Charlotte City Council
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for January 26, 2012
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Present:
Time:
Red Line
For information only
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
David Howard, John Autry, Patsy Kinsey
1:30 pm – 3:00 pm
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda Package
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee member, Patsy Kinsey, called the meeting to order at 1:45 and asked everyone in the
room to introduce themselves.
I.
Red Line
Kinsey: I’m going to turn this over to Ruffin to introduce the presentation.
Hall: This is a project with a lot of moving parts. Council agreed to refer to the Committee on
January 9. There was a summit of the Redline Proposal in Mooresville on December 13 where
Mark and Katherine reported on behalf of NCDOT. I would like to say thanks to Paul Morris,
Mark and Katherine for their professionalism and responsiveness through this process.
Today’s purpose is to gather questions, and bring the answers back to the February, 23
Committee meeting. The Committee may choose additional questions at the March 12 meeting.
After that, we’ll report out to the full Council at their March 26 or April 9 dinner briefing,
depending on the progress of the Committee.
Paul Morris: We hope that all City of Charlotte entities will look at the draft financial business
plan, and focus on that. Everyone seems to understand the scope of the project, and the business
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 2 of 9
plan doesn’t really get into that. It does pose important policy questions. What would be most
beneficial in this first quarter is for you to thoroughly understand it. Questions, concerns or
prospective changes should go to the consultant and they will consolidate those into what would
be a new consensus version, or it will be composed in a way that will put us into a period of
reconciling any remaining differences. All seven municipalities, CATS and the State will be
asked to vote up or down.
Hall: I wanted to tee up the process before the presentation begins so that you have the
framework about what we are doing. Today is for information sharing, understanding the plan,
and asking questions. We will bring back today’s unanswered questions on February 23, identify
elements of the proposal that the Committee might like to make changes to, and then update
Council.
Briggs: The Redline has been in the Regional Transportation Plan for ten or fifteen years. This is
an established route that needs to go forward. As Paul mentioned, we don’t get into the project
that much because it is fairly well known. This is a way, today, in which we can finance the
project. The responsibility has fallen on the towns to provide the effort to make it happen. The
recession has been painful, and since we are at the lowest point we have been at in a decade or
two, that gives us the opportunity to capture the new development that comes along. Also, the I15 and I-77 corridor is in the center of the path of growth. We think there is a perfect match
between the funding approach in terms of capturing new value, and the fact that we are
projecting $4.9 billion in potential new development over the next several years. I will now turn
the presentation over to Katherine.
Henderson: I'm going to jump quickly into the recommendation about how this will be governed.
From there, Mark will take you through how it will be funded and financed.
Since this (see slide 2) was posted, modifications were made to the map. 24th & Graham is in a
different color because it was under consideration at one time, but it’s not an official station at
this time. The Mount Mourne station in Mooresville has been relocated south to where it says
proposed. That was done by action of the Mooresville Town Board. The pink areas are transit
oriented areas, and the yellow are freight oriented development areas. The hallmark of this
project is designed to move both people and goods, and to support both kinds of associated
development.
Ms. Henderson proceeded with slide 3.
Council member Howard joined the meeting at 1:56.
Howard: Bonds usually have to be backed by something. In this situation with Joint Powers of
Authority (JPA), what backs those bonds?
Henderson: In this case, the JPA is a fire wall that protects all involved local governments so
there is no recourse to them. The State is considering providing a back stop to the JPA.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 3 of 9
Howard: Today, I only want to receive the presentation, get small questions answered, and
saving bigger questions for the next meeting, so let’s leave the back stop until next month since
it’s much more involved.
Ms. Henderson proceeded with slide 9.
Howard: Would you explain why the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) cannot
double as a JPA?
Henderson: The MTC is a policy making entity and this is a project execution. They are very
different types of organizations, but we do have something we are posting tomorrow about the
relationship between the JPA and the MTC. I think it’s also important to note that the two CATS
representatives will be appointed by the MTC, so that would be another point of intersection in
relationship.
Ms. Henderson proceeded with slide 10.
Howard: Would you divide the 2018 project budget of $43.6M between all 9 stations for local
rail related infrastructure improvements (see slide 11)?
Henderson: No. Each project would be very specific. We have the list available of what those
stationary improvements are, and which ones fall within Charlotte. The idea is that we are
making a system that works, so there is no exact proportionality.
Ms. Henderson proceeded with slide 12.
Howard: What are the hurdles we need to cross while under the Perdue administration?
Paul Morris: This project, for reasons unrelated to the gubernatorial election, has a clock ticking.
The local value capture mechanism that Mark is going to talk about, which is designed to
generate revenue for the local share of the project (State: 25%, CATS: 25%, local: 50%) has
legislation that will expire next June (2013). It's called a special assessment tool. That special
assessment is roughly half of the funding. It comes in a different way than the other half, which
is primarily through tax increment financing. In order to secure that, that decision needs to be
completed by the end of the year. Because this is both a funding and a financing package, if you
don’t have the assessment, it doesn’t matter if you have all the rest. The whole finance plan falls
apart. Having said that, the anticipation, which Ruffin indicated to the Committee earlier, of
going through and scrubbing the business and financial plan for the first quarter and adopting in
the second quarter, is really necessary in order to leave six months for all those financial
instruments to be put into place, and to have the JPA formally created. If all of that occurs by
January 1, 2013, the JPA can start doing its job, which is to go out and do the bonding, pick the
partners, secure the financing, and begin to work with the final design and preparation of bids for
construction.
Howard: It would be good to put this in writing as a part of the follow-up.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 4 of 9
Paul Morris: We will do that.
Mr. Briggs proceeded with slide 14.
Howard: Did you say you take into account the rising cost of things over time? Are you saying
you built in escalators to keep us from having to come back over and over again because we did
not budget enough originally (see slide 14)?
Briggs: That is correct. We are also going to talk about some design build finance operating
maintaining approaches. There seems to be concern about cost overruns on the public side, this is
an ideal project to shift that risk to the private sector to carry out. There was a major presentation
by one of my staff who was leading the effort for public /private partnerships in about six
different jurisdictions across the country. There will be another workshop on public/private
partnerships on February 23, and we hope that as many of you as possible will be able to attend.
Howard: Where will that be?
Henderson: We’re open. We're a traveling show, so people tell us where to go.
Howard: We would like for you to present a workshop here.
Henderson: Secure a location and I’ll set it up.
Mr. Briggs proceeded with slide 16.
Howard: Does the 75% of committed incremental taxes go into the JPA to pay off the capital?
Briggs: It goes in to pay off capital and into operations and maintenance. Each jurisdiction
retains 25% for their general fund. 75% goes to the JPA, where it is used both for financing the
project, getting it constructed, and also paying the local share of the operations and maintenance
costs for thirty years.
Howard: Why do the local entities need the 25%? Is that part of the $43.6M?
Briggs: There are costs of services that each jurisdiction provides.
Howard: Is it outside of the $43.6M for the up fit around the stations?
Briggs: Yes. The $43.6M in stationary improvements is included in what gets funded.
Howard: I’m talking about revenues and you are talking about stationary improvements.
Paul Morris: We need some clarification. Part of it is what you can generate, part is what it's
used for, and part of it is when it happens. So, assessments can be started from day one. Tax
increment financing cannot be started until after you’ve actually seen the development around
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 5 of 9
the station. That’s when the revenue increases from the value that has occurred. Assessments can
be used for capital, or operating & maintenance. Tax increment financing can only be used for
capital.
Howard: So at some point, this will throw off 25% to the local bodies?
Paul Morris: All of the current income off of the tax base will stay the same. Of the 75% of the
unique increment generated by this project in development, ¾ will go to the project and ¼ will
stay with the municipality.
Howard: So, you’re talking tax-increment financing (TIF)?
Henderson: Yes.
Hall: Just to clarify, and forgetting about this proposal for a minute, oftentimes 90% goes to the
TIF and 10% stays back for general projects.
Howard: I thought you were talking about assessments, and wondered why you would take more
assessment fees than you need?
Briggs: The assessment process is where 50% of the property owners within the benefit district
who make up at least 66% of the assessed value signed a petition to ask the local jurisdiction to
create the district. There are some exceptions and we are working out the details.
Howard: Residential?
Henderson: No single-family detached residential is included in the assessment district.
Briggs: And no owner-occupied, so if it was a condo or a townhouse, any owner-occupied
residential and single-family detached, whether it’s rented or otherwise, would not be included.
Henderson: It's designed to be income producing properties that are assessed.
Briggs: In that particular case, we were talking about an assessment rate, which is .75 per
hundred of assessed value. The only place where that would be different is a Gateway, because
you already have assessment districts. So what would happen is, the assessment for a Gateway
would only be the differential between what the current assessment level is and .75.
Howard: You are making a really good point. So, when you are talking about assessments, you
are talking about TIF?
Briggs: For a TIF, all the property owner does is pay their property taxes.
Paul Morris: They are two different tools, David.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 6 of 9
Howard: So they overlap, right? 75% of the increased TIFF value makes sense. 75% of the
assessment…
Paul Morris: It’s not percent. It’s millage. You already have special assessments around
Gateway, and what the project would do is recognize those and only increase the amount to
reach 75. There are two or three different districts there, and they have different assessments.
The increase will vary for those. At the end of the day, all businesses or income producing
properties across the entire corridor would all have one assessment at the same rate.
Briggs: 100% of the assessments go the JPA. The only reason the assessment district is created is
to generate additional revenues to go to the JPA. They are two differentials. In the assessment
district, which is an additional levy against the properties, all of that goes to the JPA. In the tax
increment situation, some of it is retained for the general fund, and the balance of it goes to the
JPA.
Howard: It would be helpful if next month you would break out the downtown Gateway area and
talk about it separately? I don’t see that in this presentation. The only extra assessment
downtown is the one that Center City Partners gets. Is there another one?
Hall: No. The references they are making to assessment means the Municipal Service District
(MSD).
Howard: I would like to see that piece broken out in detail.
Briggs: The Charlotte staff is ready to identify all the parcels that make up the unified district
around each one of your stations.
Howard: I assumed the Gateway would be the State property, but now I’m understanding it may
be more.
Paul Morris: It is. We are looking at the State property of being a participant in this. Right now,
because it’s public property, it would not be eligible for either because it's not an income
producing property. Because of the objective of that real estate, both center city blocks could be
purchased, not only to help for infrastructure, but to advance this agenda. We anticipate
participating, not only in station development and construction, but in supporting the local TIF
and the assessment as it relates to this project. There's one caveat that I will share. Because of
Gateway’s unique location in the region, it’s going to have a slightly different rule applied to it
than all the other nine stations. In the other nine stations, the goal is to collect 75% of future
increments, and that 75% will go directly to the project and 75 mills for assessments. Because
Gateway Station has lines to Monroe and Gastonia in the long term vision, we are proposing in
the business plan that instead of 75% going to the Red Line, 25% would go to the Red Line, and
50% would be split two ways and put in reserve for future extension to Monroe and Gastonia.
Gateway would still keep 25% for the station neighborhood improvements, but that’s the
important distinction about that site.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 7 of 9
Howard: (Addressing Carolyn Flowers) In that scenario, we need to figure out how that 50%
could play into what we’re planning regarding the west and southeast corridors. I would like to
flesh out what that means to us.
Carolyn Flowers: Another question is if that funding is going into the JPA, how does it pass back
through to Charlotte and its projects?
Howard: I just heard in that scenario that the State could take the lead on some commuter line to
Monroe.
Paul Morris: That is a possibility. As it relates to our position in this whole transaction, and what
Mark and Katherine didn’t put in are a whole suite of policy questions that we are going to have
to have our Board answer similar to what the City has to answer. Some of these are, is this a onetime deal, or the first of a series of State led and/or partnered commuter rail projects? Not just in
this region, but in all 5 metropolitan regions?
Howard: That’s a State question.
Paul Morris: That’s a Board of Transportation policy question.
Howard: Are they ready to start that now?
Paul Morris: They have started it, and we are making a presentation to the full Board to begin the
policy debate on the first of February.
Briggs: Carolyn, let me specifically respond to you. The policy is for Gateway, and only 25%
goes to the JPA. You can tell the county tax collector where the other two funds need to go.
Flowers: I used to work for a pass through agency, so I wanted to be sure if it’s being passed
through, how exactly it’s being passed through.
Mr. Briggs proceeded with slide 19
Howard: Am I correct in thinking that every one of these stations must have land use plans?
Briggs: Each jurisdiction knows it is in their best interest to be focusing on their stationary plans
around each of the stations.
Henderson: If they want to build local stationary improvement projects such as turn lanes, they
can’t do that without an approved stationary plan.
Howard: I just want to be sure that if we are developing land use plans, everyone has to comply.
Henderson: We agree with you. The JPA will not funnel down money to a municipality until
they have an approved stationary plan.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 8 of 9
Howard: Are you guys going to implement a requirement with land use?
Paul Morris: In many cases, they already have land use zoning in place. Most of the jurisdictions
anticipated this a number of years ago. The current plan does not ask any of the jurisdictions to
go through a new land use plan process to participate. It does require it if they want to take
money back to build some of the stationary improvements themselves.
Howard: Our four stations are going to make money, and at some point if other stations are not
doing the same, then we may be funding other stations. As Michael Barnes said, it needs to be
fair.
Paul Morris: It won't be equitable, but it will be fair. There is only so much opportunity that can
be created around each station.
Briggs: The difference you see between what you see when you get to Cornelius versus what is
going to be at Gateway Station is vastly different.
Howard: But what I see at Griffin Lakes and what I see at Davidson needs to be similar, because
you are counting on that assessment area for all the money.
Henderson: Our assessment calculations are based on current zoning, which has a range in it. But
as Paul says, we heard from Cornelius that they spent five years getting fairly aggressive zoning
in place in anticipation of a station.
Paul Morris: The stationary plan that Davidson is doing is an update to the one they did three or
four years ago.
Howard: Pineville didn't want to participate with the Blue Line because they didn't want the
density around where their station would be.
Paul Morris: All of these communities for the most part do. If you were to characterize them,
more are focused on producing jobs and commerce than they are housing. They are all proposing
to have development, and are zoned for transportation oriented densities and mixes.
Howard: You make a good point.
Henderson: Some of the land masses involved at the northern stations are significantly larger.
People contribute what they have, and that’s why this is a regional system.
Briggs: The activity that’s going to happen in Mooresville is going to be equal the value of
what’s coming out of Gateway Station.
Howard: That makes me feel better.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for October 10, 2011
Page 9 of 9
Henderson: You guys have to decide if this brings the benefit you're looking for to your
constituents. That’s what every jurisdiction up and down the line has to ask.
Mr. Briggs proceeded with slide 21.
Howard: What's the reality of mixed use development happening?
Briggs: We met with all the developers to learn details of what they are planning to build, and we
asked them spread it over the 25 years. Most were pretty conservative. We don’t show anything
happening in Gateway until 2013. We also show Gateway getting developed over 16 years. We
asked the developers to be conservative in what they projected out. We will go back and fine
tune those numbers later this year.
Mr. Briggs proceeded with slide 28, and finished through to slide 46.
Council member Kinsey left the meeting at 3:04.
Howard: I'd like to know what you need from the City of Charlotte. I also need to know from
City staff what the assessment of the risk is. These are questions that can be answered the next
time we come together. I would also like to understand what the land plans are around the
stations.
Autry: How are we engaging the other municipalities?
Howard: We are not. We need to work on the City of Charlotte first.
Paul Morris: All seven municipalities are conducting similar reviews. Each is doing it in a unique
way, but they have the same goal and the same material. Obviously, their impacts and questions
will produce different outcomes. They are all doing it simultaneously. The State is funding for
Mark and Katherine to be available to provide any support that each of them needs.
Briggs: The coordination for the past 1.5 years has been through the Red Line Task Force, which
everybody is a member of. It’s at the mayoral level.
Hall: There is coordination of efforts through the Task Force. The State has been serving with
Mark and Katherine as the convener/organizer of it.
Howard: I have been involved in this for a while, and I'm excited that we have a framework that
fits. Charlotte will be a team player on this one. I also think this could be a model for going in
the southeast direction. Lastly, I would like to invite the full Council for the February 23 meeting
when the Red Line returns.
The meeting adjourned at 3:16.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Thursday, January 26, 2012
1:30 – 3:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room CH-14
Committee Members:
Staff Resource:
David Howard, Chair
Michael Barnes, Vice Chair
John Autry
Warren Cooksey
Patsy Kinsey
Ruffin Hall, Assistant City Manager
AGENDA
I.
Red Line– 90 minutes
Resources: Katherine Henderson & Mark Briggs
The review period for the Red Line Regional Rail Draft Business/Finance Plan is ongoing
in each of the nine jurisdictions proposed to participate in the project. As part of the
Charlotte review process, project consultants Mark Briggs (Parsons Brinckerhoff
Advisory Services) and Katherine Henderson (KKH Consulting) will present to the TAP
Committee the details of the proposed funding, financing and governance structure for
this project. The presentation will conclude with policy questions for the Committee's
review, followed by discussion.
Action: For information
Attachments: 1. Red Line Regional Rail Project.ppt
2. Red Line Proposal Questions.doc
Link to the Red Line Regional Rail Project website: http://redlineregionalrail.org/
Attachment: Bicycle Advisory Committee Annual Report– Information Only
Attachment: Zoning Board of Adjustment Annual Report– Information Only
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, February 13, 2012 – 3:30 p.m.
Distribution:
Mayor & City Council
Transportation Cabinet
Curt Walton, City Manager
Katherine Henderson
Leadership Team
Mark Briggs
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Red Line Regional Rail Project
North Corridor: Mooresville to Charlotte
Funding, Financing and Governance
Funding Financing and Governance
Charlotte Transportation and Planning Committee
Charlotte, NC
January 26, 2012
Mark Briggs, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Katherine Henderson, KKH Consulting
Slide 1
Red Line Regional Rail
Unified Benefit District (UBD)
District (UBD)
Slide 2
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
Governance: Joint Powers Authority
Governance:
Joint Powers Authority
Funding and Finance Plan
Recommendations
Process/Next Steps
Slide 3
GOVERNANCE:
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Slide 4
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Joint Powers Authority Recommendations
• Limited‐power regional entity formed for the single purpose of executing
for the single purpose of executing the Red Line Regional Rail (Phases I and II)
• Created by mutual consent of the seven North Corridor local governments
• Closely related to and controlled by Closely related to and controlled by
its member agencies, including CATS and the State, through Board representation
Slide 5
North Carolina JPA Enabling Legislation
160A‐462. Joint agencies.
(a) Units agreeing to an undertaking may establish a joint agency charged with any or all of the responsibility for the undertaking. The units may confer on the joint agency any power, duty, right, or function needed for the execution of the undertaking, except that legal title to all real property necessary to the undertaking shall be held by the participating units individually, or jointly as tenants in common, in such manner and proportion as they may determine. determine.
(b) The participating units may appropriate funds to the joint agency on the basis of an annual budget recommended by the agency and submitted to the governing board of each unit for approval. Slide 6
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
North Carolina Revenue Bond Act
Article 5 of Chapter 159; 159‐80 and following:
• Permits revenue bonds to be issued for a public transportation system and for economic development
for economic development
• Specifically authorizes the use of the Revenue Bond Act by Joint Agencies by defining the term “Municipality” to include joint agencies under Article 20 of Chapter 160A
• Revenues that JPA can pledge toward revenue bond include :
– TIF
– Special Assessment District
– Revenues from a contract with the State
 Express statutory authorization in North Carolina for issuance
of revenue bonds by a joint agency as envisioned for Red Line
Slide 7
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
3) If a joint agency is established, its composition, organization, and nature, together with the powers conferred on it; Proposed JPA powers:
– Ability to receive revenues
– Ability to issue bonds (based on revenues from members)
– Ability to allocate/spend money within the UBD on approved expenditures – Ability to own assets, except real property
– Ability to enter into contracts
– Ability to sue (or be sued)
JPA WOULD NOT BE GRANTED THE POWER TO TAX
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 8
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
3) If a joint agency is established, its composition, organization, and nature, together with the powers conferred on it; f
d
i
Structure of 18‐member Board:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State of NC: two members
CATS: two members
City of Charlotte (non‐CATS): two members
Town of Huntersville: two members
T
Town of Cornelius: two members
fC
li t
b
Town of Davidson: two members
Town of Mooresville: two members
Mecklenburg County: two members
Iredell County: two members
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 9
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
JPA Function
Strategic Planning, Policies &
Operating Guidelines
Administration / Governance;
Legal and Intergovernmental Affairs
Financial Management, including
Budgets and Annual Reports
Operations & Maintenance
Type
Internal
Board
Personnel / Notes
Internal
Executive Director
Internal
Planning for both Phase I and II
Contract
Project Development / Execution;
Design & Construction Management
Communications / Public Relations
Legal / Bond Finance /
P3 Procurement
Contract
Finance Director. Must also appoint
treasurer and auditor.
Member jurisdiction or third party.
Ongoing, long-term.
Member jurisdiction or third party.
Some ongoing functions, some
discrete projects.
projects
Third party, discrete projects
Contract
Contract
Third party, as-needed
Third party. Heaviest at JPA inception.
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Contract
Slide 10
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
9) Any other necessary or proper matter. • JPA agreement explicitly protects all member JPA agreement explicitly protects all member
jurisdictions from recourse
• Local control of local rail‐related infrastructure improvements, following:
–
–
–
–
–
Adopted Station Area Plan
Cost analysis vs JPA execution
Design and construction specs
Design and construction specs
Bid documents and solicitation
Contractor selection
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 11
State Leadership and Support
• Project leadership role by NCDOT and consultants
– Scoping, planning, review and adoption processes
Scoping planning review and adoption processes
• Strategic position and transportation experience
– NCDOT rail knowledge and expertise
• History of State backing for infrastructure borrowing
• State will review plan, potentially commit to:
– Fund 25 percent of the project capital construction costs
Fund 25 percent of the project capital construction costs
– Fund 25 percent of ongoing O&M costs
– Back the bond financing package
Slide 12
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
FUNDING AND FINANCING PLAN
Slide 13
Project Costs (2018 dollars)
Project Component
Main Line Track
Grade Crossings
Vehicles
Stations
Charlotte Terminal Area &
Vehicle Inspection Facility
Systems
Professional Services
NS Licensing Agreement
Freight Rail Rationalization
Project Reserve
Station Area Improvements
Total
Source: CATS
Slide 14
Estimated Cost (millions)
$70.5
$44 9
$44.9
$58.3
$56.6
$66.0
$25.8
$40.9
$28.1
$5.7
$11.6
$43.6
$452.0
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
RLRR Finance Plan: Funding Partnership
Total project capital cost: $452M
Capital and O&M proposed to be funded via p
p p
the following partnership:
• 25% CATS = $113 M (transit funds)
• 25% State = $113 M (multimodal funds)
• 50% Local = $226 M (value capture)
Slide 15
Unified Revenue Approach
• The TIF and Assessment District revenues are “rolled
revenues are rolled up
up” into the into the
cumulative amounts
• The revenues are allocated by contract from the jurisdictions to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
• JPA will offer “Availability Payments” based on the combined TIF and Assessment District revenues
• The JPA secures the financing through the issuance of bonds or P3 approach
Slide 16
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
TIF and SAD: Who is Affected?
• Both mechanisms affect ONLY those properties in the Unified Benefit District. The rest of the properties in each town, city
Benefit District. The rest of the properties in each town, city or county are not affected.
• Within the project’s Unified Benefit District,
– Tax‐Increment Financing:
• Is allocated by municipalities and counties
• Does not affect property owners
– Special Assessment District:
Special Assessment District
• Is self‐imposed by majority petition
• Affects only income‐producing properties
Slide 17
Value Capture Development Assumptions
• Projected “Value Capture” only includes known projects
• Identified
projects:
Identified projects: – Beginning construction with projected phasing
– Where owners commit to develop as the economy improves
– On key sites where jurisdictions are confident that near‐term development will occur
– With development plans endorsed by jurisdictions (densities, mix of uses and entitlements)
Slide 18
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Key Project: Gandy Communities
Phil Gandy:
Phil
G d
“I began to assemble the properties six years ago because I saw the vision for a TOD and thought it was worth the investment. The design of the project and the uses all focus on
project and the uses all focus on the coming of the Red Line.”
Slide 19
Key Project: Gandy Communities
• Area A:
– 18 acres open space
– 150 K retail
– 300 K office
– 800 residential units
• Area B:
– 8 acres open space
– 120 residential units
– 150 K office
• Area C:
– 11 acres open space
– 120 K office and retail
– 750 residential units
• Area D:
– 5 acres open space
5
– 350 residential units
Build out value: $220.8 M
Slide 20
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Financing Options: Bond Approach
• The importance of full participation in the Assessment District
• Provides early year revenues before the Tax increment Revenues are realized
yy
RLRR Annual Tax Increment Revenues
ANNUAL SNAPSHOT
RANGE
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
High
$
7,457,011
$ 21,609,741
$ 27,586,137
$ 29,769,517
$ 30,632,619
Medium
$
7,239,816
$ 20,980,331
$ 26,782,657
$ 28,902,443
$ 29,740,407
Low
$
7,022,622
$ 20,350,921
$ 25,979,177
$ 28,035,370
$ 28,848,195
RLRR Annual Special Assessment Revenues
ANNUAL SNAPSHOT
RANGE
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
High
$
16,283,498
$ 25,156,079
$ 29,305,518
$ 30,819,182
$ 31,749,826
Medium
$
15,809,221
$ 24,423,377
$ 28,451,959
$ 29,921,536
$ 30,825,074
Low
$
15,334,944
$ 23,690,676
$ 27,598,400
$ 29,023,890
$ 29,900,322
Slide 21
Independent National Bond Underwriters: Proposed Structures
• Stone
Stone & Youngberg proposes a structure utilizing & Youngberg proposes a structure utili ing
the tax increment and assessment revenues as a single source for bond payments
• Guggenheim Securities proposes separate bond issues with early assessment bonds and later tax increment bonds
• Both approaches are viable
Both approaches are viable
Slide 22
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Stone & Youngberg Structure
• CATS Share: Funding through Zero Coupon Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) repaid in 2018 at 3% interest rate
• State Share: Funding through Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) repaid quarterly from 2014 through 2018 at interest rate ranging from 1.2% to 2.3%. • Local Share:
y
(
– 30‐year Revenue Bonds (based on tax increment and assessment district revenues) at 4% to 5% interest rates
– Includes $11 million in capitalized interest, a $19 million reserve fund, and no less than a 1.4 annual coverage
– Cumulative retained revenues exceed $1 billion, before use for O&M costs
Slide 23
Stone & Youngberg Summary
JPA SA/TIF
CATS
NCDOT
SA/TIF Revenues
Total Construction
Bond Proceeds
RAN Proceeds
RAN Proceeds
Applied to Const.
Proceeds
2013 $ 32,958,331 $ 14,288,963 $ 15,753,997 $ 11,131,292 $ 74,132,583 2014 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 8,859,837 $ 116,862,051 2015 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 108,002,214 2016 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 108,002,214 2017 $ 23,541,681 $ 10,206,402 $ 11,252,855 $ 45,000,938 $ 97,981,463 $ 108,027,408 $ 19,991,129 $ 452,000,000 Total
$ 226,000,000 Slide 24
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Guggenheim Securities Approach
• NC DOT pays 25% – Not financed: funding received evenly
g
y
• CATS pays 25% – Lump sum after construction – Financed with a short‐term, stand‐alone note
• Assessment bonds will be 25% – Sold upfront – Bond sizing will be limited to an amount that can be supported (with coverage) from assessments available on the date of bond sale
• TIF bonds will pay for 25%.
– Sold last – Will still need credit enhancement for a period of time
Slide 25
Summary of Guggenheim Securities Program
Revenue Source
Timing
Credit Quality
Conclusion
NC DOT
During Construction
AAA
Use as PAYGO
CATS
After Construction
A Category
Stand‐alone RAN’s
Assessment
Immediately available
Non Rated , but very attractive to market
k t
Non Rated Assessment Bonds
Tax Increment
Available only after No revenues, new construction
unsellable
Slide 26
JPA BAN’s, backstopped by State of NC, offset by TIF, refinanced ASAP
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Excess Revenues
• Under either approach, there will be excess revenues beyond debt service and O&M costs
debt service and O&M costs
• At a pre‐established threshold, the JPA will evaluate:
– Reducing the 75/25 split of the tax increment revenues
– Reducing the special assessment level from .75/$100 of assessed values
Slide 27
Financing Options: P3 Approach
Assumptions – DBFOM Scenario
• Capital cost of $452M
• CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital (interest and principal) through issuance of $206M revenue anticipation notes (RANs)
–
5 years @ 1.9 to 3.3%
• Special Assessment and Tax Increment Financing (SA/TIF) revenues PAYGO during construction ($87M)
• Balance of construction costs financed by private partner
Balance of construction costs financed by private partner
–
–
–
–
Debt/Equity: 80/20
Debt: Private Activity Bonds (PABs) @ 6.0%
Equity: 10.0% return required
Term: 30 years (2013 – 2043)
Slide 28
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Sources of Funds – DBFOM Scenario
NCDOT RAN Proceeds $108M, 24%
PABs
$127M, 28%
CATS RAN Proceeds $98 M , 22%
P3 Partner, 35% Equity
$32 M , 7%
TIF/SA Applied to Construction PAYGO
$87M , 19%
Slide 29
Sponsor Cash Flows – DBFOM Scenario
$100
$80
2.5x
2.5x 2.0x Slide 30
2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
0.0x 2024
$0
2022
0.5x 2020
$20
2018
1.0x 2016
$40
2014
1.5x 2012
$60
2010
Nominaal Dollars (Million)
3.0x State of NC RAN Bond Proceeds CATS RAN Bond Proceeds SA/TIFRevenue PAYGO during Construction
Fare Revenues
Fare Revenues
Incremental FTA Formula Funds (Approx.)
SA/TIF Revenue After PAYGO
Availability Payments
AP Coverage
Avvailability Payment Coverage
$120
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Assumptions – DBOM Scenario
• Capital cost of $452M
• CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital
(interest and principal) through issuance of $206M revenue anticipation notes (RANs)
–
5 years @ 1.9 to 3.3%
• SA/TIF Revenues PAYGO to construction $20M
• SA/TIF Revenue Bond Proceeds $226M with State backstop
– 4.00% to 5.00% annual coupon
4 00% 5 00%
l
– 30 year term from date of issuance (6/1/2013)
Slide 31
Sources of Funds – DBOM Scenario
SA/TIF PAYGO During Construction
$20 M , 4%
NCDOT RAN Proceeds
$108 M , 24%
SA/TIF Bond Proceeds
$226 M , 50%
CATS RAN Proceeds
$98 M , 22%
Slide 32
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Sponsor Debt Service – DBOM Scenario
5.0x Annual Debt Service on SA/TIF Bonds
4.5x SA/TIF Revenues Applied to Bonds
Nom
minal Dollars (Million)
$100
$
Coverage (SA&TIF Revenue/Debt Service )
Coverage (SA&TIF Revenue/Debt Service )
4.0x 3.5x $80
3.0x $60
2.5x 2.0x $40
1.5x Debt Service Coveerage Ratio
D
$120
1.0x $20
0.5x 2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
0.0x 2010
$0
Slide 33
Sponsor’s Operating Cash Flows – DBOM Scenario
5.0x Annual Debt Service on SA/TIF Bonds
4.5x Operating and Maintenance Costs
$100
Mid Life Overhaul
Mid‐Life Overhaul
4.0x Total Revenue
3.0x $60
2.5x 2.0x $40
1.5x 1.0x $20
0.5x Slide 34
2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
0.0x 2012
$0
2010
Nominal Dollars (Million)
3.5x Total Revenue/Total Cost
$80
Ratio of TTotal Revenue to Total Costs
$120
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Several Tiers of Downside Protection
• Proposal projections are very conservative:
– Only
Only “known”
known projects used in revenue projections: projects used in revenue projections:
$4.9 billion of development vs. $6.9 in Noell study
– No escalation factor on property values
• Bond underwriters further discount model assumptions
• Bond underwriters require:
– Project to generate and maintain cash reserves for lean years
– Project to generate extra revenues each year above what is needed to Project to generate extra revenues each year above what is needed to
pay debt service (high coverage ratios)
• If all else fails:
– State provides cash backstop during lean years (will be repaid)
Slide 35
Conclusions for P3 Options
• Both DBFOM and DBOM scenarios appear financially feasible
Both scenarios require a State backstop
• Both scenarios require a State backstop
• Anticipated revenues in the public finance scenario cover debt service and O&M and achieve high coverage
• DBFOM would bear a higher cost of capital but could lead to higher efficiencies through higher risk transfers
– No cost/schedule efficiencies or risk transfers were assumed
A comprehensive business case should also be developed to assess
• A comprehensive business case should also be developed to assess the tradeoffs between DBOM and DBFOM
Slide 36
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
RECOMMENDATIONS
Slide 37
Create a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
• Each of the seven North Corridor jurisdictions should:
– Approve the creation of a Joint Powers Authority with Approve the creation of a Joint Powers Authority with
powers, limitations and representation established by the participants
– Appoint two members to the JPA Board and authorize two members each from NCDOT and CATS
Slide 38
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Initiate the Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• All seven North Corridor jurisdictions should: – Adopt
Adopt the Tax Increment Financing District boundaries
the Tax Increment Financing District boundaries
– Instruct the County Tax Collector to allocate 75 percent of the incremental property taxes from the parcels within those boundaries to the JPA to fund the Red Line • The City of Charlotte should: – Allocate 75 percent of the incremental property taxes from Gateway Station parcels in three equal amounts
• One‐third to the JPA
• One‐third to the future commuter line to Gastonia
• One‐third to the future commuter line east to Monroe
Slide 39
Approve Special Assessment District • The four towns and City of Charlotte should:
– Secure
Secure requisite percentages of signatures from income
requisite percentages of signatures from income‐
producing properties to adopt the Assessment District
– Establish the special assessment rate at .75/$100 of assessed values in the District
– Allocate 100 percent of the assessment revenues to the JPA to fund the Red Line
Note: For Gateway Station, where existing Municipal Service District (MSD) levies are in place, set the assessment equal to the amount to bring the total assessment to .75/$100 of assessed values. 100 percent of this incremental assessment will be allocated to the JPA.
Slide 40
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Pursue Joint Developments and Negotiated Agreements
– Each jurisdiction owning land that is planned for new private development should:
private development should: • Develop the criteria for the new development
• Plan for the solicitation of development partners as the market warrants
– Each jurisdiction should: • Prepare or revise their Station Area Plans to incorporate land owned by the jurisdiction • Enter into negotiations with land owners for the station development where appropriate
Slide 41
Fund Operation and Maintenance Costs
• The JPA should:
– All
Allocate the annual Revenue Available Payments in excess t th
lR
A il bl P
t i
of the annual bond debt service for the local share for operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
Slide 42
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Implement the Financing Approach
To implement the financing approach, the JPA should:
– Select underwriters to structure the bond financing
Select underwriters to structure the bond financing
• Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) to fund CATS and State portion
• 30‐year Revenue Bonds (RA Payments as the “first call”)
– Select P3 approach and solicit bids under either a DBOM or DBFOM scenario, to include: •
•
•
•
Final design
Selection of rolling stock and technical programs
Selection of rolling stock and technical programs
Construction
Operations and maintenance
Slide 43
PROCESS AND NEXT STEPS
Slide 44
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Ongoing Five‐Phase Process
Phase I:
2010
RLTF
Formed;
Project
Redefined
Phase II: 2011
Develop Draft
Business /
Finance Plan
Phase III: 2012
1) Review and
Adoptions
2) Establishment
of JPA & Funding /
Financing
Mechanisms
Phase IV: 2013
1) Activation of JPA
& Funding /
Financing
Mechanisms
2) Financing/Bond
Sales & P3
Negotiations
Phase V:
2014-2016
Project
Construction
2017:
Service
Begins
Phase III
Began with
Plan Referral
Slide 45
Draft Business/Finance Plan: Take‐Aways
1. Local governments can participate in the project while maintaining control and protecting individual property rights.
maintaining control and protecting individual property rights.
2. Towns and counties are protected from financial recourse.
3. The project can be fully funded now, including capital costs and operations and maintenance costs for 30 years. 4. The project is financially sound, and represents an attractive investment to the financial community.
5. All aspects of the proposed approach to fund and implement the project are currently allowed by state law.
Slide 46
City of Charlotte - Transportation and Planning Committee
January 26, 2012
Red Line Proposal Review Questions
Financial feasibility
1. Are the growth and development assumptions reasonable in the current economic climate?
2. How is the Tax Increment Financing and Special Assessment revenue proposal structured? Are
the revenue growth assumptions reasonable?
3. Are the assumptions on operating and capital costs consistent with CATS projections?
4. How does the financing plan interact and/or depend on City of Charlotte debt?
5. What is the impact of the proposed Red Line financing plan on CATS financial projections?
6. How is the “backstop” for risk handled by the Joint Powers Authority and/or the State of N.C.?
Policy / Planning impacts
7. Are there any impacts to adopted Council policy?
i. Tax Increment Financing cap?
ii. Land use planning?
iii. Current economic development initiatives?
iv. Other?
Partnerships / Regulatory Environment
8. How do the various proposed partnerships interact with the Red Line proposal and the City of
Charlotte?
a. Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties?
b. Towns?
c. State of North Carolina?
d. Norfolk Southern Rail?
9. How does the proposed Joint Powers Authority interact with the Metropolitan Transit
Commission (MTC) from governance, legal and policy perspectives?
10. What is the process for establishing station area development standards?
11. What is the impact of the proposal on the Charlotte Gateway Station?
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 9, 2012
Transportation and Planning Committee Members
Stephanie C. Kelly, CMC, City Clerk
Bicycle Advisory Committee Annual Report
The attached report of the Bicycle Advisory Committee is being sent to you pursuant to the
Resolution related to Boards and Commissions adopted by City Council at the November 23, 2009
meeting. This resolution requires annual reports from City Council Boards and Commissions to be
distributed by the City Clerk to both City Council and to the appropriate Committee for review.
If you have questions or comments for these committees, please convey those to staff support for a
response and/or follow-up.
Bicycle Advisory Committee
December 2011
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Subject:
Report of Committee Activity for Calendar Year 2011
As required by the Charlotte City Council’s current policy for boards and commissions, the
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is submitting this report of committee activity for the period
of January 2011 through December 2011.
The BAC serves in an advisory capacity. This includes:
• Making recommendations to the City Council and County Commission on policies and
issues related to bicycle transportation.
• Seeking the implementation of bicycle-related transportation plans and policies within the
jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County.
• Participating in the development and update of those plans and policies.
• Making recommendations on actions that are appropriate and necessary to improve the
efficiency and safety of bicycle transportation.
• Discussing and advocating issues and opportunities to create a more bicycle-friendly
Charlotte.
The BAC is composed of eleven (11) members. Six (6) of these members are appointed by the
Charlotte City Council, three (3) by the Mayor of Charlotte and two (2) by the Mecklenburg
County Commissioners. Committee members serve without compensation.
The 2011 BAC members were:
Dick Winters, Chair
Jane Cacchione, Vice Chair
Hal Bouton
Eric Banks
Frank Burns
Ann Gabrielson
Jonathan Harding
Scott Kusel
D.C. Lucchesi
Andrew Pike
Jane Wasilewski
All members have attended meetings in CY 2011. The term of one member will expire in
December 2011 and he has requested not to be reappointed due to his residential relocation.
Another member will not meet the required annual attendance and will be ineligible to remain on
the committee following this calendar year.
Regularly scheduled meetings of the committee are held at 6:00pm on the fourth Tuesday of the
month at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center.
During calendar year 2011, the BAC members regularly met and addressed such agenda items
that included, but were not limited to, the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discussed the issue of sunken drainage grates during the resurfacing process in an effort
to identify any recommendations to lessen their risk to cyclists.
Received a report on the implementation process of the adopted Urban Street Design
Guidelines.
Participated in and monitored the development of the North East Corridor Infrastructure
action plan for implementing bicycle facilities in the corridor.
Recommended the installation of test bicycle detection devices at four problematic
signalized intersections, with a goal of decreasing red light violations by cyclists
uncertain if their bicycle was able to trigger a signal change. Recommended criteria and
locations for future installations.
Monitored the development and made recommendation for the adoption of the update of
the City Transportation Action Plan.
Developed the theme for the 2011 BIKE!Charlotte series of cycling events intended to
raise awareness of bicycle transportation and safety. Among the events was a BAC led
ride open to the public primarily along one of the City’s signed bicycle routes. BAC
members participated in the annual Mayor’s Ride to Breakfast as the kickoff event of
BIKE!Charlotte.
Monitored the annual collection of data of bicycle boardings on transit buses.
Monitored the progress of additions to the Mecklenburg County greenway system.
Participated and monitored the development of the Beal Street bicycle pathway
alternative to Wendover Road.
The BAC Silver subcommittee met six times during CY2011. This subcommittee was
appointed by the BAC and is composed of five BAC members. It is charged with review
of the City’s bicycle transportation progress since receiving a bronze Bicycle Friendly
Community Award from the League of American Bicyclists in 2008, with a goal of
offering the best opportunity to achieve a Silver rating with the next BFC review in 2012.
Received a report on the analysis of bicycle crash statistics.
Received a presentation regarding bicycle share programs to aid in determining its
potential in Charlotte.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reviewed the Bike Smart in Charlotte bicycle safety brochure.
Reviewed the development of a Spanish language version of the bicycle safety brochure
and video.
Reviewed planning for the construction of a bicycle passage across the median of South
Blvd connecting Carson Street and Lexington Street in an effort to improve connectivity
for bicycling.
Continued monitoring street resurfacing projects and restriping to ensure creation of
bicycle facilities when practical.
Development of the second edition of the Charlotte Cycling Guide. The guide includes a
map of all bicycle lanes, signed bicycle routes and greenways in the city and includes
recommended routes and safety information.
Updated the Bicycle Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure to reflect references to
bicycle planning documents adopted since the original bicycle plan.
Reviewed plans for a preferred greenway crossing under the planned final section of I485 by the Clarks Creek and future greenway.
Reviewed and made recommendations for bicycle facilities in the East Boulevard
conversion project.
Reviewed the routing plan for the signed Bicycle Route 15.
Monitored the development of the NCDOT street design guidelines as they apply to
bicycle facilities.
Investigated Cycle Tracks as a potential bicycle facility in some Charlotte urban
situations.
Reviewed and offered support for the TIGER 3 grant to develop a continuous bicycle
facility from Uptown Charlotte to the Cabarrus County line, and potentially to the Town
of Davidson.
Monitored potential traffic calming project for Scaleybark Road.
Received reports on the progress of the bicycle parking project conducted jointly with the
Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance (CABA).
Some BAC members participated in leading tours of bicycle facilities during
BIKE!Charlotte, the Conferences of the North Carolina Chapter of the American
Planning Association and the professional development seminars of the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
Monitored the successful implementation of the bicycle passage in the Dion Street
barricade, which provided much needed connectivity for bicycles.
Monitored the bicycle friendly improvements to the bicycle bridge crossings of Little
Sugar Creek Greenway.
Initiated planning for 2012 BIKE!Charlotte series of events to raise bicycle awareness.
Offered bicycle related webinars as education tools for engineering and planning staff.
Developed criteria for the installation of Shared Lane Arrows in Charlotte.
•
•
•
•
Investigating the experimental use of green colored bicycle lanes in Charlotte to raise
both motorists’ and cyclists’ awareness of those as safety facilities.
Monitoring the development of NCDOT’s project to widen Graham Street which is to
include bicycle lanes.
Review of bicycle lane projects including South Tryon Street, Clanton Road, Rea Road,
Tom Hunter Road, Community House Road, and East Boulevard, among others.
Support for the county greenway program, including participation in greenway openings,
the annual joint tour with the Greenway Advisory Committee and support for grants to be
used for greenway development.
The BAC also wishes to express its appreciation to City Council for its continued support of
projects and policies furthering bicycle transportation, safety of cyclists and creating a more
bicycle friendly Charlotte.
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 20, 2012
Transportation and Planning Committee Members
Stephanie C. Kelly, CMC, City Clerk
Zoning Board of Adjustment Annual Report
The attached report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is being sent to you pursuant to the
Resolution related to Boards and Commissions adopted by City Council at the November 23, 2009
meeting. This resolution requires annual reports from City Council Boards and Commissions to be
distributed by the City Clerk to both City Council and to the appropriate Committee for review.
If you have questions or comments for this board, please convey those to staff support for a response
and/or follow-up.
•
«D)
CHARWTTE
DATE:
January 17, 2012
TO:
Mayor a~.i
ity coun. cil
•
\i~
du1s:aif
FROM:
Jeffrey
Zoning Board of Adjustment
SUBJECT:
Annual Report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
As required by the Charlotte City Charter and City Council's current policy for Boards and Commissions, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment (ZBA) is hereby submitting a report of its activities for the calendar year 2011.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties to be carried out in accordance with
these regulations which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To hear and decide appeals from and to review any specific order, requirement, decision, or determination
made under these regulations by the Zoning Administrator.
To hear and decide petitions for variances from these regulations in accordance with the provisions of
Section 5.108.
To adopt such rules of procedure necessary for the administration of its responsibilities not inconsistent
with these regulations.
To assume any other duties assigned by the City Council.
The Board of Adjustment shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Section 6.201 Conditional Districts
except as provided in this section.
The Board of Adjustment shall not have authority to grant variances for use changes.
The Board's regular scheduled meetings are held the last Tuesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. at the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Government Center. Additional meetings and hearings are scheduled as needed. The Planning
Department Zoning Administration Division serves as support to the Board. The City's Legal Department also
provides assistance.
The Board met in excess of 80 hours for variance and appeal hearings which included eleven (11) regular meetings.
Board members prepare for meetings/hearings by reviewing applications, staff recommendations, and hearing
documents.
Total Cases for 2011: 29
MONTH
January
February
March
April
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
# CASES
2
2
3
5
PLANNING
MONTH
May
June
July
August
DEPARTMENT
#CASES
0
3
2
1
MONTH
September
October
November
December
#CASES
2
4
0
5
www.charlotteplanning.org
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-2853
PH: (704)-336-2205
FAX: (704)-336-5123
2011 ZBA Annual Report
Page 2 of2
The Zoning Board of Adjustment has eight (8) members (5 regular members and 3 alternates). City Council
appoints three (3) regular members, the County appoints one (1) regular member and the Mayor appoints one (l)
regular member. City Council appoints two (2) alternates and the Mayor appoints one (1) alternate. Members are
appointed for a term of three (3) years and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified. No
member shall serve more than two (2) full consecutive terms. Alternate members serve on the Board in the absence
of any regular member and are appointed in the same manner and for the same term as regular members. All
members are required to attend at least 65% of the regular and special meetings held in any calendar year with no
excused absences. In order to be eligible for reappointment, the member must have attended at least 75% of the
regular scheduled meetings during the term. Any member who fails to attend any three (3) consecutive regular
committee meetings shall be removed.
All members have met attendance requirements and serve without compensation.
Membe rs 0f th e Z omng
. B oar d 0f Adinustment are:
Member Name
Jeffrey Davis, Chair
Randall Fink:, Co-Chair
Michael Knotts
David Hoffman
Lynn Wheeler
C. Jennifer Coble, Alternate
Mark Loflin, Alternate
*Vacant, Alternate
Appointed By
City Council
City Council
County Commissioners
City Council
Mayor
City Council
City Council
Mayor
Support:
Thomas Powers, Assistant City Attorney (ZBA)
Terrie Hagler-Gray, Senior City Attorney (Staff)
Zoning Administrator, Katrina Young
Planning Coordinator, Barry Mosley
Clerk to the Board, Sonda S. Kennedy
Term/Expiration
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
Date
01/30112)
01/30113)
09/30/13)
01/30114)
01/30/13)
01/30112)
01130112)