaining 2.3 M SF existing remaining 2040 Projected Purpose & Indicators on Financial Analysis SCWAB Presentation May 18, 2020: ECONW Presentation to SCWAB *Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340611 Purpose & Indicators on Financial Analysis SCWAB Presentation July 20, 2020: ECONW Deliverable- SCW Financial Framework Memo *Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=343373 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: "Our work has focused on defining scenarios to aid decision makers and the Planning & Zoning Department with a final calibration of opt-in zoning..., which could contribute to a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Financing Plan produced by others." "This 2020 Financial Tool included updated assumptions and methods to provide greater clarity to City Council about potential development feasibility when considering policy options." KEY TAKEAWAYS: "Developments of the scale contemplated in the 2016 SCW Framework Plan may be financially infeasible, even before accounting for infrastructure and affordability requirements. • Infrastructure: Recent feasibility testing suggests that developments, including at the Statesman site, are financially infeasible even before accounting for the impact of incremental infrastructure called for in the SCW Framework Plan. • Affordable Housing. Achieving the 20% housing affordability target is infeasible without public subsidy." POLICY DIRECTIONS: "Establish funding options for the District. Given the need for public financial support, TIRZ could be an essential element of the District's funding portfolio. Implementation steps could include: • Establishing a TIRZ district on Statesman site to capture value from new entitlements, but consider limiting TIRZ to that subarea for now." Purpose & Indicators on Financial Analysis Purpose & Indicators on Financial Analysis SCWAB Presentation July 20,2020: Staff Presentation *Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=343831 INTERACTIVE FINANCIAL CALCULATOR > Exploring Options & Impacts 10 variables to test financial feasibility and gap funding requirements to inform policy choices FINANCIAL CALCULATOR > Two Sample Buildouts - Scenarios A & B Input any from 0% to 100% Select Outside or Inside 4 Options 8 Options Affordability Requirement Affordable Housing Unit Shortfall Subsidy for Affordable Housing One Texas Center Scenarios District-wide at 10% Fulfilled Outside District No Subsidy Input 0 to any $/SF 7 Options 2 Options District Fee No Fee Market Assumptions Based on 2019 Interviews Statesman Affordability Requirement Buildout Scenario 4.5% (Same as 2016 Plan) Based on 2016 Plan 60’ Building: Ownership 3 Options Common Selections for Scenario A & B. Only variable between Scenario A & B Scenario A Scenario B HYBRID: District w/ 2016 heights @ Statesman PUD: District w/ PUD heights @ Statesman FINANCIAL CALCULATOR > Scenario A FINANCIAL CALCULATOR > Scenario B (PUD = District w/ PUD heights @ Statesman) COMPARING SCENARIOS A & B > 2020 Financial Snapshot COMPARING SCENARIOS A & B > “But For” Tipping Parcels Questions to consider: 1. How does the calculator address a portion of the Council directive? a. Given the limits of the calculator, how do we complete the TIRZ market feasibility & absorption/revenue forecast to fully address the Council directive? 2. How might the financial calculator inform the “Statesman” PUD review? 3. How might the financial calculator inform the impending AEDC?