Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/02/11-Minutes-HEDC City of Fort Worth City Council Economic and Community Development Committee Highlights of the Meeting Held February 11, 2003 Committee Members Present: Jeff Wentworth, Wendy Davis, Frank Moss, Clyde Picht City Staff Present: Chris Anderson, Dana Burghdoff, Bette Chapman, Fernando Costa, Bea Cura, Sundra Davis, Deidra Emerson, Sarah Fullenwider, Cynthia Garcia, John Garfield, Ossana Hermosillo, Tom Higgins, Phyllis Johnson, Christine Maguire, Karen Meunier, Elizee Michel, Patrina Newton, Doug Rademaker, Reid Rector, Bob Riley, Tony Salomon, Robert Sturns, Joe Tereus, Jesse Torres, Peter Vaky, Raquel Velasquez, Carl Wagner, Jerome Walker, Ardina Washington, Dorothy Wing Call to Order: Chairman Jeff Wentworth called the meeting to order at 1:17 p.m. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting Held on January 14, 2003: Committee Member Wendy Davis moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Frank Moss and carried. Discussion and Consideration of the Progress Report on the Implementation of Commercial Corridors Task Force Recommendations: Community Development Manager Christine Maguire introduced Ann Ricker and Bill Cunningham of Leland Consulting Group who had worked with the Commercial Corridors Task Force in 2001 to help spearhead the revitalization process for the Fort Worth Central City. Ms. Ricker and Mr. Cunningham reviewed the evitalization strategy that had been proposed earlier, discussed what had been accomplished on the strategy to ate, and presented a proposed schedule for continuing the revitalization process for the rest of this year. (presentation attached). Mr. Wentworth expressed his appreciation to Ms. Ricker and Mr. Cunningham for their work and commended their efforts. He added that it might be helpful to get input at this point from some of the private sector members of the Commercial Corridors Task Force, since some of them were developers. Committee Member Clyde Picht asked about the schedule for commercial corridors development and if a model project would be completed or if all the projects would be attempted at once. Mr. Wentworth said that there was not a particular model project, but that an effort is being made to be responsive to developers who might approach the City with a particular project. Ms. Maguire said that because there were 31 commercial corridors in the City, studying and identifying opportunities for and barriers to redevelopment had been a challenge. She added that the Commercial Corridors Task Force had assisted in this by reducing the number of corridors and identifying core areas, which are called urban villages. She further explained that working with these corridors and core areas gives staff opportunities to learn lessons and develop policies concerning redevelopment, and that different departments have taken ownership of different strategies and are moving forward with them. Ms. Maguire then cited three successful projects as examples: Magnolia Green, South of Seventh and Mercado. Mr. Picht said that since there is only so much public money to use as a catalyst to create more private gIwesUnent, he wanted to be certain that this public money is invested in something that shows a profit which, in urn, could be invested in another project. Page 1 of G Mr. Cunningham agreed and said that this philosophy speaks to the "portfolio of assets" Commercial Corridor strategy, whereby money is invested in successful projects, and the profit made is then invested in more challenging projects. The important thing, he added, is to continually manage all the projects at one time. 33riefing on the Fiscal Year 2004 Federal Appropriations Request for the Economic Development Initiative Grant: Community Development Manager Christine Maguire briefed the Committee on the proposed Economic Development Initiative (EDI) appropriation selection process (presentation attached). Ms. Maguire explained that for the last two years the City has aggressively sought federal funds to use as catalyst money for Central City redevelopment projects. She asked the Committee to consider staffs recommendations for projects and to choose a catalyst project that would be presented to the City Council on March 4 for their endorsement or modification. The project would then be presented to the Congressional Delegation as the one for which the City would be seeking one million dollars in EDI appropriations for the 2003-2004 calendar year. Ms. Maguire then explained the criteria for evaluating potential EDI projects, presented a proposed timeline for the selection process, and asked the Committee to schedule a date for a special meeting before March 4 to consider staffs recommendations for projects. Mr. Wentworth asked when staff planned to send out the request for proposals. Ms. Maguire said that the RFP's were to go out the following day, February 12, and would be returned by Friday, February 21. Ms. Davis asked if CDBG eligibility criteria would be provided to developers and other community development partners. Ms. Maguire said that this would be provided and explained that the geographic area of the projects would be limited. Mr. Moss asked about the consideration of projects that were ready to go. Ms. Maguire explained that for a roject to be considered, there had to be a developer in place, the developer had to have site control, and that the eveloper had to provide a conceptual redevelopment plan. The Committee decided to go forward with the proposed schedule for selecting a project to request for FY 2004 EDI appropriations and tentatively set a date for the special meeting for February 25. Discussion and Consideration of Authorization to Initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Expand the "H-Eligible" Area in Accordance with the Proposed 2003 Comprehensive Plan: Planning Director Fernando Costa briefed the Committee on a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment that would expand the area eligible for "H" Central Business District zoning in accordance with the proposed 2003 Comprehensive Plan (presentation attached), and he asked the Committee to authorize staff to place the text amendment on the March 12 Zoning Commission agenda. Mr. Costa then presented a timeline for the approval of the proposed text amendment. Mr. Picht asked about the current zoning of the area under consideration. Mr. Costa explained that the current zoning was mostly a combination of industrial and multi-family residential. Mr. Picht then asked if there was a proposal to build something there now. Mr. Costa said that there is a proposal to develop the property for higher-density mixed use, such as apartments, condominiums and office space. Mr. Costa added that this would connect to downtown along Samuels Avenue, and that staff wanted to preserve the historic nature of the Samuels Avenue neighborhood to the north of this area. Mr. Picht then asked where the historic district started. Mr. Costa said there is no formal historic district at this time; however, the most significant structures begin approximately at Pioneers' Rest Cemetery. *hr. Wentworth asked about the need for both the "H" and "H" eligible zoning. Mr. Costa said that "H" is the only zoning category in Fort Worth for which the geographic area is limited by the zoning ordinance itself, and that "H" zoning is only suitable for downtown development. Therefore, he said, the zoning ordinance specifically defines the areas that are eligible for "H" zoning, and an area cannot be rezoned to "H" unless the area is already in the "H" eligible area. Mr. Wentworth then asked if property owner consent was needed to reclassify property to "H" eligible. Mr. Costa said this was not necessary in this case, but that the owners of almost all property affected by the change had expressed support for the text amendment. Mr. Picht asked if the "H" eligible area ended where the historic houses began. Mr. Costa said that it ended at the southern end of Pioneers' Rest Cemetery, which is near where most of the historic mansions begin. Mr. Picht expressed his concern that the Trinity River development would eventually make this historic area very valuable for "H" development. Mr. Costa said staff would propose not to extend the higher-density development further north in an effort to preserve the historic nature of the area. Ms. Davis agreed with Mr. Picht's concern and said she was working with the Planning Department on nominating this area for historic protection. Mr. Picht then expressed concern that the increasing value of the property would cause the taxes to rise to such a high rate that property owners in the area would not be able to afford restoration. Mr. Costa said that there are some incentives that can make restoration more feasible. He added that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has partially funded a consultant to advise staff as to the economic feasibility of designating the Samuels Avenue area as a historic district. The Committee approved the text amendment for placement on the March 12 Zoning Commission agenda. Discussion and Consideration of a Proposal to Increase Funding for the Emergency Home Repair Program: Housing Director Jerome Walker made the presentation (attached). He said that staff had recently met with the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which had proposed several changes to 4*he City's Emergency Home Repair program. He said that the purpose of his presentation was to describe the ''a ` ity's Emergency Repair (ER) Program and to seek the Committee's guidance concerning ACORN's proposals to the City. Mr. Walker then explained that the ER program provides emergency repairs to owner-occupied homes to correct problems that pose immediate threat to the life, health and safety of the occupants. He added that total household income, adjusted by family size, must fall at or below 35% of the area median income (AMI) in order for a homeowner to be eligible for assistance under this program. After presenting some HUD guidelines, Mr. Walker said that ACORN would like for the City to raise the eligible income amount to 80% of area median income. Mr. Walker next presented types of eligible repairs under the ER Program and a funding history of the program. He said that for the 2003-2004 calendar year, the City is requesting $500,000 for the ER program, an increase of $200,000 over the past two years. After presenting a profile of ER Program clients, of which 60% are elderly and 35% are single heads of households, Mr. Walker commented on ACORN's specific proposals. Regarding the proposal to increase funding for the ER Program to $1,000,000, Mr. Walker said that this would require a reprioritization by City Council on the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. He then presented the current CDBG budget summary, which shows current priorities, and estimated allocation and requests for funding for 2003-2004. Mr. Walker then commented on ACORN's second proposal, which is to allow recently unemployed and ioderate-income families to apply for ER assistance. He said that the ER program is currently designed to assist those most in need of emergency assistance and that the income limit could be increased only if $1,000,000 is allocated in the ER program. Mr. Walker added that moderate-income families could be served by Pagc 3 of 6 the Neighborhood Housing Services' (NHS) low interest home improvement loan program. He said that staff estimates that a total of$8,363,000 in CDBG funds will be available, which falls short of the $11,459,068 in CDBG funds that has been requested. C"`,Z,,'rWORN's third proposal was that the City prioritize the elderly for the ER Program. Mr. Walker emphasized that the ER program is designed to help those most in need, regardless of the type of household, but he pointed out that elderly ER applicants already represent the majority of households served. Finally, ACORN recommended that the City expand its outreach and communication about available programs. Mr. Walker said that the Housing Department will continue to use various means to make the community aware of its housing programs. Mr. Walker said that staff was not seeking any action from the Committee today, but was requesting the following for the ER program when the Committee had opportunity to consider the CDBG budget: (1) to continue funding out of the CDBG program; (2) to fund between $300,000 and $500,000 for the ER program; (3) to make no changes in eligibility requirements; and (4) to allow Housing to continue their current outreach program. Mr. Walker added that ACORN representatives had been invited to the Committee meeting. Mr. Picht, who said he agreed with staff that the eligibility criteria should not be changed and that the City needed to make more money available for emergency repairs, asked how many applications were received annually for the ER program. Mr. Walker said that the number of applications exceeded the money available. He added that staff is not opposed to an increase in funding, but if there is a desire to increase funding in the ER program, then Council would have to decide what not to fund in other areas. Mr. Picht then asked how much money it would take to satisfy the requests for one year. Mr. Walker said that he was not sure of the amount that would be required. Mr. Picht then asked how many applications were received in one year. Mr. Walker said about 200-250 requests were received annually. Mr. Picht next asked if$500,000 in funding would be enough o cover the ER requests. Mr. Walker said that even if funding was increased to $1,000,000, that would not be nough to cover all the requests. Mr. Picht said he felt providing emergency repairs was a fundamental requirement, and he asked if there were areas of lesser priority from which money could be moved to increase the budget to $1,000,000. Mr. Walker said that CDBG funding was the only eligible funding available for emergency repairs. He then again referred to the current CDBG budget and said a decision would have to be made on what not to fund in this budget in order to have $1,000,000 for emergency repairs. Mr. Picht asked about the $3,036,957 of the CDBG budget that was spent on administration. Mr. Walker explained that this amount was not spent to simply administer the total CDBG budget of$8,488,000, but that the funds were spent across the various departments. Mr. Moss said that ACORN had also expressed concern about this and the fact that most of the housing program was funded out of HUD monies, with only $60,000 being spent on this program out of the general fund. He added that if it was decided to spend $1,000,000 on emergency repairs out of CDBG funds, more support for the program from the general fund needed to be considered. He said he felt this lack of support from the general fund restricted the Housing Department from working on overall housing issues. Mr. Wentworth said he felt that the CDBG funding should be reviewed to see if these monies could be more effectively utilized. He added that he felt it would be difficult at this point to get more money out of the general fund, unless it was absolutely clear what the CDBG funds were being used for and that there were no more CDBG funds available for emergency repairs. As an example, Mr. Wentworth asked what the funds for public services were used for. Mr. Walker explained that these monies were spent on such items as day care services, the meals-on-wheels program, services for the elderly and after-school programs. Mr. Walker then distributed n itemized draft of the proposed CDBG budget for 2003-2004. He then reminded the Committee that at the last Uouncil retreat in November, staff was directed to maintain current priorities for CDBG funding and that the proposed budget for 2003-2004 reflected this. Page 4 of 6 Ms. Davis said she agreed that it would be difficult to find monies in the general fund for emergency repairs, but from a policy standpoint, she felt that the appropriateness of using CDBG funds to cover administrative costs needed to be reviewed and that an effort needed to be made to analyze how to phase some of the Gadministrative costs back into the general fund budget. Mr. Moss agreed, saying that some of the CDBG expenditures seemed to actually be general fund expenses. He added that the limited funding of the ER program also created another challenge: because funds are not always available to take care of a repair quickly, the situation deteriorates until the repair requires more than $5000, which is the limit on what can be spent on a repair under the program. At this point, he said, houses deteriorate so badly that they are no longer habitable, and people have to move out, a situation that could be avoided if more funding were available. The Committee supported the staff's recommendation but requested that staff return with more information on how the CDBG funds were being spent. They also asked staff to review the CDBG budget to see if there are areas where funding could be decreased in order to increase the ER budget to more than $500,000. Discussion and Consideration of a Tax Abatement Agreement with Ramey Avenue, LY and KB Home Lone Star LY for the Ramey Place Housing Addition Located in the Stop Six Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ): The Committee approved the staff recommendation as stated in the report (attached) and asked that staff take it forward to full Council. Discussion and Consideration of a Timeline for Revising the Tax Abatement Policy: In the interest of time, it was decided that staff would submit a memo to Committee members regarding this item. S r scussion and Consideration of a Tax Abatement Agreement with Salubris Limited Partnership for a oject to be Located in Railhead Business Park: Business Development Coordinator Ardina Washington made the presentation (attached). She said that Salubris Limited Partnership, which plans to build a 62,000 square foot food irradiation facility in the Railhead Business Park, is requesting a graduated tax abatement over the next ten years. Ms. Washington explained that the request is for a 90% maximum abatement in years 1-5, a 75% maximum abatement in years 6-7, and a 50% maximum abatement in years 8-10. Ms. Washington also explained other details of the abatement proposal and said that if the Committee agreed, staff would prepare the necessary M & C's to move forward. Tom Higgins, Director of Economic and Community Development, clarified the M/WBE construction component. He said that the M/WBE construction component was contained within the Fort Worth construction component. Ms. Davis asked if the company had given any specific reasons why Fort Worth contractors would not be able to do more construction on the project than the possible 40% total. Ms. Washington said that since the company was a franchise operation, a majority of the work had to be done by the franchise office as part of the franchise agreement. Ms. Davis asked if staff had seen a copy of the franchise agreement. Ms. Washington said they had not, but they could request the agreement, if the Committee wished. Mr. Wentworth asked about the total percentage of the construction component, whether it was a total of 40% or 57%. Mr. Higgins said that the total could be either, but the 17% Fort Worth M/WBE requirement would be included in the 40% Fort Worth component, and this must be achieved in order for the company to receive a 40% abatement on the construction component. Mr. Wentworth then asked if the company would lose the 40% abatement if they did not achieve the 17/,, Fort Worth M/WBE component. Mr. Higgins said that they would. " In Picht asked why an abatement was needed since the company was a franchise, and therefore, should not need extra finances. Ms. Washington said that according to the proforma submitted, there was a small gap in Page 5 or O their finances, and the company needed assistance to start up. Ms. Washington added that there were four other plants of this type in the United States, but this would be the first one in Texas. Ms. Davis said that she believed that this could create a positive ripple effect in the local meat packing industry ecause local meat packers would not have to send food out of state to be irradiated. She added that she felt this should be included in considering the abatement. Mr. Wentworth, Ms. Davis and Mr. Moss voted to go forward with the abatement. Mr. Picht was opposed. Mr. Wentworth asked staff to provide more financial information on the abatement to Mr. Picht. Executive Session: The Economic and Community Development Committee conducted a closed meeting to discuss or deliberate economic development negotiations, as authorized by Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code. Requests for Future Agenda Items: There were no requests for future agenda items. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. The next meeting is tentatively set for February 25, 2003. Page 6 o(G