|
Richland
County Council
A. Olympia Redevelopment - (Pages 5-14).
Items for Discussion / Information
Items
Pending Analysis Adjournment
Members Present: Joseph McEachern, Chair; Paul Livingston; Anthony G. Mizzell; Stephen F. Morris; James Tuten Others Present: Bernice G. Scott, J.D. "Buddy" Meetze, Susan Brill, L. Gregory Pearce, Jr., Thelma Tillis, Michielle Cannon-Finch, T. Cary McSwain, Marsheika Martin, Milton Pope, Tony McDonald, Pam Davis, Jim Prater, Sherry Wright, Judy Carter, Ash Miller, Robert Smith Call to Order This meeting was called to order at approximately 6:15 p.m. Approval
of Minutes - Mr. Mizzell moved, seconded by Mr. Tuten, to approve the minutes. The vote in favor was unanimous. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Morris moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to adopt the agenda as submitted. The vote in favor was unanimous. Items for Action Purchase of 6 Jeep Cherokees for Sheriff's Department Mr. Livingston moved, seconded by Mr. Tuten, to approve the purchase of six (6) marked Jeep Cherokees and corresponding equipment packages for assignment to the forensic sciences division of the Richland County Sheriff's Department. The vote in favor was unanimous. County as Conduit for Jeda Loan Funds Mr. Tuten moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to approve Richland County as the conduit for loan funds to flow from JEDA to Columbia Health Care Services, Inc. with a requested loan amount of $258,000.00. The vote in favor was unanimous. Approval of Council Goals for 2000 and Funding Priorities McEachern stated that some of the goals would change in priority because it needed further discussion. Mr. Livingston moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to receive this as information. The vote in favor was unanimous. Richland
County Council Land Acquisition for School District 1 Mr. McSwain recommended for the lease cost to be reduced at Dutch Fork. Mr. Morris moved, seconded by Mr. Tuten, to send this item forward to Council, and in the meantime, the Administrator is to come up with a recommendation. After discussion, Mr. Morris withdrew his motion. Mr. Morris moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to approve option 4, exchanging the land for two years of free rent and instructed Mr. McSwain to ensure that all parties are in agreement. The vote in favor was unanimous. Resolution for Babcock Center, Inc. Mr. Tuten moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to approve this Resolution. The vote in favor was unanimous. Resolution for "I Remember MaMa" Day Mr. Livingston moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to approve. The vote in favor was unanimous. Resolution for Fair Housing Mr. Mizzell moved, seconded by Mr. Tuten, to approve this Resolution. The vote in favor was unanimous. Recognition of Census 2000 Poster Contest Winners Mr. Mizzell moved, seconded by Mr. Tuten, to recognize the contest winners. The vote in favor was unanimous. Mr. McSwain requested for the winners to attend the next Council meeting. I. Items for Discussion/Information Economic Development Project "Harvey" Mr. Morris stated that the Economic Development has forwarded this item to Council. Mr. Livingston moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to accept this item as information. The vote in favor was unanimous. Richland
County Council Eau Claire Cooperative Health Center, Request for Funding Mr. Livingston stated he would like to revisit a motion made in December of 1999 regarding a funding request for $250,000.00. A discussion took place. Mr. McSwain
recommended bringing the two boards together and coming up with a resolution. Mr. Livingston moved, seconded by Mr. Mizzell, to instruct the administrator to bring the two boards together for a resolution, and if there were not a resolution, Council would designate $100,000.00 to the Eau Claire Cooperative Health Center to help with operations of the Center. A discussion took place. Mr. McEachern called for the question. The vote in favor was unanimous. The vote was as follows:
The motion passed. II. Items Pending Analysis There are currently no items pending analysis. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:54 p.m. Submitted by, Joseph McEachern
Subject: Olympia Redevelopment A. Purpose Council is requested to approve construction of the Olympia Access Road and to begin the legal process of establishing an Olympia Tax Increment Financing District to pay for the road. B. Background / Discussion Please see attached page for Chronology and Discussion. C. Financial Impact The cost of road engineering and construction and any other redevelopment projects will be paid through the TIF revenue. Any costs associated with legal counsel or other professional services will be reimbursed from TIF revenue as well. D. Alternatives 1. Recommend
first reading of TIF ordinance and direct the Administrator to finalize
the Assistance Agreement between the County, City, Tarmac and Diversified
Development by third reading of the TIF ordinance. E. Recommendation It is recommended that Council approve first reading of TIF ordinance and direct the Administrator to finalize the Assistance Agreement between the County, City, Tarmac and Diversified Development by third reading of the TIF ordinance. Recommended by: Mullen Taylor Department: Administration Date: 4/18/00
Legal: Finance: Procurement: Grants: Administration: Attachment to "Olympia Redevelopment" Request of Action Chronology of Events February
1999 March
1999 March
24, 1999 June 1999 June 1999 July 1999 August
1999 - March 2000 November
2, 1999 November
5, 1999 December
7, 1999 December
18, 1999 January
11, 2000 February
24, 2000 March
13, 2000
Diversified Development plans to redevelop the mills into 400 upscale loft apartments along with 18-24 elderly housing units, 8-12 "mill-style" townhouses, and various retail commercial establishments. The total investment in this project is $34 million dollars. In order for Diversified Development to secure the necessary funding for the redevelopment, the truck traffic must be diverted off of Heyward Street. Towards this end, the County has worked with Tarmac, the community and the developers to design a road from Tarmac to Rosewood Drive for use by the heavy truck traffic generated by Tarmac. The County's preliminary cost estimate for the proposed new access road is $4 million dollars. The County's retained engineering firm, the LPA Group, will provide a cost analysis by the time of the committee meeting. LPA has also agreed to engineer and the design the road. The cost for the design and engineering is approximately $218,000. However, there are no funds available to proceed with this work unless TIF revenue is used to reimburse the County. The road construction and Olympia TIF are, obviously, interrelated. The purpose of the new access road is to ensure the viability of the Olympia Mills redevelopment, which in turn, will jumpstart further revitalization in Olympia and increase the tax base. If the Mills are not redeveloped, then there is no need for a TIF since the mills would be the major contributor to the TIF revenue. To outline the Developer and Tarmac responsibilities, the County is in the process of finalizing an assistance agreement that will bind all parties to various roles and responsibilities. Council authorized negotiation with all parties during an executive session on February 24th. The proposed Olympia TIF is bounded by Assembly, Rosewood, Blossom and the Congaree River. Within this boundary, there are approximately 350 parcels with a total taxable value of $24,280,300. Estimated taxes generated from these parcels total $486,885 for 1999. Attached is a spreadsheet showing estimated revenue generated from an Olympia TIF. A 30-year TIF would generate an estimated $8,670,520; a 20-year TIF would generate an estimated $5,712,745; and a 15-year TIF would generate an estimated $3,993,209. It is recommended that the County establish either a 15 or 20 year TIF. The proposed TIF would include both County and City millage. Therefore, the City and other taxing entities must approve the TIF. Both the City and School District One have indicated that they would approve this TIF. These jurisdictions will continue to receive real property tax revenue at the approximate level of 1999 even after the sale of tax increment bonds, in accordance with state law. The new tax increments that would be used to repay the bonds are new taxes resulting from the redevelopment. It is the intention of the plan for no jurisdiction to lose existing tax revenues as a result of this financing. At the maturity of all bonds issued as part of this redevelopment, all tax increments will be divided among the appropriate jurisdictions at levels determined by the then applicable millage rates of the taxing districts. Tax increment financing has no impact on personal property taxes collected within the area. The taxing authorities will continue to receive tax income from personal property at the existing level and will benefit from all future redevelopment. Significant revenue increases should be realized by all taxing authorities as a result of investments in the area. The proposed redevelopment project and tax increment financing is expected to have a positive overall effect on the revenues of all taxing jurisdictions. The TIF requires an ordinance and a redevelopment plan outlining the intended projects to be funded through the TIF. Currently, the County has drafted a redevelopment plan but the project list and their costs are left blank. The River Alliance, contracted by the County to develop a Master Plan for the area, will provide a list of projects requested by the community and incorporated into the Master Plan. A draft TIF ordinance is attached. In order to meet the legal requirements of adopting a TIF, the following schedule is proposed: May 2, 2000 First reading by title only of TIF ordinance May 31, 2000 Send notices to taxing districts (Redevelopment Plan must be completed by this time) June 20, 2000 Second reading July 1, 2000 Publish notice of public hearing July 18, 2000 Third reading and public hearing July 21, 2000 Publish notice of passage of ordinance
To view the TIF ordinance you will need the Adobe Acrobat reader. If you don't have the reader simply click here to download the reader and then return here. Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Senn Brothers A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion C. Financial
Impact 1. Approve the request to renew the contract to Senn Brothers in the amount of $50,000 for FY 00-01. This alternative is recommended since produce and eggs are included as a portion of the meal, which has been approved by a registered dietitian to be served during FY 00-01. E. Recommendation It is recommended that Council approve the request to renew the contract for Senn Brothers in the amount of $50,000 for FY 00-01. Recommended by: _Joseph Bochenek__ Department: Detention Center Date: March 31, 2000 F. Approvals Legal Finance Senn Brothers
2000 Procurement Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Coburg Dairy A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion C. Financial
Impact D. Alternatives
F. Recommendation It is recommended that Council approve the request to renew the contract for Coburg Dairy. In the amount of $100,000 for FY 00-01. Recommended by: _Joseph Bochenek Department: Detention Center Date: March 31, 2000
Legal Finance Coburg 2000
Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Merita A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion C. Financial
Impact D. Alternatives
G. Recommendation Recommended by: Joseph Bochenek Department: Detention Center Date: March 31, 2000
Legal Finance Merita 2000 Procurement Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Bluff Road Facility Housing and Energy Plant A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion C. Financial
Impact D. Alternatives
H. Recommendation Recommended by: Joseph Bochenek Department: Detention Center Date: March 31, 2000 I. Approvals Legal Finance W. B. Guimarin
2000
Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: CMCOG Amendment to Creating Agreement A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion There are three parts to the amendment. Following is a brief summary; the full amendment is attached.
C. Financial Impact There is no financial impact associated with this request. D. Alternatives
E. Recommendation Recommended by: Mullen Taylor Department: Administration Date: 4/10/00 F. APPROVALS Legal
Procurement Grants Administration Amendment The Central Midlands Council of Governments was created by agreement in 1969 as amended in 1977, pursuant to South Carolina Act Number 487 if 1967 as amended by Act Number 363 of 1971, to serve as a regional planning and coordination agent for its members. The Board of the Central Midlands Council of Governments approved the amendment to the agreement creating the Council at its October 22, 1998 meeting as follows: Article III, Membership and Representation, Section A: "Membership of the Council" is hereby amended pursuant to Act 393 of 1998 by adding Part 1., d.
Article IV, Advisory Representatives, Section A. "Who May Appoint" is hereby amended pursuant to Act 393 of 1998 by deleting Part 2. "2. The Legislative Delegation of each member county may elect one of its members to serve as an advisory representative to the Board." Addendum A is amended to include one appointee from each county legislative delegation in the region. Approved by the County Council for Richland County on .
Act 393 of 1998 (R.527, H.5003) An act to amend Section 6-7-130, code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, relating to the membership of a Regional Council of Government, so as to authorize membership on the policymaking body of the Council of a resident member of the General Assembly appointed by their respective resident County Legislative Delegation from each County comprising the Council of Governments, provide for selection of a member when a County has no resident member of the General Assembly, and provide a term limitation for representatives of the members serving on the serving on the policymaking body. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: Membership - council of government SECTION 1. Section 6-7-130 of the 1976 Code is amended to read: "Section 6-7-130. Each county and municipality executing the agreement creating the regional council of government must be a member. Representation of members on the policymaking body of the regional council of government must be as prescribed in the agreement creating the council of governments. The agreement shall specify the procedure for the appointment of representatives of the member local governments; provided, however, at least a majority of the members of the policymaking body must be members of the governing bodies of the participating cities and counties. Provided, further, that a resident member of the General Assembly may be appointed by their respective resident county legislative delegation from each county comprising the council with these members serving ex officio. If a county has no resident member of the General Assembly, then the county shall select a member of the General Assembly who represents some or all of the county in question to serve ex officio, but no member is required to serve pursuant to such selection. The representatives of the members serving on the policymaking body shall serve without salary a term of four years; however, these representatives may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The regional council of government shall adopt bylaws designating the officers and their method of selection and providing for the conduct of its business." Time effective SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval of the Governor. Became law without the signature of the Governor - 06/17/98. ADDENDUM A
Richland County Council Request of Action Subject:
Water/Sewer Construction Contract for A. Purpose B. Background
/ Discussion Since the company has not officially announced and will not do so until some time in April, the State has asked that Richland County handle the procurement process and oversee the construction of the access road and water/sewer. Therefore, Richland County was responsible for procurement of construction. The bid opening was held Tuesday, April 11, 2000. The following is the bid tabulation for access road project: Morgan Corporation:
197,375.40 The following is the bid tabulation for the water and sewer lines: TNT, Inc.:
$124,804.00 C. Financial
Impact D. Alternatives
E. Recommendation Recommended by: Sherry Wright Department: Grants Date: 4/14/00 F. Approvals Legal Finance Procurement Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Haskell Heights Sewer Project A. Purpose The purpose of this report is to request County Council's approval to commit to $57,000 in matching funds in order to apply for a $570,000 grant from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Haskell Heights Sewer Project (Phase II). B. Background / Discussion In April 1999, a needs assessment public hearing was held for the Community Development Block Grant Program to receive input from citizens as to what projects they would like to see funded through the CDBG program. As a result, Council gave approval to seek water/sewer funds from this grant program to first assist the Atlas Road Community and then the Haskell Heights Community. At that time, an overview of the CDBG program was provided; however, the program's local match requirement was not addressed before Council. Richland County Public Works Department indicates that $570,000 is needed to address sewer needs for Haskell Heights Phase II. A CDBG application for this project will be submitted for consideration on April 20, 2000. This application is an attempt to obtain grant funds to address Phase II of the Haskell Heights Community. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program requires a commitment of a 10% local match of the amount requested for infrastructure projects. C. Financial Impact The matching funds would be used in the construction of the sewer facilities. (This amount has been submitted to be included for consideration in the 2000/2001 budget year. It is anticipated that the award will not be until after July 2000).
E. Recommendation Provide the 10% local match that this required by the program. However, if the County receives a favorable response from the City of Columbia, the County would not have to provide all of the match funds requested. Recommended by: SWright Department: Admin/Grants Date: 4/12/00 F. Approvals Legal Finance Procurement Grants Administration Richland County Council Request of Action Subject: Funding Strategies for The Township Auditorium A. Purpose County Council is requested to approve the transferring of authority to govern, manage, and market The Township Auditorium to the Conference Center Commission. B. Background / Discussion The Township Auditorium may be more effectively managed under the auspices of the newly established Conference Center Commission. Currently, The Township operates on a break-even cash flow basis that, while it provides for costs to be offset by revenues, does not fund capital improvements or major maintenance. The marketing budget is $35,000, and The Township's programs are not coordinated with other cultural and entertainment venues and events. Being managed by the Conference Center Commission will benefit The Township, the City of Columbia, and Richland County through improved financial management, marketing, and coordination. Economies of scale will be achieved; more opportunities will exist for cross-booking and selling; and competition between the conference center and The Township can be minimized. This will result in better attaining The Township's purpose: providing quality entertainment to capacity crowds in a cost-effective manner. Ownership of The Township would remain with Richland County, so decisions regarding change in use, ownership, or closure of The Township would be made by the County. In order to accomplish the transfer, the following issues must be addressed:
There will be no financial impact to the County. Currently, revenue generated by The Township goes back into The Township's operations. After the transfer occurs, this will remain the same. D. Alternatives
Upcoming Schedule: May 5th - Executive Subcommittee work session May 15th - Local Government Finance Advisory Committee final meeting and recommendation May 23rd - recommendation sent to A & F Committee meeting Month of June - schedule one or more work/public input sessions for discussion Month of July - schedule one or more work/public input sessions for discussion July 18th - last Council meeting of July, formally decide whether to pursue local option sales tax referendum in November Month of August - Council on summer break September 1 - Election Commission deadline for November referendums F. Funding Strategies for The Township |