approved 2/25/15
APPROVED 2/25/15
APPROVED 2/25/15
APPROVED 3/25/15
APPROVED 4/22/15
177692.PDF
APPROVED 5/22/15
APPROVED 5/22/15
APPROVED 6/24/15
APPROVED 7/22/15
APPROVED 8/26/15 LAND CLEARANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
www.edckc.com
BOARD MEETING MINUTES DATE: TIME: PLACE: 1.
July 22, 2015 9:30 a.m. Town Pavilion, Jackson Room 1100 Walnut, 17th Floor, Kansas City, Missouri
Roll Call. Present:
Michael Duffy Steve Hamilton James White (via telephone)
Absent:
Daniel Edwards Gabriel Okafor
Staff:
Joseph Egan, LCRA Susan Tumey, LCRA Carl Boyd, EDC Greg Flisram, EDC Bob Langenkamp, EDC Robert Long, EDC T’Risa McCord, EDC Sandra Rayford, EDC
Guests:
Matt Abbott, Abbott Properties Todd Lieberman, CHSB Apartments, LP Andrea Dorch, City of Kansas City Human Relations Dept. Ray Miller, Cochran, Head & Vick Suzie Aron, Crossroads Community Association Jim Potter, Development Initiatives Diane Stafford, Kansas City Star Pat Sterrett, Sterrett Urban Brian Engel, White Goss
Chairman Duffy called to order the Board of Commissioners of Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority and declared a quorum was present. 2.
Administrative - Review and approval of Meeting Minutes (Ex. 2) Minutes of the June 24, 2015 meeting were provided for review prior to the meeting. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 24, 2015, AS PRESENTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
3.
Financial - Review and acceptance of Financial Report for the month of June, 2015 (Cochran, Head, Vick & Co.) (Ex. 3) The representative from Cochran, Head, Vick & Co. gave a brief overview of the draft financial report for June, 2015, which was provided for review prior to the meeting. DISCUSSION: Mr. Miller advised the general cash account balance of $227,000 included $92,000 from the Longfellow Heights closing. Mr. Egan said the City Housing and Planning & Zoning departments were considering applying the Longfellow Heights monies to the Beacon Hill project. He said he would advise once the City made a decision on the matter. Mr. Egan stated that Longfellow was refinancing its 40year note and LCRA discounted its subordinate third mortgage to $92,000 to help ensure its payment. He added that Integra had confirmed that $92,000 was in market range for the project. Mr. Miller stated that developers were being successfully billed for expenses outside their respective Funding Agreements. He said Ms. Schach’s billings were included in the LCRA budget because of their minimal nature. Mr. Egan said that Chapter 353’s inclusion also resulted from the two programs having the same Board and staff. He stated that developer payments and 353 fees generated the necessary funds to pay for Ms. Schach’s services. Mr. Miller concluded his report by advising that LCRA showed $124 in income because the fiscal year was only two months old and few ReBuild KC lots had been sold. Mr. Egan advised that Beacon Hill lots in the northwest quarter were almost sold out and the southwest quarter had about 70 to 80 lots remaining for sale. ACTION TAKEN:
4.
ACCEPTED THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JUNE, 2015, AS PRESENTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan (Proposed) – Consideration of Approval of a Finding of Blight and the East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan (Bob Long) (Ex. 4) Area Description: The proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Area is generally bound by I-670 on the North, 71 Highway/Bruce R. Watkins Drive on the East, the Kansas City Terminal Railway tracks/Holmes Street/East 20th Street/Cherry Street/East 18th Street on the South, and Oak Street/East 16th Street/Locust Street on the East, as well as the two parcels on the southwest corner of East 21st Street and Grand Boulevard, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Plan Description: The proponent of the East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan is Crossroads East, LLC. The East Crossroads is part of Kansas City’s Crossroads neighborhood. The Crossroads began developing in the late 19th Century - early 20th Century into an industrial and commercial area. The Crossroads business community thrived for many years, but began to experience a slow decline as Kansas City’s suburban growth accelerated. Many
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
2
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
businesses left the Crossroads for “greenfield” industrial and business parks which offered more flexible development options, rather than the more constrained parcel sizes found within the East Crossroads’ traditional street-grid. The Crossroads neighborhood, specifically the central and western portions, began to be reborn in the 1990s with the arrival of artists in search of inexpensive studio and living space. Galleries began to appear, which helped draw customers and restaurants. Many of the large, historic commercial and industrial buildings that had fallen into disuse and disrepair have been converted to trendy, market-rate apartments. Today, the arts and cultural uses in the central and western portions of the Crossroads have helped attract other creative businesses and technology-based businesses, making the central and western portions of the Crossroads a thriving neighborhood. The East Crossroads has not experienced the same level of neighborhood revitalization. There are a number of underutilized and deteriorating surface parking lots, as well as numerous vacant lots resulting from building demolitions. There are fewer historic commercial and industrial buildings remaining in the East Crossroads. Many of the existing modest commercial buildings may have environmental concerns; many of these same buildings may not qualify as historic structure, thus eliminating both the federal and state historic rehabilitation tax credits as a source of equity for rehabilitation projects. The commercial buildings on the southwest corner of East 21st Street & Grand Boulevard are challenged by the extremely limited supply of on-street parking on Grand Boulevard; these buildings actually have at least two complete floors below their Grand Boulevard level because of the viaduct over the rail yards (in fact, East 21st Street is basically invisible at Grand Boulevard since it is at ground level, not at viaduct level). Development Services prepared a blight analysis of the Plan Area. The following excerpt is from the consultant’s blight study: Many of the “blight” and “insanitary” conditions under Chapter 99 were present in the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Area. These conditions have contributed to a functional obsolescence within the area. Although several structures within the proposed Redevelopment Area are in adequate condition, the area as a whole exhibits deteriorated and substandard conditions. The dominant conditions are:
Outdated building finishes and improvements. Unmaintained exterior building components. Deteriorating and unsafe sidewalks. Degrading and deteriorating masonry. The existence of unsanitary or unsafe conditions within the area, including trash, debris, and excessive graffiti. Lack of good lighting in certain areas of the proposed Redevelopment Area.
Neighborhood and safety issues include deteriorated sidewalk systems, graffiti, trash, and a general deterioration of improvements and public infrastructure. All of the above combine to create economic underutilizations, an inability to generate reasonable taxes, and social liabilities. {File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
3
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
The blight study can be found in Exhibit F of the draft Plan. Staff believes that blighting conditions exist. To revitalize the East Crossroads neighborhood, the Plan’s proponents believe that assistance from the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), consisting of real property tax abatement, will present opportunities to revitalize the East Crossroads neighborhood by stimulating and facilitating private investment in both commercial and residential uses and building upon the architectural appeal, property values and ethnic diversity of these neighborhoods. Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation: As individual projects are brought forward, project proponents will be required to meet with the EDC’s MBE/WBE Compliance Officer to discuss their projects and the LCRA’s Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation requirements. Taxing Jurisdictions: A copy of all project information, financial analysis and draft staff report will be sent to the taxing jurisdiction representatives as individual projects are brought forward for consideration. Other government/statutory agency action: The City Planning Commission approved the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan at its July 7th meeting. City Council will need to approve the Finding of Blight and the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan. DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan stated the project was funded by a developer who owned several projects in the area. He advised that LCRA had only a few footprint projects in the West Crossroads and that it was mainly comprised of PIEA plans. Mr. Long added that there were no undeveloped LCRA projects in the West Crossroads area. Mr. Long then gave an overview of his staff report. He advised that the East Crossroads redevelopment model would differ from its West counterpart. He noted that the western PIEA district covered the East’s area which allowed its residents to apply for the same arts and cultural abatements as their western neighbors. Mr. Potter stated he would waive his copyright statement given the public nature of the blight study. He advised he would also work with Mr. Long to revise the statement for use in future LCRA studies. Mr. Potter advised that although some buildings were in adequate condition, the area as a whole met the statutory requirements for blight. Mr. Long advised the blight study purposefully did not satisfy the statute’s condemnation requirements. He said anyone who wished acquiescence assistance would therefore have to conduct further blight analysis before requesting LCRA’s condemnation power. Mr. Abbott stated he was negotiating several deals to acquire buildings within the East Crossroads. Ms. Aron advised the Crossroads Community Association fully supported Mr. Abbott’s plans for the area. Mr. Abbott stated that LCRA was chosen over PIEA because of PIEA’s prevailing wage requirements.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
4
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED THE FINDING OF BLIGHT IN THE PROPOSED EAST CROSSROADS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED THE EAST CROSSROADS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(RES. NO. 7-1-15) 5.
Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan (Proposed) – Consideration of Approval of a Finding of Blight and the Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan (Bob Long) (Ex. 5) Area Description: The proposed Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Area is generally bounded by East 51st Street on the North, Jackson Avenue on the East, East 54th/East 53rd Streets on the South, and Mersington Avenue on the West, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Plan Description: The proponent of the Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan is CHSB Apartments, LP – an affiliate of Brinshore Development, LLC of Northbrook, Illinois. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood began developing in the early 20th Century, with most of its’ housing construction occurring in the 1950s. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood thrived for many years. Economic and societal changes during the 1960s and 1970s, however, began to change Mount Cleveland and neighborhoods like it. Many long-term residents who could move moved to more suburban areas, following jobs and better schools. This out-migration depressed property values, which made the Mount Cleveland Neighborhood more affordable to lower-income families and attractive to absentee landlords. The original Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan was approved in early 2001 to revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood though the development of 70 units of affordable housing. A local community development corporation intended to acquire vacant parcels and deteriorated housing, demolish the deteriorated housing and replace it with 70 units for low-/mod.-income residents. The local community development corporation had assembled a number of parcels for redevelopment as housing and replatted the property in 2006. A great deal of demolition of deteriorated housing occurred between 2006 to 2008, but the local community development corporation then encountered a number of difficulties over a period of several years and eventually gave the parcels to the City. During the same time period, the Kansas City Public Schools closed a number of schools, including J.S. Chick Elementary at East 53rd Street & Jackson Avenue, as a costcutting measure. Although the school district sought reuse proposals for Chick Elementary, the poor condition of the building and the lack of viable reuse proposals eventually lead to the demolition of the J.S. Chick Elementary building in 2014. The loss of the neighborhood school and its demolition, combined with the failure of the housing
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
5
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
redevelopment efforts by the local community development corporation, have only reinforced the perception of disinvestment and blight within the eastern portion of the Mount Cleveland neighborhood. CHSB Apartments, LP, an affiliate of Brinshore Development, LLC of Northbrook, Illinois, has proposed the Cleveland Heights affordable senior housing project, which would be built on the southeast corner of East 51st Street & Mersington Avenue. The Kansas City Homesteading Authority is now in possession of the vacant parcels formerly held by the local community development corporation. The site formerly occupied by Chick Elementary presents an opportunity for development of additional housing. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood is well-positioned to benefit from these possibilities. APD Urban Planning & Management prepared a blight analysis of the Plan Area. The following excerpt is from the consultant’s blight study: A predominance of the components of the Chapter 99 definitions were in the proposed amended Mt. Cleveland Redevelopment Area. Although some elements of the Study Area are in adequate or sound condition, deterioration of the few remaining homes, neglect of properties that has led to widespread weeds and unsafe conditions, and the lack of a good street network and pedestrian circulation exist throughout the Study Area as a whole, all of which could lead the legislative body to a finding that the proposed amended redevelopment area is blighted. The dominant blighting factors in the proposed redevelopment area include: (1) defective or inadequate street layout, including the lack of a street network and sidewalks that does not provide access – vehicular or pedestrian – to many properties within the interior of the Study Area; (2) the presence of unsafe or unsanitary conditions, primarily as a result of overgrown vegetation throughout the Study Area and some broken/cracked sidewalks that exist along the perimeter of the Study Area; (3) deterioration of site improvements, including deterioration of roofs, windows, and driveways, and the failing of finishes; and (4) declining assessed values and tax revenues. The blight study can be found in Exhibit F of the draft Plan. Staff believes that blighting conditions exist. To revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood, the Plan’s proponents believe that assistance from the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), consisting of real property tax abatement, will present opportunities to revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood by stimulating and facilitating private investment in residential uses. Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation: Project proponents will be required to meet with the EDC’s MBE/WBE Compliance Officer to discuss their projects and the LCRA’s Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation requirements. Taxing Jurisdictions: A copy of all project information, financial analysis and draft staff report will be sent to the taxing jurisdiction representatives as residential and multifamily projects are brought forward for consideration. {File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
6
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
Other government/statutory agency action: The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the proposed Urban Renewal Plan at its July 21st meeting. City Council will need to approve the Finding of Blight and the proposed Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long gave an overview of his staff report, noting that the proposed plan was amended and restated. He advised the original 2001 plan was halted by the 2008 recession and was never able to restart. He said the school’s demolition in 2014 also contributed to the area’s decline. Mr. Long stated the only changes to the original plan were the addition of the school and senior housing sites. He added that no plans had been made to date for the school’s redevelopment. Mr. Long advised that Brinshore Development was working with the Housing Authority (“HAKC”) on several other projects as well as the Mount Cleveland development. He advised the Mount Cleveland developments would be mostly single-family housing and necessarily long-term. He said HAKC’s ownership of the Mount Cleveland properties would help streamline the project, as it had more flexibility than the City in disposal of properties. Mr. Long added that HAKC could also apply for PIAC funding. Mr. Duffy asked Mr. Engel if the Board needed to make a specific finding of blight for only the added portion given the original plan’s previous blight finding. Mr. Engel replied that because the study made a parcel by parcel evaluation, such finding was not necessary. Mr. Hamilton stated the area was redefined by the amended and restated agreement and was covered by the new blight study. Mr. Duffy said a separate determination would not delay the process. Mr. Egan confirmed with Mr. Sterrett that a preponderance of the new area was blighted. Mr. Sterrett advised that tax-exempt entities owned 53 of the 93 parcels in the 30 acre Mount Cleveland area. He said that 19 of the area’s 40 private property owners were delinquent on their property taxes. Mr. Sterrett stated that the predominant blighting factors were inadequate street layout and unsafe conditions. He advised that 82 of the 93 properties had poor pedestrian walkways, curbs, gutters and overgrown vegetation. Mr. Sterrett concluded his report by stating that about 34% of the properties exhibited roof, fence, street, and driveway deterioration. Mr. Hamilton suggested termination of the existing plan to negate Mr. Duffy’s concerns about the extent of the blight findings. Mr. Sterrett stated that the absence of visual home improvement for the 23 single family homes in the area indicated none had received tax abatement assistance. Mr. Duffy advised he was hesitant about termination of an existing plan. Mr. Long advised the City Planning Commission recently approved the plan, but did not make any blight recommendations. He stated that CHSB would probably present its specific plans for the area at next month’s Board meeting. Mr. Duffy advised Mr. Lieberman he did not need to testify at this time. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED FINDING OF BLIGHT IN THE AMENDED RESTATED MOUNT CLEVELAND URBAN AND RENEWAL PLAN AREA AND MORE SPECIFICALLY,
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
7
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
THAT THE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED VIA THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING URBAN RENEWAL AREA ARE THEMSELVES BLIGHTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED MOUNT CLEVELAND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-2-15) 6.
Administrative a.
Consideration of Approval of a Modification of the Workable Program (Bob Long) Situation Description: Tim Clemons, a successful local rehabber, is considering a few housing rehab projects in the Troost Paseo Urban Renewal Area. There are two three-plexes and a 12-unit apartment building, all in common ownership. In one of the three-plexes, the property owner occupies one unit, while a second unit is occupied by additional family members. The two three-plexes were about to go to sale on the Courthouse steps for back taxes, however, Mr. Clemons structured a deal which resulted in him gaining control of one three-plex and the 12-unit apartment building, but kept the original property owner and family members in ownership of and residing in the other three-plex. Mr. Clemons has also successfully obtained RAMP funding for the rehabilitation of all three of these properties. The Authority’s current Workable Program currently allows administrative approval of property tax abatement for a duplex in which the property owner resides in one of the two units. Properties eligible for administrative approval of property tax abatement are also not subject to the Authority’s MBE/WBE and Workforce Participation requirements. Since this is a three-plex, this particular property does not qualify for administrative approval of property tax abatement. Under the existing Workable Program, it would be necessary to first conduct an independent financial analysis (at a cost of several thousand dollars) in order to determine if property tax abatement is necessary to make a project feasible. Assuming the financial analysis indicated property tax abatement was appropriate, it would then be necessary to submit a $1,300 Redevelopment Project Application with the Authority in order to seek approval of a Redevelopment Contract for the project. All told, this could cost approximately $5,000 and take two to three months.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
8
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
Proposed Solution: Staff proposes a modification of the Workable Program that would allow the Executive Director to approve property tax abatement for multifamily residential properties with up to four (4) units if the property owner resides within the property and at least one additional unit is occupied by a family member(s). This modification is likely to have limited application. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long gave an overview of the staff report. Mr. Egan advised the LCRA adhered to the AdvanceKC policy which required a third-party financial analysis for every project unless administratively approved. Mr. Egan and Mr. Long said staff resources were not sufficient to conduct such in-house financial analyses. Mr. Duffy stated that AdvanceKC would have to approve in-house financial analysis for projects under $2,000,000. ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADVANCEKC THAT LCRA AMEND ITS WORKABLE PROGRAM POLICY TO PERMIT IN-HOUSE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT COSTS TOTALING LESS THAN TWO MILLION DOLLARS. MOTION MADE BY MR. DUFFY, SECONDED BY MR. HAMILTON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-3-15) FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan stated the lending industry routinely defined single family as one to four owner-occupied units and multi-family as 5 units and above. He suggested LCRA administrative approval should follow these guidelines. He further advised that the $300,000 and $117,000 M/WBE thresholds should be maintained for all administratively approved projects. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Egan agreed family member occupancy of a second unit was not needed. Ms. Dorch requested the inclusion of the Small Local Business Enterprise Program (“SLBE”) in the revised policy. Ms. Rayford advised SLBE policies were not previously applied to developers as Mr. Yelder considered it an unnecessary imposition. Ms. Dorch advised she would discuss the matter with staff and report to the Board at a later date. b.
Executive Director’s Report - Active Projects Tracking System Report (Joe Egan) (Ex. 6B-1 and 6B-2) DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan reported that work had not yet started on the Interstate Building at 13th and Locust. Mr. Long advised another Patel project, the Gumbel Building, was almost complete. Mr. Egan stated the Faxon School project had begun and only needed to be monitored. He said construction had finally started on the Morningstar project and the Key Coalition plan had been approved by the City Council. Mr. Egan advised that LCRA would be heavily involved in the development of Linwood Shopping Center. He said resultant staffing and/or consultant issues would therefore
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
9
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
need to be determined for the project partially because of the overlay of TIF and EATS issues. He concluded his report by stating that Mr. Bracker was doing a superb job in leading the Vacant Properties Coalition and Pickwick was scheduled to close on July 31, 2015. ACTION TAKEN: c.
NONE; INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Affirmative Action Subcommittee Report (Sandra Rayford and Carl Boyd) DISCUSSION: Ms. Rayford said the committee had not met this month and there was no report. ACTION TAKEN:
d.
NONE; INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Central Business District URA/911 – 921 Main Street (Commerce Tower) – Approval of Review Appraiser - Commerce Tower Leasehold Acquisition (Bob Long) (Ex. 6D) Tim Keller of Keller, Craig & Associates, Inc. responded to an LCRA Request for Qualifications to perform review appraisal services in furtherance of the Commerce Tower Group, LLC’s redevelopment of Commerce Tower. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long advised LCRA received only one response to its Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for a review appraiser. He said the RFQ was e-mailed to 5 or 6 firms from TIF’s list of qualified companies. He conceded the sole response may have been caused by the one week response deadline. Ms. Rayford further advised that the TIF list had not been updated in more than 6 years and did not include any current M/WBE companies. Mr. Egan said the expedited timeline was caused by the substantial vacancy of the building and its resultant costs and no revenue for the developer. He added that construction needed to begin shortly or it would no longer be feasible to do so. Mr. Egan stated that both CVS and Commerce Tower had only threatened litigation but neither had filed with the court. He advised that a member of the Downtown Council was attempting to arbitrate between the two parties. Mr. Hamilton stated that the bid should be reissued to follow LCRA policy and allow response by M/WBE companies. Mr. White advised the project should not be delayed by staff oversight. Mr. Egan suggested proceeding with Mr. Keller’s appointment and updating the list afterwards. Ms. Dorch reported that the City database showed only one M/WBE review appraiser of the five listed was certified. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED TIMOTHY J. KELLER AND KELLER, CRAIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. AS REVIEW APPRAISER REGARDING THE COMMERCE TOWER LEASEHOLD ACQUISITION. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON,
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
10
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-4-15) 7.
AND
CARRIED
Truman & Wyandotte Urban Renewal Plan - Consideration of Amendment to LCRA Bond Policy in Connection With Issuance of Bonds for the Proposed Downtown Convention Center Hotel Project. (Brian Engel) The LCRA approved a bond intent resolution at its June 2015 meeting in connection with the issuance of bonds as part of the financing for the proposed Downtown Convention Center Hotel project. As part of the bond intent resolution, LCRA approved the preliminary and nonbinding engagement of a designated underwriter. The engagement letter has not been finalized or executed by either party. The amendment to the LCRA bond policy is intended to clarify the procurement process for bond professionals and to introduce the selection of a financial advisor to provide financial advisory services to the LCRA with respect to the proposed structure and terms of a bond issue. DISCUSSION: Mr. Engel advised the initial intent of the policy amendment was to align LCRA with TIF policy. As a result of further discussions with staff, the developer, and the City, he said, an amendment was not needed at this time. He was therefore only requesting that the Board authorize a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for underwriter services regarding the hotel bonds. Ms. Rayford and Mr. Engel stated the bond underwriter list of approved companies was up-to-date and included M/WBE firms. Mr. Engel confirmed the M/WBE 15 calendar day turnaround requirement could be met if the RFP was issued by July 24, 2015. ACTION TAKEN:
AUTHORIZED SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FROM QUALIFIED UNDERWRITERS, FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND BOND COUNSEL FROM LISTS MAINTAINED BY EDC FOR UNDERWRITER SERVICES REGARDING THE BONDS FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT IN THE TRUMAN & WYANDOTTE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-515)
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m.
Joseph F. Egan, Secretary
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
11
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
SUMMARY OF TO DO STUFF FROM 7/22/15 LCRA MEETING No. 4.
Item East Crossroads
By Bob
5.
Mount Cleveland
Bob
Admin
Joe Bob AD
6(a)
Due
8/19
To Do Forward East Crossroads URP to City Council with recommendation of approval Forward proposed amended and restated Mount Cleveland URP to City Council with recommendation of approval Work with Andrea Dorch and HRD to revise LCRA Workable Program Policy to include SLBE and admin approval for TA for 1 to 4 owner-occupied units; also $300,000 and $117,000 MWBE thresholds. Recommend to AdvanceKC that it amend its policy to permit inhouse financial analysis for projects under $2M
6(b) Linwood Shopping Center 6(d) Admin
Joe
* Include on 8/22 agenda? Staffing and/or consultant issues re project
Joe Bob
Update EDC lists re approved companies for various bid areas Note M/WBE 15 calendar day turnaround requirement
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
12
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
APPROVED 10/28/15
APPROVED 9/23/15
APPROVED 10/28/15
APPROVED 11/18/15
APPROVED 12/16/15
APPROVED 1/27/16
APPROVED 2/25/15
APPROVED 3/25/15
APPROVED 4/22/15
177692.PDF
APPROVED 5/22/15
APPROVED 5/22/15
APPROVED 6/24/15
APPROVED 7/22/15
APPROVED 8/26/15 LAND CLEARANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
www.edckc.com
BOARD MEETING MINUTES DATE: TIME: PLACE: 1.
July 22, 2015 9:30 a.m. Town Pavilion, Jackson Room 1100 Walnut, 17th Floor, Kansas City, Missouri
Roll Call. Present:
Michael Duffy Steve Hamilton James White (via telephone)
Absent:
Daniel Edwards Gabriel Okafor
Staff:
Joseph Egan, LCRA Susan Tumey, LCRA Carl Boyd, EDC Greg Flisram, EDC Bob Langenkamp, EDC Robert Long, EDC T’Risa McCord, EDC Sandra Rayford, EDC
Guests:
Matt Abbott, Abbott Properties Todd Lieberman, CHSB Apartments, LP Andrea Dorch, City of Kansas City Human Relations Dept. Ray Miller, Cochran, Head & Vick Suzie Aron, Crossroads Community Association Jim Potter, Development Initiatives Diane Stafford, Kansas City Star Pat Sterrett, Sterrett Urban Brian Engel, White Goss
Chairman Duffy called to order the Board of Commissioners of Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority and declared a quorum was present. 2.
Administrative - Review and approval of Meeting Minutes (Ex. 2) Minutes of the June 24, 2015 meeting were provided for review prior to the meeting. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 24, 2015, AS PRESENTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
3.
Financial - Review and acceptance of Financial Report for the month of June, 2015 (Cochran, Head, Vick & Co.) (Ex. 3) The representative from Cochran, Head, Vick & Co. gave a brief overview of the draft financial report for June, 2015, which was provided for review prior to the meeting. DISCUSSION: Mr. Miller advised the general cash account balance of $227,000 included $92,000 from the Longfellow Heights closing. Mr. Egan said the City Housing and Planning & Zoning departments were considering applying the Longfellow Heights monies to the Beacon Hill project. He said he would advise once the City made a decision on the matter. Mr. Egan stated that Longfellow was refinancing its 40year note and LCRA discounted its subordinate third mortgage to $92,000 to help ensure its payment. He added that Integra had confirmed that $92,000 was in market range for the project. Mr. Miller stated that developers were being successfully billed for expenses outside their respective Funding Agreements. He said Ms. Schach’s billings were included in the LCRA budget because of their minimal nature. Mr. Egan said that Chapter 353’s inclusion also resulted from the two programs having the same Board and staff. He stated that developer payments and 353 fees generated the necessary funds to pay for Ms. Schach’s services. Mr. Miller concluded his report by advising that LCRA showed $124 in income because the fiscal year was only two months old and few ReBuild KC lots had been sold. Mr. Egan advised that Beacon Hill lots in the northwest quarter were almost sold out and the southwest quarter had about 70 to 80 lots remaining for sale. ACTION TAKEN:
4.
ACCEPTED THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JUNE, 2015, AS PRESENTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan (Proposed) – Consideration of Approval of a Finding of Blight and the East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan (Bob Long) (Ex. 4) Area Description: The proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Area is generally bound by I-670 on the North, 71 Highway/Bruce R. Watkins Drive on the East, the Kansas City Terminal Railway tracks/Holmes Street/East 20th Street/Cherry Street/East 18th Street on the South, and Oak Street/East 16th Street/Locust Street on the East, as well as the two parcels on the southwest corner of East 21st Street and Grand Boulevard, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Plan Description: The proponent of the East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan is Crossroads East, LLC. The East Crossroads is part of Kansas City’s Crossroads neighborhood. The Crossroads began developing in the late 19th Century - early 20th Century into an industrial and commercial area. The Crossroads business community thrived for many years, but began to experience a slow decline as Kansas City’s suburban growth accelerated. Many
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
2
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
businesses left the Crossroads for “greenfield” industrial and business parks which offered more flexible development options, rather than the more constrained parcel sizes found within the East Crossroads’ traditional street-grid. The Crossroads neighborhood, specifically the central and western portions, began to be reborn in the 1990s with the arrival of artists in search of inexpensive studio and living space. Galleries began to appear, which helped draw customers and restaurants. Many of the large, historic commercial and industrial buildings that had fallen into disuse and disrepair have been converted to trendy, market-rate apartments. Today, the arts and cultural uses in the central and western portions of the Crossroads have helped attract other creative businesses and technology-based businesses, making the central and western portions of the Crossroads a thriving neighborhood. The East Crossroads has not experienced the same level of neighborhood revitalization. There are a number of underutilized and deteriorating surface parking lots, as well as numerous vacant lots resulting from building demolitions. There are fewer historic commercial and industrial buildings remaining in the East Crossroads. Many of the existing modest commercial buildings may have environmental concerns; many of these same buildings may not qualify as historic structure, thus eliminating both the federal and state historic rehabilitation tax credits as a source of equity for rehabilitation projects. The commercial buildings on the southwest corner of East 21st Street & Grand Boulevard are challenged by the extremely limited supply of on-street parking on Grand Boulevard; these buildings actually have at least two complete floors below their Grand Boulevard level because of the viaduct over the rail yards (in fact, East 21st Street is basically invisible at Grand Boulevard since it is at ground level, not at viaduct level). Development Services prepared a blight analysis of the Plan Area. The following excerpt is from the consultant’s blight study: Many of the “blight” and “insanitary” conditions under Chapter 99 were present in the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Area. These conditions have contributed to a functional obsolescence within the area. Although several structures within the proposed Redevelopment Area are in adequate condition, the area as a whole exhibits deteriorated and substandard conditions. The dominant conditions are:
Outdated building finishes and improvements. Unmaintained exterior building components. Deteriorating and unsafe sidewalks. Degrading and deteriorating masonry. The existence of unsanitary or unsafe conditions within the area, including trash, debris, and excessive graffiti. Lack of good lighting in certain areas of the proposed Redevelopment Area.
Neighborhood and safety issues include deteriorated sidewalk systems, graffiti, trash, and a general deterioration of improvements and public infrastructure. All of the above combine to create economic underutilizations, an inability to generate reasonable taxes, and social liabilities. {File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
3
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
The blight study can be found in Exhibit F of the draft Plan. Staff believes that blighting conditions exist. To revitalize the East Crossroads neighborhood, the Plan’s proponents believe that assistance from the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), consisting of real property tax abatement, will present opportunities to revitalize the East Crossroads neighborhood by stimulating and facilitating private investment in both commercial and residential uses and building upon the architectural appeal, property values and ethnic diversity of these neighborhoods. Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation: As individual projects are brought forward, project proponents will be required to meet with the EDC’s MBE/WBE Compliance Officer to discuss their projects and the LCRA’s Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation requirements. Taxing Jurisdictions: A copy of all project information, financial analysis and draft staff report will be sent to the taxing jurisdiction representatives as individual projects are brought forward for consideration. Other government/statutory agency action: The City Planning Commission approved the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan at its July 7th meeting. City Council will need to approve the Finding of Blight and the proposed East Crossroads Urban Renewal Plan. DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan stated the project was funded by a developer who owned several projects in the area. He advised that LCRA had only a few footprint projects in the West Crossroads and that it was mainly comprised of PIEA plans. Mr. Long added that there were no undeveloped LCRA projects in the West Crossroads area. Mr. Long then gave an overview of his staff report. He advised that the East Crossroads redevelopment model would differ from its West counterpart. He noted that the western PIEA district covered the East’s area which allowed its residents to apply for the same arts and cultural abatements as their western neighbors. Mr. Potter stated he would waive his copyright statement given the public nature of the blight study. He advised he would also work with Mr. Long to revise the statement for use in future LCRA studies. Mr. Potter advised that although some buildings were in adequate condition, the area as a whole met the statutory requirements for blight. Mr. Long advised the blight study purposefully did not satisfy the statute’s condemnation requirements. He said anyone who wished acquiescence assistance would therefore have to conduct further blight analysis before requesting LCRA’s condemnation power. Mr. Abbott stated he was negotiating several deals to acquire buildings within the East Crossroads. Ms. Aron advised the Crossroads Community Association fully supported Mr. Abbott’s plans for the area. Mr. Abbott stated that LCRA was chosen over PIEA because of PIEA’s prevailing wage requirements.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
4
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED THE FINDING OF BLIGHT IN THE PROPOSED EAST CROSSROADS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED THE EAST CROSSROADS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(RES. NO. 7-1-15) 5.
Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan (Proposed) – Consideration of Approval of a Finding of Blight and the Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan (Bob Long) (Ex. 5) Area Description: The proposed Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Area is generally bounded by East 51st Street on the North, Jackson Avenue on the East, East 54th/East 53rd Streets on the South, and Mersington Avenue on the West, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Plan Description: The proponent of the Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan is CHSB Apartments, LP – an affiliate of Brinshore Development, LLC of Northbrook, Illinois. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood began developing in the early 20th Century, with most of its’ housing construction occurring in the 1950s. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood thrived for many years. Economic and societal changes during the 1960s and 1970s, however, began to change Mount Cleveland and neighborhoods like it. Many long-term residents who could move moved to more suburban areas, following jobs and better schools. This out-migration depressed property values, which made the Mount Cleveland Neighborhood more affordable to lower-income families and attractive to absentee landlords. The original Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan was approved in early 2001 to revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood though the development of 70 units of affordable housing. A local community development corporation intended to acquire vacant parcels and deteriorated housing, demolish the deteriorated housing and replace it with 70 units for low-/mod.-income residents. The local community development corporation had assembled a number of parcels for redevelopment as housing and replatted the property in 2006. A great deal of demolition of deteriorated housing occurred between 2006 to 2008, but the local community development corporation then encountered a number of difficulties over a period of several years and eventually gave the parcels to the City. During the same time period, the Kansas City Public Schools closed a number of schools, including J.S. Chick Elementary at East 53rd Street & Jackson Avenue, as a costcutting measure. Although the school district sought reuse proposals for Chick Elementary, the poor condition of the building and the lack of viable reuse proposals eventually lead to the demolition of the J.S. Chick Elementary building in 2014. The loss of the neighborhood school and its demolition, combined with the failure of the housing
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
5
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
redevelopment efforts by the local community development corporation, have only reinforced the perception of disinvestment and blight within the eastern portion of the Mount Cleveland neighborhood. CHSB Apartments, LP, an affiliate of Brinshore Development, LLC of Northbrook, Illinois, has proposed the Cleveland Heights affordable senior housing project, which would be built on the southeast corner of East 51st Street & Mersington Avenue. The Kansas City Homesteading Authority is now in possession of the vacant parcels formerly held by the local community development corporation. The site formerly occupied by Chick Elementary presents an opportunity for development of additional housing. The Mount Cleveland neighborhood is well-positioned to benefit from these possibilities. APD Urban Planning & Management prepared a blight analysis of the Plan Area. The following excerpt is from the consultant’s blight study: A predominance of the components of the Chapter 99 definitions were in the proposed amended Mt. Cleveland Redevelopment Area. Although some elements of the Study Area are in adequate or sound condition, deterioration of the few remaining homes, neglect of properties that has led to widespread weeds and unsafe conditions, and the lack of a good street network and pedestrian circulation exist throughout the Study Area as a whole, all of which could lead the legislative body to a finding that the proposed amended redevelopment area is blighted. The dominant blighting factors in the proposed redevelopment area include: (1) defective or inadequate street layout, including the lack of a street network and sidewalks that does not provide access – vehicular or pedestrian – to many properties within the interior of the Study Area; (2) the presence of unsafe or unsanitary conditions, primarily as a result of overgrown vegetation throughout the Study Area and some broken/cracked sidewalks that exist along the perimeter of the Study Area; (3) deterioration of site improvements, including deterioration of roofs, windows, and driveways, and the failing of finishes; and (4) declining assessed values and tax revenues. The blight study can be found in Exhibit F of the draft Plan. Staff believes that blighting conditions exist. To revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood, the Plan’s proponents believe that assistance from the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), consisting of real property tax abatement, will present opportunities to revitalize the Mount Cleveland neighborhood by stimulating and facilitating private investment in residential uses. Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation: Project proponents will be required to meet with the EDC’s MBE/WBE Compliance Officer to discuss their projects and the LCRA’s Affirmative Action Policy and MBE/WBE Participation requirements. Taxing Jurisdictions: A copy of all project information, financial analysis and draft staff report will be sent to the taxing jurisdiction representatives as residential and multifamily projects are brought forward for consideration. {File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
6
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
Other government/statutory agency action: The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the proposed Urban Renewal Plan at its July 21st meeting. City Council will need to approve the Finding of Blight and the proposed Mount Cleveland Urban Renewal Plan. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long gave an overview of his staff report, noting that the proposed plan was amended and restated. He advised the original 2001 plan was halted by the 2008 recession and was never able to restart. He said the school’s demolition in 2014 also contributed to the area’s decline. Mr. Long stated the only changes to the original plan were the addition of the school and senior housing sites. He added that no plans had been made to date for the school’s redevelopment. Mr. Long advised that Brinshore Development was working with the Housing Authority (“HAKC”) on several other projects as well as the Mount Cleveland development. He advised the Mount Cleveland developments would be mostly single-family housing and necessarily long-term. He said HAKC’s ownership of the Mount Cleveland properties would help streamline the project, as it had more flexibility than the City in disposal of properties. Mr. Long added that HAKC could also apply for PIAC funding. Mr. Duffy asked Mr. Engel if the Board needed to make a specific finding of blight for only the added portion given the original plan’s previous blight finding. Mr. Engel replied that because the study made a parcel by parcel evaluation, such finding was not necessary. Mr. Hamilton stated the area was redefined by the amended and restated agreement and was covered by the new blight study. Mr. Duffy said a separate determination would not delay the process. Mr. Egan confirmed with Mr. Sterrett that a preponderance of the new area was blighted. Mr. Sterrett advised that tax-exempt entities owned 53 of the 93 parcels in the 30 acre Mount Cleveland area. He said that 19 of the area’s 40 private property owners were delinquent on their property taxes. Mr. Sterrett stated that the predominant blighting factors were inadequate street layout and unsafe conditions. He advised that 82 of the 93 properties had poor pedestrian walkways, curbs, gutters and overgrown vegetation. Mr. Sterrett concluded his report by stating that about 34% of the properties exhibited roof, fence, street, and driveway deterioration. Mr. Hamilton suggested termination of the existing plan to negate Mr. Duffy’s concerns about the extent of the blight findings. Mr. Sterrett stated that the absence of visual home improvement for the 23 single family homes in the area indicated none had received tax abatement assistance. Mr. Duffy advised he was hesitant about termination of an existing plan. Mr. Long advised the City Planning Commission recently approved the plan, but did not make any blight recommendations. He stated that CHSB would probably present its specific plans for the area at next month’s Board meeting. Mr. Duffy advised Mr. Lieberman he did not need to testify at this time. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED FINDING OF BLIGHT IN THE AMENDED RESTATED MOUNT CLEVELAND URBAN AND RENEWAL PLAN AREA AND MORE SPECIFICALLY,
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
7
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
THAT THE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED VIA THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING URBAN RENEWAL AREA ARE THEMSELVES BLIGHTED. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED MOUNT CLEVELAND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND FORWARDING IT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-2-15) 6.
Administrative a.
Consideration of Approval of a Modification of the Workable Program (Bob Long) Situation Description: Tim Clemons, a successful local rehabber, is considering a few housing rehab projects in the Troost Paseo Urban Renewal Area. There are two three-plexes and a 12-unit apartment building, all in common ownership. In one of the three-plexes, the property owner occupies one unit, while a second unit is occupied by additional family members. The two three-plexes were about to go to sale on the Courthouse steps for back taxes, however, Mr. Clemons structured a deal which resulted in him gaining control of one three-plex and the 12-unit apartment building, but kept the original property owner and family members in ownership of and residing in the other three-plex. Mr. Clemons has also successfully obtained RAMP funding for the rehabilitation of all three of these properties. The Authority’s current Workable Program currently allows administrative approval of property tax abatement for a duplex in which the property owner resides in one of the two units. Properties eligible for administrative approval of property tax abatement are also not subject to the Authority’s MBE/WBE and Workforce Participation requirements. Since this is a three-plex, this particular property does not qualify for administrative approval of property tax abatement. Under the existing Workable Program, it would be necessary to first conduct an independent financial analysis (at a cost of several thousand dollars) in order to determine if property tax abatement is necessary to make a project feasible. Assuming the financial analysis indicated property tax abatement was appropriate, it would then be necessary to submit a $1,300 Redevelopment Project Application with the Authority in order to seek approval of a Redevelopment Contract for the project. All told, this could cost approximately $5,000 and take two to three months.
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
8
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
Proposed Solution: Staff proposes a modification of the Workable Program that would allow the Executive Director to approve property tax abatement for multifamily residential properties with up to four (4) units if the property owner resides within the property and at least one additional unit is occupied by a family member(s). This modification is likely to have limited application. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long gave an overview of the staff report. Mr. Egan advised the LCRA adhered to the AdvanceKC policy which required a third-party financial analysis for every project unless administratively approved. Mr. Egan and Mr. Long said staff resources were not sufficient to conduct such in-house financial analyses. Mr. Duffy stated that AdvanceKC would have to approve in-house financial analysis for projects under $2,000,000. ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADVANCEKC THAT LCRA AMEND ITS WORKABLE PROGRAM POLICY TO PERMIT IN-HOUSE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT COSTS TOTALING LESS THAN TWO MILLION DOLLARS. MOTION MADE BY MR. DUFFY, SECONDED BY MR. HAMILTON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-3-15) FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan stated the lending industry routinely defined single family as one to four owner-occupied units and multi-family as 5 units and above. He suggested LCRA administrative approval should follow these guidelines. He further advised that the $300,000 and $117,000 M/WBE thresholds should be maintained for all administratively approved projects. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Egan agreed family member occupancy of a second unit was not needed. Ms. Dorch requested the inclusion of the Small Local Business Enterprise Program (“SLBE”) in the revised policy. Ms. Rayford advised SLBE policies were not previously applied to developers as Mr. Yelder considered it an unnecessary imposition. Ms. Dorch advised she would discuss the matter with staff and report to the Board at a later date. b.
Executive Director’s Report - Active Projects Tracking System Report (Joe Egan) (Ex. 6B-1 and 6B-2) DISCUSSION: Mr. Egan reported that work had not yet started on the Interstate Building at 13th and Locust. Mr. Long advised another Patel project, the Gumbel Building, was almost complete. Mr. Egan stated the Faxon School project had begun and only needed to be monitored. He said construction had finally started on the Morningstar project and the Key Coalition plan had been approved by the City Council. Mr. Egan advised that LCRA would be heavily involved in the development of Linwood Shopping Center. He said resultant staffing and/or consultant issues would therefore
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
9
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
need to be determined for the project partially because of the overlay of TIF and EATS issues. He concluded his report by stating that Mr. Bracker was doing a superb job in leading the Vacant Properties Coalition and Pickwick was scheduled to close on July 31, 2015. ACTION TAKEN: c.
NONE; INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Affirmative Action Subcommittee Report (Sandra Rayford and Carl Boyd) DISCUSSION: Ms. Rayford said the committee had not met this month and there was no report. ACTION TAKEN:
d.
NONE; INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Central Business District URA/911 – 921 Main Street (Commerce Tower) – Approval of Review Appraiser - Commerce Tower Leasehold Acquisition (Bob Long) (Ex. 6D) Tim Keller of Keller, Craig & Associates, Inc. responded to an LCRA Request for Qualifications to perform review appraisal services in furtherance of the Commerce Tower Group, LLC’s redevelopment of Commerce Tower. DISCUSSION: Mr. Long advised LCRA received only one response to its Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for a review appraiser. He said the RFQ was e-mailed to 5 or 6 firms from TIF’s list of qualified companies. He conceded the sole response may have been caused by the one week response deadline. Ms. Rayford further advised that the TIF list had not been updated in more than 6 years and did not include any current M/WBE companies. Mr. Egan said the expedited timeline was caused by the substantial vacancy of the building and its resultant costs and no revenue for the developer. He added that construction needed to begin shortly or it would no longer be feasible to do so. Mr. Egan stated that both CVS and Commerce Tower had only threatened litigation but neither had filed with the court. He advised that a member of the Downtown Council was attempting to arbitrate between the two parties. Mr. Hamilton stated that the bid should be reissued to follow LCRA policy and allow response by M/WBE companies. Mr. White advised the project should not be delayed by staff oversight. Mr. Egan suggested proceeding with Mr. Keller’s appointment and updating the list afterwards. Ms. Dorch reported that the City database showed only one M/WBE review appraiser of the five listed was certified. ACTION TAKEN:
APPROVED TIMOTHY J. KELLER AND KELLER, CRAIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. AS REVIEW APPRAISER REGARDING THE COMMERCE TOWER LEASEHOLD ACQUISITION. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON,
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
10
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-4-15) 7.
AND
CARRIED
Truman & Wyandotte Urban Renewal Plan - Consideration of Amendment to LCRA Bond Policy in Connection With Issuance of Bonds for the Proposed Downtown Convention Center Hotel Project. (Brian Engel) The LCRA approved a bond intent resolution at its June 2015 meeting in connection with the issuance of bonds as part of the financing for the proposed Downtown Convention Center Hotel project. As part of the bond intent resolution, LCRA approved the preliminary and nonbinding engagement of a designated underwriter. The engagement letter has not been finalized or executed by either party. The amendment to the LCRA bond policy is intended to clarify the procurement process for bond professionals and to introduce the selection of a financial advisor to provide financial advisory services to the LCRA with respect to the proposed structure and terms of a bond issue. DISCUSSION: Mr. Engel advised the initial intent of the policy amendment was to align LCRA with TIF policy. As a result of further discussions with staff, the developer, and the City, he said, an amendment was not needed at this time. He was therefore only requesting that the Board authorize a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for underwriter services regarding the hotel bonds. Ms. Rayford and Mr. Engel stated the bond underwriter list of approved companies was up-to-date and included M/WBE firms. Mr. Engel confirmed the M/WBE 15 calendar day turnaround requirement could be met if the RFP was issued by July 24, 2015. ACTION TAKEN:
AUTHORIZED SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FROM QUALIFIED UNDERWRITERS, FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND BOND COUNSEL FROM LISTS MAINTAINED BY EDC FOR UNDERWRITER SERVICES REGARDING THE BONDS FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT IN THE TRUMAN & WYANDOTTE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. MOTION MADE BY MR. HAMILTON, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (RES. NO. 7-515)
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m.
Joseph F. Egan, Secretary
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
11
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
SUMMARY OF TO DO STUFF FROM 7/22/15 LCRA MEETING No. 4.
Item East Crossroads
By Bob
5.
Mount Cleveland
Bob
Admin
Joe Bob AD
6(a)
Due
8/19
To Do Forward East Crossroads URP to City Council with recommendation of approval Forward proposed amended and restated Mount Cleveland URP to City Council with recommendation of approval Work with Andrea Dorch and HRD to revise LCRA Workable Program Policy to include SLBE and admin approval for TA for 1 to 4 owner-occupied units; also $300,000 and $117,000 MWBE thresholds. Recommend to AdvanceKC that it amend its policy to permit inhouse financial analysis for projects under $2M
6(b) Linwood Shopping Center 6(d) Admin
Joe
* Include on 8/22 agenda? Staffing and/or consultant issues re project
Joe Bob
Update EDC lists re approved companies for various bid areas Note M/WBE 15 calendar day turnaround requirement
{File: EDCKC/45/ADMIN/ADMIN/99/00179722.DOCX /}
179722
12
LCRA Minutes 7/22/15
APPROVED 10/28/15
APPROVED 9/23/15
APPROVED 10/28/15
APPROVED 11/18/15
APPROVED 12/16/15
APPROVED 1/27/16
