Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 3_7/17/1995 Pace 2- 1[1:: Lastly, I met with Gary Van Brock on Monday, June 26, to discuss the response of the Dorner Trust relative to the concept of Tequesta buying down portions of the total cultural facility lands with each transaction involving trading of tax-free municipal bonds . Mr. Van Brock informed me of: 1 . The Trust will work with Tequesta to make the purchase achievable, options or other mechanisms to buy-down the land over time, if their carrying costs are covered. 2 . The Trust will exchange bond(s) for the deed(s) , saving the Village issuance costs . 3 . The Trust will sell 7 .75 acres at $5.50 per square foot. This exceeds our recent appraisal of $3.51 . He feels our appraisal overly discounted comparable sales in this area. Total purchase price: $1, 856,745 . If financed over thirty years, this would raise property taxes approximately 8 . 3% and require an estimated annual debt service payment of $167,595. See attached Schedule. Soul searching by the Village Council is now in order. It is time to call a Redevelopment Committee Meeting. Incidentally, Mr. Van Brock advised an ACLF concern is about to proceed with purchase of the parcel on Village Boulevard south of the Water Plant. Also, he is about to proceed with his 220 unit apartment complex. TGB/krb Attachments Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variables : Start Date: Jun 30, 1995 End Date: Jun 30, 2025 Start Payment: Jun 30, 1995 No . of Payments : 30 Start Interest: Jun 30, 1995 Interest Rate: 8 . 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal: $1886745 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $167594 .72 Days in Mo. /Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Jun 30, 1995 0 . 00 0 .00 0 .000 0 . 00 1886745 . 00 1 Jun 30, 1996 167594 .72 150939 .60 8 . 000 16655 .12 1870089 . 88 2 Jun 30, 1997 167594 .72 149607 . 19 8 .000 17987 . 53 1852102 .36 3 Jun 30, 1998 167594 .72 148168 . 19 8 .000 19426 . 53 1832675 .83 4 Jun 30, 1999 167594 .72 146614 .07 8 .000 20980 . 65 1811695 . 18 5 Jun 30, 2000 167594 .72 144935 . 61 8:000 22659 . 10 1789036 . 08 6 Jun 30, 2001 167594 .72 143122 . 89 8 .000 24471 .83 1764564 .25 7 Jun 30, 2002 167594 .72 141165 . 14 8 .000 26429 . 58 1738134 . 68 8 Jun 30, 2003 167594 .72 139050 .77 8 . 000 28543 .94 1709590 .74 9 Jun 30, 2004 167594 .72 136767 .26 8 .000 30827 .46 1678763 .28 10 Jun 30, 2005 167594 .72 134301.06 8 . 000 33293 . 65 1645469 . 62 11 Jun 30, 2006 167594 .72 131637 . 57 8 . 000 35957 .15 1609512 .48 12 Jun 30, 2007 167594 .72 128761 . 00 8 . 000 38833 .72 1570678 .76 13 Jun 30, 2008 167594 .72 125654 .30 8 .000 41940 .41 1528738 .35 14 Jun 30, 2009 167594 .72 122299 . 07 8 . 000 45295 . 65 1483442 .70 15 Jun 30, 2010 167594 .72 118675 .42 8 .000 48919 .30 1434523 .40 16 Jun 30, 2011 167594 .72 114761 . 87 8 .000 52832 .84 1381690 . 55 17 Jun 30, 2012 167594 .72 110535 .24 8 .000 57059 .47 1324631. 08 18 Jun 30, 2013 167594 .72 105970 .49 8 .000 61624 .23 1263006 . 85 19 Jun 30, 2014 167594 .72 101040 .55 8 .000 66554 . 17 1196452 .69 20 Jun 30, 2015 167594 .72 95716 .21 8 .000 71878 .50 1124574.19 21 Jun 30, 2016 167594 .72 89965 . 93 8.000 77628 .78 1046945 .40 22 Jun 30, 2017 167594 .72 83755 .63 8 .000 83839 .08 963106 .32 23 Jun 30, 2018 167594 .72 77048 . 51 8 .000 90546 .21 872560. 11 24 Jun 30, 2019 167594 .72 69804 . 81 8 .000 97789 .91 774770 .20 25 Jun 30, 2020 167594 .72 61981.62 8 .000 105613 .10 669157 .10 26 Jun 30, 2021 167594 .72 53532 .57 8 .000 114062 .15 555094 .96 27 Jun 30, 2022 167594 .72 44407 .60 8 .000 123187 .12 431907 . 84 28 Jun 30, 2023 167594 .72 34552 .63 8 .000 133042 .09 298865 .75 29 Jun 30, 2024 167594 .72 23909 .26 8 .000 143685 .46 155180 .29 30 Jun 30, 2025 167594 .72 12414.42 8 .000 155180 .29 0 .00 MEMORANDUM TO: Walter Chinn, Chairman Northern Palm Beach County Planning Forum Implementation Steering Commri tee FROM: Redevelopment Subcommittee: ;,�✓ Joel Channing, Chairman Earl Collings, Vice Chairman Hank Skokowski Neil Crilly Roxanne Manning Gilbert Moore Jorge Quintero SUBJECT: Redevelopment Subcommittee Recommendations DATE: April 17, 1995 The Redevelopment Subcommittee held meetings throughout 1994 to address redevelopment concerns for the Northern Palm Beach County area. The group attempted to analyze the relevant issues and formulate potential policy ideas which could assist the northern communities . The group visited communities including Tequesta, Lake Park, North Palm Beach, Riviera Beach and Jupiter to explore local issues in these areas . The following represents the group' s collective conclusions and recommendations based on its research and discussions : A. The deteriorating redevelopment areas in each of the communities have almost exclusively stemmed from the opening of I-95 to the West which has attracted business and new residential development west resulting in decreased U. S . Highway 1 activity. B. Each community has a unique and often distinctive environment and character. Redevelopment in these areas should take advantage of these characteristics. C. It is important for the various jurisdictions that form the eastern chain of communities to work together to collectively facilitate redevelopment. (A good example of this is the Lake Park/North Palm Beach Twin City Mall site where both communities are working together writing a single set of development regulations despite the property' s two jurisdictions. ) D. Private development responds to incentives, and, as such, incentives can be an effective tool to redirect development to the coastal redevelopment areas. 1. Specific examples of incentives under control of the County that could be developed include: - 2 - a . Expansion of Traffic Performance Standard exemptions for redevelopment areas . b. Ad valorem property tax abatement preferences for redevelopment areas . (Preferences could be added to the County' s recently adopted program. ) 2 . Examples of incentives under local (City and other agencies ) control include: a. Relaxation or flexibility of zoning standards . b. Local millage ad valorem property tax (This is currently being examined by northern communities through an economic development group. ) c . Waiver of impact fees by both the County and cities . If a certain area of a community is a redevelopment focus, these waivers could be made available in those areas to act as an incentive thereby inducing development. d. City and County staffs could work with local financial institutions to enhance local and regional credit and lending. Through the federal Community Reinvestment Act, these institutions are required to invest dollars in all of the communities which they serve. Lack of financing for projects in an area slated for redevelopment is a serious inhibitor. e. Creation of law enforcement focus areas and programs (such as C.O.P. - Community q Oriented Policing. f . Special infrastructure provisions (street closures, improved lighting, street furniture, landscaping, etc. ) g. Easing regulatory steps (examples include adoption of D.D.R. I . - Downtown Development of Regional Impact or seeking special exemptions from Traffic Performance Standards from County. ) 4 NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY/SOUTHERN MARTIN COUNTY PLANNING FORUM: A vision for the Future POLICY STATEMENT • The population of Palm Beach is projected to double by the year 2020, from 900,000 to 1.8 million residents. With a large proportion of its acreage still vacant and undeveloped, Northern Palm Beach County, from 45th Street north to the county line, has the unique opportunity to identify preferred forms for future growth and development and to create a strategy for accommodating growth in the area. Southern Martin County, from Bridge Road south to the county line, will be affected significantly by strategies for future development of Northern Palm Beach County given the environmental systems, transportation network, and economy shared by the two areas. In January 1993, the City of Palm Beach Gardens initiated a forum for the North Palm Beach County/Southern Martin County area to examine issues relevant to the region's future growth and development and to establish a process for reaching consensus for a 'Strategic Growth and Development Plan' for the region. A Steering Committee was established to oversee the process. Membership included community representatives of the incorporated and unincorporated areas, representatives from each of the eight municipalities in the area(Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Juno Beach, Tequesta, Lake Park, North Palm Beach, Jupiter Inlet Colony, and Riviera Beach), Palm Beach and Martin county governments, the Palm Beach County School Board, the South Florida Water Management District, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and representatives from the private sector, including the construction and development industry, major landowners, utilities, and the banking industry. The Northern Palm Beach County/Southern Martin County Planning Forum was established to address and devise strategies for preserving regional natural resources, guiding urban form and development patterns, and identifying vital community features. At the close of their discussion in the Northern Palm Beach County/Southern Martin County Planning Forum at Palm Beach Gardens Marriott, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, August 26-28, 1993, the participants reviewed as a group the following statement. This statement represents general agreement; however, no one was asked to sign it. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that every participant subscribes to every recommendation contained herein. In order to accomplish the goals of this planning forum, a locally-based, non- regulatory steering committee, comparable to the cross section of participants at this forum, was established and have worked to implement the following goals of the planning forum. Preservation of natural areas has been on-going since the Planning Forum. Preservation has been promoted to accomplish the following objectives: Protect the area's most important resources, water, protecting natural habitats, especially those of endangered or threatened plant and animal species, protecting environmental functions, water retention and aquifer recharge, while providing for habitat and water quality protection, and providing recreational opportunities that do not degrade the integrity of the natural system. Priority for preservation in the Northern Palm Beach County/Southern Martin /, T. County area has resulted in the acquisition of the following sites: The Loxahatchee Slough, Pal-Mar, Juno Hills Scrub, Frenchman's Forest, ks, West Palm Beach Catchment Buffer and Catchment Addition, and the Fox Property. The linkage between the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the Corbett Wildlife Management area is close to contract with the MacArthur Foundation. Linkages and connections between preservation areas is being developed though the greenways study being done by the Conservation Fund. Linkages and connections between preservation areas in the east is being coordinated for recreational uses, such as bike paths. Preservation of natural areas is being accomplished by the local acquisition programs of both Palm Beach and Martin counties along with CARL, Save Our Rivers and other available local, state or federally funded programs. The future development of Northern Palm Beach County/Southern Martin County relies on attracting and keeping industries and businesses that are compatible with our vision for quality of life. In the past two years we have developed a consistent strategy among local governments and the business and development community for attracting new businesses, such as high-tech, value- added industries, and corporate headquarters, through the creation of a North4., County Economic Committee, led by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. We have through investment funds and government incentives supported small businesses9 . 02t for business start-ups. Future growth in a modified corridors/multi-centers form of development have been directed into coastal cities, particularly Riviera Beach, and along the 1-95 and Turnpike corridors in order to promote activity centers before allowing for future phased growth areas west of these corridors. An extension of Tri-Rail is currently being considered by the Tri-Rail Authority. Therefore, the Planning Forum Implementation Steering Committee recommends that Northern Palm Beach County be considered in terms of three development areas: 1.) Urbanized - East of Florida's Turnpike. In recognition of the uniform availability of urban services and the concentration of existing population centers, the area east of the Turnpike is considered to be urbanized and therefore, is designated as such. Build-out is generally expected to occur in this area before it takes place in any other. The highest land use densities are expected in this area. 2.) Transitional - West of the Turnpike and east of the Loxahatchee Sough. The region west of the Turnpike and east of the Loxahatchee Slough is developing at a lower density than the lands within the coastal towns and cities to the east. There are large natural systems in this area, as well as large tracts of undeveloped land. Therefore,this area is considered to be transitional, both in terms of land use densities and the timing and sequence of future development. It is expected that this area will develop at densities lower than those found in the Urbanized area. In addition, the Transitional area is expected to develop after the Urbanized area is substantially developed. 3.)Rural-including and West of the Loxahatchee Sough. The Rural area is characterized by large wetland systems such as the Loxahatchee River and Sough corridor. Large land purchases by government agencies have occurred and are proposed which will preserve some of the natural area systems typical of this area. Existing development generally consists of large lot rural subdivisions and a few large tracts of industrial lands. Little or no urban infrastructure exists or is planned for the area. Therefore, this area should be designated as having the lowest/rural density of the three areas. After substantial development has taken place, first in the Urbanized area, and then in the Transitional area, development may be considered in the Rural area. Rural or agricultural development may be considered in the Rural area. .t The local governments affected by this policy should first identify the undeveloped areas east of the Turnpike, and the number of years growth which these areas can accommodate. This number of years will then establish the number of years this policy will be effective. The Capital Improvements Element of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan of each unit of local government will provide for and guide the timing and phasing of development in all three areas. The land development regulations of the affected units of local governments will then require amendments to reflect the general and specific intents of these recommendations. It is further recommended that there be no exceptions to this policy for residential development. However, if a unit of local government wishes to consider industrial and commercial development west of the Loxahatchee Slough or in the Transitional area, out of phase, it is recommended that an analysis of the supply of industrial and commercial lands within the Urbanized area be done to determine that a site of appropriate size does not exist. If such a determination is made then, at minimum, it is further recommended that the following criteria be met: o The parcel of land must be a minimum of 100 acres; o A major public economic benefit must be identified; o/ 50% of the parcel in the Transitional area or 90% of the parcel in the Rural area must be guaranteed for environmental preservation; and, \, o All infrastructure must be acquired, operated, and maintained by the 'r� property owner. A Campus for FAU has been selected as part of the Abacoa project at Donald Ross Road and 1-95 within the Town of Jupiter. This project also includes a professional baseball stadium. A master plan has been prepared for the properties surrounding the university campus. The counties and each of the municipalities in Northern Palm Beach County/Southern Martin County area should take appropriate actions to implement the recommendations of the planning forum through local comprehensive plans and land development regulations. 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS ` START ....17-... Develop and submit'plans / 0"-"---- Pre-development Conference with Bldg. Official recommended for major projects V Request Denied Is a Zoning Yes Board of Variance Adjustment required? $ • 1,NO Request Yes Is the project a 1 single-family home in R-i or R-1A? Request Denied 40:40 Submit request Yes to Village lIs a Zoning Change requested?I > Councill. No Request 1: Approved Project Reviews ' Community Appearano• Board. 4114EBEW Approved • Request Vito Plan Denied Submit request ` Is a Special Exception Required? Yes Co Village l Council. Ho Request :1 Approved Site Plan Reviews Village Clunoil ( . Plan Reviews Building Official for Building Code compliance Ni! , KEY Permit Application - ' Review and issuance. $- Fee Required. 4, (Inspections) • 44, End ertifioate of Occupancy 5( �O�\Z2��cb�j�� /an g LAQ,•- 5 0 -E Memorandum ti cnl rNi•, . ?l , l„b8 To: Village Council From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager /7-- Date: May 17 , 1995 Subject: Status Report on Lands for Cultural Facilities As you know, in late 1994, the Village Council directed the Village Manager to "explore" the possible acquisition of land from the Dorner Trust within Tequesta' s central business district to provide for permanent facilities for the Lighthouse Gallery, Inc. and BRITT. The area in question would be that land immediately east of and south of the Tequesta Branch Library, south to just north of Tequesta Drive. Any amount of land could be purchased by the Village from the Trust, but Gary Van Brock and I have been focusing on between 7 and 9 . 7 acres . The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a status report on where we stand at this juncture. Keep in mind that BRITT has given the Village a commitment until the end of calendar year 1995 and Lighthouse Gallery, Inc. until June 1, 1995, to undertake fundraising efforts to raise funds for the new facilities contemplated, in the event that the Village secures the land for the same. The June 1, 1995, commitment from Lighthouse Gallery, Inc. is upon us . Here is where we stand. Gary Van Brock and I have agreed to pursue the following concept with the Trustees and the Village Council, respectively: 1 . Our analysis, although not precise, indicates that we would need a minimum of 7 acres to accommodate two stand alone facilities for the Gallery and BRITT. In speaking with the President of the Gallery on May 23, she indicated to me that their ongoing analysis reveals that their square footage needs are even greater than previously estimated. Therefore, 8 .5 acres would be a good land needs estimate at this time. 2 . The Village would secure an option on the property in question. The option would "tie up" the land to the benefit of the Village for a period of three years . This timeframe is probably negotiable. 3 . It is envisioned that the Village would buy down the total land desired in three transactions that would occur on the 12th, 24th and 36th month of the option period. The transaction would consist of a "trade" of tax-free municipal bonds at current market rates, equal in value to the agreed upon buy down of the land. I checked with Bond Counsel in this regard and this appears to be a perfectly legal procedure that is known to save time and radically reduce issuance costs to the Village. This buy down concept over time gives the Village the ability to spread its increased debt service over time, minimizing the impact of tax increases to property owners . A possible downside to this concept is that bond interest rates could rise over time and that the cost of the land is so inexpensive, from a bond issuance point of view, that it might not make sense to bond the same unless it is done by way of a single bond issue. Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) might be used to facilitate the acquisition of this land. 4 . If the Village fails to exercise its option at the first pre-determined time, say at the 12 month interval, it would default and, as a result, lose its option or earnest money. If we go through with the total acquisition, one-third of the option money would be applied towards the purchase price at each transaction interval. Therefore, Tequesta would have the ability to make one buy down but back-out from the other two transactions, thereby only losing two-thirds of its option money, and so on. The Village Attorney' s Office is reviewing the format of the option concept. There is another option concept whereby Tequesta takes full possession but has an extended period of time to finalize the transaction. Both option concepts will be addressed by Peter Holton, Esq. of the Village Attorney' s Office. Mr. Van Brock is in the process of getting the formal approval of the Dorner Trust Board Members for compensation to be by way of tax free municipal bonds . He probably will not know until after the June 1 commitment from Lighthouse Gallery expires . I would not lose any sleep over this . It is not likely that these two cultural organizations are going anywhere just yet. However, I predict that in light of the recent controversy of the termination of the Executive Director at Lighthouse Gallery, that the Board of Directors will set upon an aggressive course of action to finalize their expanded facilities location, in order to prove themselves capable in the eyes of the Gallery Members and to somehow justify their actions relative to the Executive Director. So, in other words, if the Village Council is going to do something for these cultural organizations, they should do so fairly quickly. Also, bond interest rates are quite favorable at this time. If all of the above falls into place, I will probably recommend that the Village Council require a feasibility study to be done by Lighthouse Gallery and BRITT prior, to Tequesta ever exercising its first option or buydown of the total lands envisioned for acquisition. A feasibility study is also required by the State of Florida in order to be eligible for any grants for cultural facilities . Before Tequesta goes into debt in order to help its cultural organizations, we better confirm the feasibility of these bold facility plans of the Gallery and BRITT. Therefore, the possibility exists that Tequesta secures the option for the land and, thereafter, the projects are not found to be feasible. In such a case, Tequesta could forfeit its option money. However, owning land with or without cultural facilities adjacent to Mr. DiVosta ' s development of the 15 acres at Lighthouse Plaza might open up all sorts of possibilities . As soon as I hear from Mr. Van Brock and receive the response from Mr. Holton, I will take the matter to the Village Council or a Committee thereof, in order to begin the decision making process as quickly as possible. I will also provide you with firmer costs associated with the option contract, land acquisition and estimated tax consequences for issuance of bonds . The Village Council needs to decide whether or not they believe this to be an important municipal effort and, if so, how is this land to be paid for? Do you envision a general obligation bond referendum to ensure the support of the people and the lowest bond interest rates? If so, all parties will need to know this up-front so that this can be planned accordingly. In light of the recent controversy at each organization, is this concept one which has no hope of public or Village Council support? Should you have any questions regarding this status report, please contact me at your convenience. TGB/krb c: John C. Randolph, Village Attorney Peter Holton, Esq. , Jones, Foster Bill C. Rascavelis, Director of Finance Scott D. Ladd, Building Official