Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, December 5, 2024 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Allison Wright Commissioner Ovita Thornton Staff: Niki Jones, Acting Manager Ilka McConnell, Economic Development Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Daniel Young, Economic Development Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Houle made a motion to approve the November 7, 2024 minutes. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Develop a Process for Creating New Tax Allocation Districts or Amending Existing TADs Acting Manager introduced the topic. Ilka McConnell explained that staff have reached out to outside counsel that has assisted ACCGov with Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) to learn more about the process for amending a TAD without terminating it. Commissioner Thornton explained that she is particularly interested in what happens with the funding that has accrued when a TAD is amended. Daniel Young shared a presentation and provided a summary of past discussion from the November meeting on the topic. Commissioner Myers inquired about whether, if the Mayor and Commission (M&C) does make changes or amendments, those changes should not go into effect until January 1. Daniel Young shared that staff would need to get some clarification from outside counsel when they obtain more information about the process for amending a TAD. Daniel Young provided an overview on project-specific TADs. He explained that project-specific TADs are typically developer-initiated. He also shared examples of project-specific TADs, including Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Ellenwood Town Center in Clayton County, and The Exchange in Gwinnett County. Daniel Young also provided an overview of Redevelopment Powers Law, which governs the requirements of redevelopment agencies and the process to certify and create a TAD, and the ACCGov ordinance regarding TADs. Daniel Young and Ilka McConnell also explained the TAD Administrative Policy specific to ACCGov. In the Administrative Policy, the Developer would present a proposal to Economic Development and submit a formal application, including a non-refundable fee. The TAD Advisory Committee would review the application, and a third-party review for financial feasibility would also be conducted. The Advisory Committee would make a recommendation and forward to the M&C for their review and action. Under the policy, TAD funding will not exceed 80% of the total estimated increment.  If approved without further changes, the developer will engage with ACCGov and outside legal counsel to draft a Community Benefits Agreement. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on the non-refundable fee. Daniel Young explained that he believed it was $10,000, and there is a sliding scale for an additional $3,000. Ilka McConnell noted that they also pay the cost of ACCGov’s attorneys and their attorneys for the process. Commissioner Thornton inquired as to whether this high of a fee is the norm in other jurisdictions. Ilka McConnell shared that there is typically a fee, and, when staff conducted research to look at what others were charging, they tried to go down the middle for the fees that they found for other communities in Georgia. Ilka McConnell explained that part of the fee covers the cost of the school impact analysis and the third-party review for financial feasibility. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on whether or not the 80% of the total estimated increment cap on the TAD funding was a norm in other jurisdictions. Daniel Young explained that they had an evaluation from a consultant in the Spring that reviewed it, and he noted that we would share the language from the consultant with the Committee. Ilka McConnell shared that the 80% was originally created to be a cushion, but it can be difficult to be determine an estimate on the value of what will be built until there are plans. Daniel Young explained that the consultant suggested that the 80% limit would be potentially impractical in relation to most TAD deals. The consultant recommended that staff remove the 80% limit or soften the language to remove “shall”. Acting Manager Niki Jones explained that the third-party review for financial feasibility is critically important. Whenever a developer submits a proposal, he explained that we need to ensure that it pencils out before putting all the time and effort into it. Commissioner Thornton inquired as to whether or not there is a check-off list for developers. Acting Manager Jones shared that there is a check-off list in the form of the application. Daniel Young shared an overview of Gainesville, Georgia’s TAD Advisory Committee as a comparison. Commissioner Myers inquired about whether or not Gainesville required a community benefits agreement. Ilka McConnell explained that they do not. Daniel Young further noted that, in the five other communities they have researched, Athens is the only one that specified a requirement for a community benefits agreement. Others required community benefits, but Athens is the only one that requires an agreement. Ilka McConnell explained that another major difference is that Gainesville’s Planning Department master planned the area to communicate to developers what they were looking for in the area. Daniel Young explained that the Gainesville TAD Advisory Committee includes representatives from the City of Gainesville, Hall County Government, Gainesville Board of Education, Chamber of Commerce, real estate/development industry, and banking/finance industry; this is the only TAD Advisory Committee, and it serves for all of their TADs. Commissioner Thornton shared that she believes that including the Chamber of Commerce and real estate representatives on the Advisory Committee is a good example of including the private sector in the public process. Commissioner Myers noted that the Advisory Committee does not include residents or people that are not in power, so it seems like it needs a mix of the two in a way that does not intimidate the residents with the involvement of leadership. Commissioner Thornton agreed and noted that she believes we could take the combination and mesh them together. Daniel Young provided an overview of the process to amend a TAD. The process would begin by having the developer or property owner submit a letter requesting to join the TAD to Economic Development staff. Staff would then determine if the proposed parcels can be added and still be within the required 10% of the tax digest maximum limit for all TADs. A presentation would be shared with the M&C at a work session. Then, the redevelopment plan would be amended and then presented to the M&C at an Agenda Setting Session. Public hearings would also be conducted prior to M&C action. Once the Redevelopment Plan has been adopted by the M&C, Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 120524  the Department of Revenue would certify the new amended TAD base, and the Tax Assessor would reset the TAD base for the increment. Daniel Young also reviewed staff suggestions for improvement to the TAD process, including:  Apply Advisory recommendations from the external consultant;  Streamline administrative process to remove redundant layers of evaluation;  Combine six TAD Advisory Committees into one committee, with representation from each of the six TADS and relevant staff for enhanced coordination;  Remove the goals and priorities burden on the developer;  Consider fees on a sliding scale;  Consider clarifying a timetable for applicants; and  Refocus – any development is an improvement. Commissioner Houle requested clarification on how ACCGov can ensure that the project is worth the investment of a financial incentive based on the defined goals if the goals and priorities are taken out of the process as suggested. Ilka McConnell explained that the project would still need to meet one of the four designated goals (affordable housing, economic development partnership, CCSD/youth development, and public infrastructure) for the TADs in order to get approved. She also clarified that the suggestion is regarding having the developer describe how the project meets those goals on the application. Commissioner Houle further requested clarification on what staff suggested would be done to understand that the projects are actually satisfying the goals if it is removed from the application. Ilka McConnell shared that she believed staff could help with that based on the conversations with the developers as they are submitting the application. Commissioner Myers requested further clarification on the burden that has been observed on the developer regarding the goals and priorities. Ilka McConnell explained that it is mostly regarding the internal administrative process and application that the developer is completing. She shared that the suggestion is originating from the external consultant’s recommendation, and they could further detail about that recommendation. Commissioner Myers reiterated the Mayor’s Charge and noted that discussion seemed to be straying from the Charge. Commissioner Myers explained that the timelines presented make it clear that the process for creating and amending TADs would have to be defined within the first quarter of the year if any changes to TADs are anticipated to be completed for the next year. She also noted that the process for the M&C is not just the process of setting them up but also deciding whether or not the amendment is needed. She requested staff prepare a draft of the recommended process for initiating the creation or amendment of a TAD for the next meeting. Commissioner Houle requested clarification on if staff were looking for feedback from the Committee on the suggestions or if the slide was intended to simply inform the Committee that those suggestions would be looked at in the future. Acting Manager Jones explained that the suggestions are things that staff would recommend in the future. He also explained that the first two presentations were simply meant to orient the Committee on TADs. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for February 6, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Houle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 120524