HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7299 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No, 7299 P . i
July 5 , 1988
� ;oa fORT�p To the Mart�T and Members Oi the City Council
�tx
Subject: PROPOSED SECOND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (P.I.D.)
In the summer of 1986, the first public improvement district in the
state of Texas was established when the Fort Worth City Council
established the downtown assessment district. It is now proposed that
a second public improvement district be established which would be
known as "Fort Worth Public Improvement District No. 2".
PROPOSED DISTRICT
The proposed public improvement district would be located within Park
Glen, a development of The Perot Group, located in north Fort Worth
along Basswood Boulevard just west of State Highway 377. (Please see
attachment "A" for boundaries of the proposed public improvement
district). Park Glen is a master planned, mixed use development which
will have tree-lined streets and heavily landscaped medians, as well as
major boulevards bordered by brick, wood and wrought iron fencing.
The public improvement district is proposed for the purchase,
installation and maintenance of the landscaping, irrigation system and
fencing along the major boulevards. The improvements that have been or
will be constructed in the proposed public improvement district have
been designed to enhance the aesthetics, security, and value of the
property in the district, to reduce through traffic in residential
areas, and to generally improve the quality of life for those who will
live and work in the district. (Please see attachment "B" for a more
detailed description of the proposed improvements).
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
7fie district's estimated budget for the first year is $106,600. The
cost of the improvements and/or special supplemental services is
proposed to be assessed against property within the district on a
square foot basis. The assessment rate per square foot will vary for
different categories of property depending on the relative benefit
conferred on each category. The results of a benefit analysis
determine the relative benefit conferred. (Please see attachment "C"
for the details of the assessment calculation and attachment "D" for
the benefit analysis).
By way of example, a typical single family residence on a 6,500 square
foot lot would be assessed $152.75 per year. One of the commercial
corner tracts which is approximately 7.8 acres would pay $2,106.56 per
year in assessments.
MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION
it Is recommended a ity Council contract with the private sector to
manage and administer the district as is done with the downtown
district. Any subcontracts would be in accordance with applicable city
competitive bid requirements and subject to the approval of the City
Manager.
!l
[ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS --
s INFORMAL REPORT TO CiTY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7299 a .2
�b�roars To the Mayor and Members of the City Council July 5 , 1988
Subject: PROPOSED SECOND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (P.I.D.)
CITY POLICIES REGARDING P.I.D.S
In considering any petition to establish a public improvement district,
the City Council should take into consideration the potential cost of
city personnel , equipment and supplies used for the district instead of
the city at large. The state statute permits that all administrative
costs relative to the public improvement district may be charged to
the district. It is staff's recommendation that no public improvement
district be established unless the city's costs are included in the
district's budget.
Based on the city staff's involvement in establishing the first
Improvement district, it is recamended that Council establish a policy
that $50,000 be included in the first year budget of any proposed
P.I.D. to reimburse the City for its actual costs. Deviations from
this policy should only occur when an applicant can clearly demonstrate
that by reason of the applicant's involvement in the establishment and
operation of the district, the City's actual costs will be
significantly reduced. -
With regard to the proposed "Fort Worth Improvement District No. 2", a
deviation for the above mentioned reason would be in order. The
quality and detail of the work that has been done by the private sector
for this proposed improvement district has greatly reduced the demand
on city staff time. As a result, it is proposed that for this
improvement district, $20,000 should be included i n the first year's
budget of the district to pay for actual city expenses. The remaining
$30,000 will be included i n the following years' budget to reimburse
the City if actual expenses exceed the budgeted $20,000. Any funds not
used by the City would remain as project reserve funds.
The proposed public improvement district is on the agenda for the July
5th Work Session. Following that discussion, if Council concurs,
the petition to establish the district will be on the agenda for the
City Council meeting of July 12, 1988.
D 1as Harman
City Manager
DHJsf.2
t
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
ATTACHMENT "All
op*-
so"11mv
...............
ftt ftwr
wou Ong
op-sm
jv
"wKw"mv A
fmw
'It
M77
4X
7
PID DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PARK GLEN
The Perot CaaW
12177"-411 Lxiw
%aw lwfix)
DAL",;-us msi
DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
—A
ATTACHMENT "B"
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The District will include public area improvements
along major boulevards that have been designed by the SWA
Group, a nationally known land planning and landscape design
company. These improvements consist of:
a . Extra wide (20 feet from back-of-curb)
landscape set backs which will be fully
irrigated and hydromulched.
b. A bermed (18 inches high) , irrigated, and
hydromulched median.
C. A formal tree planting program along both sides
of the boulevards. These will be 4 to 6 inch
caliper seedless ash and bald cypress trees
planted 30 feet apart. These trees will form a
canopy effect.
d. All residential land will be buffered from the
boulevards by fences. Seven foot brick columns
(spaced 30 feet apart) will be spanned by a
OOW double-board cedar fence (with steel posts in
concrete for stability) . Iron fence sections
will be used where residential cul-de-sacs or
residential loop streets intersect the
boulevards.
e. Residential entryways from the boulevards will
be bordered on each side by a 75 foot brick
wall. The Park Glen name will be imbedded into
these entryways.
f . The major points of access to Park Glen along
Basswood Boulevard will contain entry features
consisting of a 6 foot brick monument entry,
with 16, 4 foot bollards along the set backs.
9. All designs and colors will be tasteful and
traditional . Colonial red brick, natural wood
stains, and black iron fencing will be used.
ATTACHMENT licit
ASSESSMENT CALCULATION
(Year 1)
The following is an estimate of the number of square
feet of property in each respective category:
S_ ts`9ory Area (sg. ft . )
Unplatted Commercial 339, 768
Unplatted Multifamily 1, 097, 712
Unplatted Single Family 11, 595, 672
Platted Commercial 962 ,676
Platted Multifamily -0-
Platted Single Family 2,0676,000
Based on these areas, the cumulative relative benefit
assigned to each property category in Table 4 of Exhibit D,
and the estimated first year budget of $106, 600, an assessment
factor "R" can be calculated that correlates to a cumulative
relative assessment benefit of 1 .
$106, 600 - (339, 768) (R) + (1,097,712) (3 .21R) +
(11, 595,672) (3 .768) + (962, 676) (5 . 67R) +
(2 ,067, 000) (21.35R)
$106, 600 - (R) (97,051, 971)
R - $.0011
This cumulative relative assessment factor produces the
following actual assessment rates per square feet per year :
!Category Relative Rate Actual Rate
Unplatted Commercial 1.0 R $.0011
Unplatted Multifamily 3 .21 R $.0035
Unplatted Single Family 3 .76 R $. 0041
Platted Commercial 5. 67 R $.0062
Platted Multifamily N/A N/A
Platted Single Family 21.35 R $. 0235
Oph,
f 24
ATTACHMENT "Dil
EXHIBIT JD
,BENEEIT AN&MIS
Property in the proposed District is divided into the
following eight categories:
1. Unplatted Commercial ("UC")
2 . Unplatted Multifamily ("UMF" )
3 . Unplatted Interior Single Family ("UIS/F")
4 . Unplatted Border Single Family ("UBS/F")
5. Platted Commercial ("PC")
6. Platted Multifamily ("PM/F")
7. Platted Interior Single Family ("PIS/F)
8. Platted Border Single Family ("PBS/F")
Each category of property is analyzed to determine the
relative benefit conferred by the improvements and/or
services. The first analysis considers the relative benefit
to residential vs. commercial property, the second the
relative benefit to platted vs . unplatted property, and the
third the relative benefit to border vs. interior property.
The relative benefit of the improvements and/or services
to residential vs. commercial property is judged to be the
same as the ratio of the number of linear feet of improvements
that border each category of property. Table I shows the
number of linear feet of property that border the improvements .
OF"
TABIZ-1
RESIDENTIAL ,ys.COM .RC
IAL
LINEAR FOOTAGE BORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
BOULEVARD COMM'L RESIDIL TOTAL
Basswood - NW 645 1370 2015
Basswood - SW 1515 2105
Basswood - NE 585 530 1115
Basswood - SE 660 1180 1840
Park Vista - NW 560 3360 3920
Park Vista - NE 525 3435 3960
Park Vista - SW 330 920
Park Vista - SE 250 680 930
TOTAL 3,225 ft. 12 ,400 ft . 15, 625 ft .
(21%) (79%)
21
The relative benefit of the improvements and/or services
to platted vs. unplatted property is analyzed by considering
the general proximity of the property to the improvements,
traffic generation, enhanced value, noise abatement, and
security. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis .
TABLE 2
rljkT= vs, UNPIAWED
BEHEEIT ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES
BENEFIT MAXIMUM POINTS UNPLATTED PLATTED
General Proximity 100 10 90
Traffic Generation 100 20 80
Enhanced Value 80 15 65
Noise Abatement 75 0 75
Security 75 10 65
55 375
TOTAL 430 (15%) (85%)
The relative benefit of the improvements and/or services
to border vs . interior property is also analyzed by
considering the general proximity of the property to the
improvements, traffic generation, enhanced value, noise
abatement, and security. Table 3 shows the results of this
analysis.
T-0-LE-3
BORDER vs. INTERIM
BENEFIT AHQXh91S OF VARIABLES
BORDER INTERIOR
BENEFIT MAXIMUM POINTS S/F C M/F S/F C MF
General Proximity 100 30 30 22 18 0 0
Traffic Generation 100 22 22 22 34 0 0
Enhanced Value 80 21 21 17 21 0 0
Noise Abatement 75 17 16 17 25 0 0
Security 75 20 23 20 12 0 0
TOTAL 430 110 112 98 110 0 0
(26%) (26%) (22%) (26%)
The cumulative benefit conferred on each category of
property (as shown in Table 4 below) is determined by
combining the benefit analyses from Tables 1, 2, and 3 above.
22
TABL"
C MMMIVE RELATIVE BENEFIT
RES vs . PLAT vs . BORDER CUMULATIVE
PROPERTY COMM'L UNPLAT vs . INT. FACTOR
UC 1.0 1.0 1.17 1.0
UM/F 3 .76 1.0 1.0 3 .21
UISIF 3 .76 1.0 1. 17 3 .76
UBS/F 3 .76 1.0 1. 17 3 .76
PC 1.0 5.67 1. 17 5.67
PM/F 3 .76 5 .67 1 .0 18.22
PIS/F 3 .76 5 .67 1 .17 21.35
PBS/F 3 .76 5.67 1 . 17 21.35
23