[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:55] 26. Madam clerk or Ms. Secretary will you please call the roll? Everyone as I call
[1:04] roll if you could just please confirm your attendance. Chip Collins. Present. Andy
[1:08] Bowman. Here. Tasha Battle. Absent. Hardy Dorsey. Present. Joe Housman. Here. Sonny Park.
[1:16] Here. Ed O'Connor. Absent. We have a quorum. Great. I need a motion to approve
[1:22] the meeting agenda, which is in front of you.
[1:29] Moved. I have a second. Second. Moved by Mr. Park,
[1:33] seconded by Mr. Housman to approve the meeting agenda on favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion
[1:41] passes. I need a motion to approve the meeting minutes from last meeting. Are those in front of
[1:54] Yes.
[1:55] So moved.
[2:02] I have a second.
[2:05] All right.
[2:06] Moved by Mr. Dorsey.
[2:07] Seconded by Mr. Hausman for approval of the meeting.
[2:11] Meeting minutes all in favor say aye.
[2:13] Aye.
[2:13] Opposed?
[2:17] Motion passes.
[2:19] We'll now move to the next agenda item.
[2:22] New business.
[2:23] We have the introduction of a new staff member apparently.
[2:26] Yes, we do.
[2:28] We'd like to introduce you to Mary Adkins.
[2:30] Mary joined us in January after three, three and a half years with the Georgia
[2:36] State Senate as a policy writer in economic development and regulated
[2:40] industries, attended law school at the University of Kentucky and has been a
[2:45] great addition to our team and doing great work for us. And so you will see
[2:50] Mary's face around frequently. We've sort of splitting duties to some degree.
[2:55] We've got so much real estate work that we're doing in the city right now
[2:59] that I spend a lot of my time on real estate initiatives and Mary is spending
[3:02] her time on corporate recruitment and retention and servicing our business
[3:08] community of close to 6,000 businesses strong here in the city. So, welcome, Mary.
[3:14] Welcome, Mary. Glad to have you. Chip, I would also like to, of course, Jim Woodward,
[3:20] our council is here with us from Pope and Flynn. We all know Jim and I
[3:24] I would like to introduce Patrick Cason and Brett Bowden from Woodfield Development.
[3:30] They're going to be joining us today and they attended also our City Council meeting last
[3:36] Tuesday and we'll be talking about their project today on the North River Shopping Center site.
[3:43] Welcome, gentlemen.
[3:45] We're glad you're here.
[3:46] We look forward to hearing more about your project.
[3:50] Before we get to that, we have to elect our development authority officers for 2026.
[3:58] This is the first meeting we've had in 2026, so we have to do that.
[4:04] I have served as chair.
[4:06] Mr. Bowman has served as vice chair.
[4:08] I believe we're both willing to serve again, but I opened it up for nominations.
[4:13] Let's vote for vice chair first.
[4:16] I have a nomination for vice chair.
[4:19] Nominate Andy Baumann. Okay, I don't have a second of that nomination. We've got a nomination from Mr.
[4:26] Houseman, seconded by Mr. Dorsey for Andy Baumann as vice chair. Are there any other nominations?
[4:36] All in favor of Andy Baumann as vice chair, say aye. Opposed? All right, Andy, congratulations.
[4:42] Thank you. Now we need to nominate a chair for 2026. Is there a nomination? Yes, a current
[4:54] chair. Okay. And a second of that. Second. All right. Mr. Dorsey nominates some character
[5:02] named Chip Collins. Houseman seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.
[5:10] For the record, I don't think there was any other mayors.
[5:13] I will remain. Oh, yeah, I didn't ask for any of a self-serving or were there any other
[5:18] nominations? No. Okay. All right. Well, I'm sure Mr.
[5:23] Bellman is happy to serve as vice chair and thank you for reallecting me to this position.
[5:31] Okay. Now we get to the meat of the meeting. And let's see. Well, first, before we
[5:39] Before we get to the real meat, I asked Chris to remind us of, since we haven't had a meeting
[5:47] in so long, to remind us of our mission statement.
[5:50] You will recall, I think we all know that we're authorized by a Statstorey authority
[5:56] from the state, but within that authority, we also, a few years ago, worked hard and
[6:02] developed a mission statement so that we have something to internally guide us.
[6:06] I mean, our first question is always, do we have the statutory authority to take whatever
[6:12] measure we're doing?
[6:13] But then second, the mission statement should be sort of our guide as to, you know, whether
[6:20] we want to vote in favor of something or not.
[6:22] So I'll just read it.
[6:23] The primary mission of our authority is to support city sponsored projects, redevelopment
[6:28] initiatives, economic development goals, educational institutions, and other nonprofit
[6:34] organizations within the city that's already accomplished it accomplishes this
[6:38] by providing taxable and tax exempt bond financing opportunities and other
[6:43] incentives pursuant to the Georgia Development Authority's law of where
[6:47] everybody's seen that mission statement but it's always good to reread it and
[6:51] remind ourselves especially since we're about to hear something in real
[6:55] time of what we're here for. Is there a discussion about I don't think it's
[7:02] It's an action item, but is there any discussion, is everybody pleased with the way the mission
[7:07] statement currently reads anything that jumps out to anyone that might need changing?
[7:15] Yeah, we worked hard on it, and I think this pretty much covers everything.
[7:19] All right, with that, let's move to the next agenda item.
[7:23] And that is a review of the tax abatement proposal for Woodfield Development in North
[7:30] River Apartments.
[7:31] And Chris Burnett, I believe, is going to make that presentation.
[7:38] Okay.
[7:51] And I'll acknowledge for the record that Tasha Paddle has just entered the meeting and
[7:57] we can record her as present.
[8:00] Welcome.
[8:02] So we are going to talk today about a project in terms of fulfilling the mission of our
[8:08] body here, the Development Authority, and how that correlates to initiative of
[8:13] the city.
[8:13] and this is sort of the epitome of one of those projects. The North River
[8:18] redevelopment, which is in North Sandy Springs. We're going to start out with a
[8:25] little history lesson. Andy will remember this, but going back as far as I
[8:30] believe it was 2016-2017, City Council appointed a North End task force to
[8:38] evaluate ways to stimulate growth in the North End of the city, which had
[8:42] been a number of years without any new projects done. That was followed later on
[8:49] by an engagement with a group called TSW, architectural and engineering firm,
[8:54] design firm that focused on four shopping centers in the north end of the
[8:58] city that are fairly old and were large enough sized pieces of land that
[9:05] could be ripe for redevelopment. So TS study did a study of those four
[9:10] properties including some concept designs for potential site work and let's look at North River
[9:17] in particular. So this is the property roughly, well not quite because some of it's been demoed,
[9:22] but this was the property at the time of the study. This was an image that was in TSW's report.
[9:28] This is a total of 13 acres of land to get your bearings. This is Roswell Road,
[9:33] Dunwoody Place comes in right here and just north of this site is the river. So this
[9:39] This is very close to the most northern point on Rosalind Road in terms of being in the
[9:44] city of Sandy Springs.
[9:47] I'm sure you've driven by this center plenty of times.
[9:49] It's currently anchored by a dollar general store.
[9:52] Sumat's restaurant, for those of you who might know that, has also been in there
[9:56] for a number of years.
[9:58] So let's look at the next.
[10:00] So with this piece of land, basically a rectangular piece of land, these were
[10:04] the ideas presented in TSW's study that was done in 2021. It calls for a variety of mixed
[10:12] uses, food hall with restaurants, multi-family, retail stores, basically anchored around a
[10:20] public park in the center of the property. Also some townhomes, some live work units.
[10:29] were all part of this concept drawing that they did.
[10:33] I don't think we'll see this, but this was the idea of the park
[10:36] and some of the buildings surrounding at this park
[10:38] fronting Roswell Road.
[10:41] So fast forward to concepts of group random.
[10:45] What we looked at was in 2021.
[10:47] In 2026, February of this year,
[10:50] we met with Mayor and Council on our retreat.
[10:52] And these were some concept drawings
[10:54] that were shared with them.
[10:55] So let's look at the next slide.
[10:57] First of all, this was a tactic you all may remember this site. This was the
[11:02] original site design once Woodfield got engaged in this project. The original
[11:08] fault was that multifamily would be on this portion of the property. This would
[11:12] be the southern section of the property. Orthale townhome units would be on the
[11:17] northern part and this was basically leaving the old retail that's there
[11:22] And it's been there for decades, including a dollar general store, which was in this
[11:28] center part of retail.
[11:30] And Patrick, it was 23,000 square feet, roughly, of retail that would have remained under this
[11:35] original plan.
[11:37] And it was like this in large part because the belief was that the retailers were there,
[11:43] that were there were going to stay for perpetuity.
[11:46] And to make a broader project work, he really had to take down all of the retail, meaning
[11:53] you had to buy out all of the leases that were there.
[11:56] And so it was believed that that was going to be very difficult and expensive to do,
[12:02] so this was the first concept drawing.
[12:04] Next slide will show what Matthew Amsbach, our city senior planner, conceived if we
[12:11] We could dream big enough to say, okay, if we could scrape the whole site, meaning the
[12:16] tenants that are there left, what could be done in place of the old retail that was originally
[12:21] drawn on?
[12:23] Incorporating the city park that had been designed in the TSW study in 2021.
[12:28] Doing retail, some jewel box restaurants here, some retail here as well.
[12:33] So that was Matthew's concept.
[12:36] We showed that to Mayor and Council in February and talked about if they would empower
[12:40] staff to move forward working with Insignia, the current landowner, and with
[12:45] Woodfield to determine can we get to a bigger vision than just leaving the old
[12:51] retail place. Next slide please. So let's look at what has transpired since the
[12:57] retreat in February of this year. This is probably one of the, if not the
[13:03] most recent, certainly a current design. What you see shaded here is now
[13:08] This contemplates the whole site being scraped. So all of the tenants moving out
[13:15] Everything coming down the whole 13 acres being scraped. This would be a city park
[13:19] This is shaded in sort of pinkish or mob. These are new retail buildings or restaurants
[13:27] These are the now the apartments so they stretch more into a little more of an L-shaped building
[13:32] these are still the town homes as was originally contemplated. So this is
[13:37] basically the center of sight this is an existing curb cut already on Roswell
[13:41] Road in there. So very much you know similar to what was designed back in
[13:47] 2021 by TSW. Let's look at another image of that. You can see here the green
[13:52] space playground areas here. This is an outdoor pavilion with public
[13:57] restaurants, a jewel box restaurant here, additional retail and restaurant
[14:01] space there. These are the apartments with their swimming pool and common
[14:07] areas in the center and then these are the for sale town home units on the
[14:12] north end of the property. And the park itself would be the piece we looked at
[14:18] here is about 0.71 acres of land area but when you take into
[14:23] consideration the right of way which will also be heavily streetscaped it
[14:27] It ends up being close to about one acre in total.
[14:30] All right, next slide will show us
[14:33] what the development would look like under this scenario.
[14:36] Woodfield, WF would be the site developer.
[14:39] They would build and own the apartment units.
[14:42] There will be separate builders
[14:43] for the construction of the town homes and the retail.
[14:47] The tenant leases will need to terminate.
[14:49] All tenant leases will need to terminate.
[14:52] And the overall 13 acre site would be totally scraped
[14:55] prepped for new construction including the park project. So what would be
[15:00] Our proposed is Woodfield building 336 traditional stack-flight multifamily units. There were before
[15:07] sale product here. These simple townhomes, 85 units. We're not ready to talk about who
[15:13] the builder is yet. They've asked that we keep that quiet while they're continuing to work
[15:18] through a few issues. But it is, we know who it is, and it's definitely a builder who
[15:23] can deliver. They absolutely have the financial capacity and history to build the units
[15:28] if they proceed. Restaurants in retail space about 10,000 square feet of retail. I mentioned
[15:36] the outdoor covered pavilion and some bathroom space that would be built kind of overlooking
[15:41] the park area. As I mentioned the 0.71 acre park that would be built and funded by Woodfield
[15:46] and then deeded to the city after completion of the park. And Woodfield would also include
[15:52] 70 public parking spaces there would be basically an inter-party agreement so the
[15:58] public parking would be available for patrons to the retail stores patrons to
[16:03] the park as well and we would have once the city took ownership of the park
[16:10] once it was deeded and conveyed to us and the city would manage and program
[16:15] the park from that point going forward so it would be our park would feel
[16:19] would build it and then deed it to us. Next slide will show us the estimated
[16:25] budget. It's about a six and a half million dollar project that includes
[16:29] hard cost of 3.9 million which there are budgeted items for playground
[16:34] equipment. It's also full architectural and signage and anything related to
[16:38] actually building the park. We've also estimated about 2.1 million in land
[16:43] value for that portion of the park, the land that would be deeded to the
[16:48] city post completion. And finally we've prorated the 70 public parking spaces
[16:54] because you'll park what about four spaces per thousand so you're gonna need
[16:59] about 40 parking spaces just to comfortably park the retail which would
[17:04] leave roughly between 25 and 30 spaces that would be more public in nature
[17:08] for park events. So while the parking is a good bit more expensive for 70
[17:13] spaces we said about 35% of the parking spaces would be some sort of
[17:18] earmark as available for park and public usage related to the city park. So we
[17:23] allocated $525,000 for that component. To incentivize Woodfield, compensate them
[17:32] for this project, which is to build the cost, I'm sorry, to build the park at
[17:36] their expense, buy the land at their expense, and then donate it to the
[17:40] city post completion. We're proposing really two different incentive
[17:45] makes this one is our traditional 10-year tax abatement. It would be only
[17:49] apartments only, would not include the retail, and cannot include the
[17:53] residential. Those are not eligible. The for sale
[17:57] residential are not eligible for abatements. The value of that on a net
[18:02] present value discounted basis is about 2.5 million dollars.
[18:07] City Council voted last Tuesday to also approve a waiver
[18:10] or a credit for what we call impact fees, which is about $4,400 per apartment unit.
[18:17] That total is about $1,525 in credit towards recreation impact fee waivers plus building
[18:24] permit fee waivers that are valued at about another $250,000.
[18:28] So when you put the total package together, it's on a net present value basis.
[18:35] It's about $4.3 million against a $6.5 million project.
[18:39] In real dollars, it's probably about $5.3 to $5.5 million in undiscounted dollars, but
[18:45] we discount it because those tax savings occur over a 10-year period.
[18:50] So they have to earn those out over the decade term of five months.
[18:55] The estimated net positive impact to the city, and this is net of the waiver of
[19:01] permitting and impact fees, is about $6.7 million.
[19:05] dollars. And the reason for that is right now this property is over a 10-year
[19:11] term if nothing were done on this site the city's portion of the taxes would be
[19:16] about 182,000 over a 10-year term. So that's not per year that's over the
[19:22] full duration of 10 years. Under this with the value of what will be on the
[19:27] site it's about a 200 million dollar total anticipated to praise value for
[19:32] the assets to be built on the site, the city's portion of the tax is over the next 10 years.
[19:37] Even netting out the abated piece is approximately $2 million.
[19:41] So it's about a 10-fold increase over the next 10 years of what we would currently
[19:46] receive if nothing were done on the site.
[19:49] Next slide will show us the spreadsheet.
[19:56] We ran our own spreadsheet as well.
[19:58] We're actually both very close.
[20:00] this is Ryan tax services which would field use and their calculations we
[20:05] have an in-house model they were very very close you'll see because of the way
[20:09] our tax abatement burns down you running this can you recording there's no way
[20:14] to make it bigger larger yeah this is probably a little tough I mean I'm not
[20:22] 2020 let's see if we could blow that if you can't well so you know the way
[20:31] the tax abatement works is you start out once the project is completed and it's
[20:35] reached its basis, then in your taxes are sort of at full value at that point.
[20:40] Then in your first year, there's a 50% reduction in property taxes. In year two,
[20:46] it goes to 45%. In year three, it goes to 40%, and etc. It declines by 5% a
[20:52] year, burning to zero at the end of the 10th year. So it's going to be
[20:57] front-enloaded, obviously your greatest tax savings is going to be in your first
[21:01] full year. That's a $551,000 tax savings and you can see it stepping down
[21:07] each year because of the burn-off of the percentage. We ran into a net 7% net
[21:15] present value discount, about $2,530ish to $2,550ish on the net present value,
[21:21] again about 3.3 millionish if you don't do any discount and that's over
[21:26] with a 10 year charge.
[21:29] Any questions on that before we move on?
[21:32] So great to see that brighten up that notice in.
[21:38] Have you all done any estimate
[21:41] at the traffic count before and after the project?
[21:46] Sonny, I'm honestly, Chris,
[21:48] and I don't know if we did any evaluation.
[21:50] Roswell Rowe's got some pretty hefty traffic counts
[21:52] already, certainly this will add more population density,
[21:57] No doubt about it, but I don't know you all were not required to do traffic study in this site
[22:02] But sunny, I think given the size of Roswell Road, you know, it's four lanes right there with center-turn lanes
[22:08] If you're requiring about a traffic impact, I really think it's it's going to be relatively minimal because you've got such a large road already there
[22:17] Well, I'll go ahead
[22:19] I was going to ask if
[22:21] for the apartments and the townhomes. Are you thinking that it'll be residents
[22:28] that are already here maybe relocating or is that to bring in new residents into
[22:34] the city? So I think it will likely be a combination of the two.
[22:40] The town, well
[22:42] let's jump ahead then and then we may be able to talk a little further. Before we
[22:47] move before we move through. I've got two just two questions and then we can you
[22:52] know kind of break it up a little bit.
[22:56] Two things when I was looking at the
[22:58] PowerPoint before I came here, two things popped out. First the construction
[23:04] costs of the park $3.9 million for a less than an acre park seems really
[23:11] high. Where did that number come from? Are we in that number? So our parks and
[23:16] Director Brent Walker has been working with Woodfield's architectural team on the
[23:21] park design. One of the things you've got some site challenges, you know, this
[23:25] falls off pretty sharply from Roswell Road to you can have a series of
[23:28] retaining walls. They will be fairly sizable areas of playground space. We
[23:32] use probably the best materials available for building playgrounds. It's
[23:37] the rubber-sympathic material that you use, safer for kids if they fall.
[23:46] I
[23:46] equipment play equipment within the playgrounds. Heavy landscaping so but
[23:53] those numbers have been provided by Woodfields GC and you guys want to
[23:59] speak to this you're welcome to. I think Brent has felt like they are
[24:02] reflective of what it would cost us if we were going to build it as a city.
[24:07] And then the next question you had the net positive impact of the city at
[24:13] 6.7 million dollars but you said that includes the park which you valued at
[24:20] 6. something so is it fair to say most of the net impact value in the first ten
[24:24] years comes from that park not cash into the city? It is Chip yeah we talked
[24:29] about the benefits to the city from a tax perspective were about 10 about 2
[24:33] million dollars over the next 10 years and the cost of our waivers on the
[24:39] front-end or million 775. So a high percentage. The good news is, is that the
[24:45] increase in tax value and the revenue the city will receive, only slightly, but
[24:51] does exceed the value of the fees given up today. So, but it really is in the cost
[24:58] of having the park. And I don't think the addition of a new park is anything
[25:02] to sniff that. I mean I think it's a great thing. So, but I just wanted to
[25:05] I'm sure everybody was clear on that.
[25:08] And you had something?
[25:08] Yeah, so I appreciate Sonny's question on traffic.
[25:12] But would it also be fair to say that this is a less intense
[25:16] use than 100% retail, which it could otherwise?
[25:19] I mean, if this had been fully renovated retail,
[25:25] more of a hundred and something thousand square feet,
[25:28] which I'm just in round, it was somewhere between 100
[25:30] and 200,000 square feet if I had to guess.
[25:33] Yeah, I don't recall.
[25:34] I mean, you had the bowling alley, you had all that other stuff there that a residential,
[25:38] which is going to be an 85% residential use or more, is actually a lower intensity of
[25:46] use than a retail with lots of curb cuts, a vibrant retail with groceries and all that
[25:52] other thing.
[25:52] I have to say that wouldn't be one is an inferior, but I think there's less intense
[25:58] traffic use as a result of the substantial residential component as opposed to
[26:04] fully a retail deal here. I mean I'm hoping that, I mean we're hoping that
[26:10] people don't, people can drive to the park but we're hoping that people in
[26:13] this area are walking to the park and walking to the retail. I mean that's
[26:17] sort of the hope. Well certainly the residents, the apartment residents,
[26:22] but this to be very clear is a public park. This is not just for those
[26:25] residents. That's correct. It's fully public. One of the things I know that we've talked about
[26:30] with Brent and his team in Rec and Park is programming the park and you know we'll be doing what's
[26:37] Kristen a night market because that's sort of testing the waters on events but you know the
[26:44] key to not just having a place to go but for place making is our team the Parks and Rec team
[26:51] needs to evaluate how to utilize this park to really attract the community
[26:57] here, not just the residents that are living in development. The people that
[27:00] are, you know, all the residents, there's a lot of people that live in the
[27:03] North End. How do we get them into this park? Because right now, if they're
[27:08] going to a park, they may be going down to Morgan Falls, but in terms of
[27:13] having a place right there in the North End, this will sort of become
[27:17] the signature park I think. What can you do on 0.7 acres? What kind of activities could the city
[27:25] have? So that's a great question. I unfortunately don't know the size of the green. Kristen,
[27:29] you might. So one of the things that we looked at with Woodfield was programming that park,
[27:34] as Chris said. So first of all, there will be, we're looking at sort of like two contiguous
[27:41] playgrounds there. So that in and of itself is a big activity and then you have a smaller
[27:45] green space that will be adjacent to the retail there so folks can have their kids out playing
[27:50] while they're waiting or while they're eating or whatever that looks like but we've also looked at
[27:54] what this can look like if we want to do something like a market or a festival there.
[28:00] Something smaller it's not huge but it's enough space to do something like we're doing in the
[28:04] north end with that night market we can move that there once we own this space
[28:09] so that we have the we will have the room there to program that sort of thing as well.
[28:14] But we want, I mean, and I think Chip's question is the right one, a question.
[28:20] We actually, as the economic development authority, we want to place into consideration the conditions
[28:25] to support the retail and restaurants that are going in there, right?
[28:28] Like, I mean, I know that I go over to the perimeter area on the Dunwoody side.
[28:33] They literally took away some parking lot and put in a little center green around
[28:39] those superacus there and jennies and a couple of those restaurants and they're playing cornhole
[28:46] so it attracts people to the businesses that are going in there and that's what I saw as the value
[28:51] here was this is a way to support successful business in the north end. Certainly a component
[28:59] and you do see it in downtown Alpharetta when that was developed and Park was put with
[29:05] dual box restaurants around it, same as the case in downtown Woodstock, the
[29:10] Ashford Lane, which is where the Super League is now. Right, that green space with
[29:15] cornhole there. So it's being done in other places successfully and this
[29:20] would certainly help to engage and probably better promote the success
[29:27] of the restaurants that go in because it is especially being downgrade a bit
[29:32] from Roswell Road, it's still a busy road, but because you're below grades, I think it's
[29:37] going to feel safer.
[29:38] It's going to feel a little more renewed.
[29:40] It is below street level before the parking lot.
[29:44] Who's going to pay?
[29:45] Who's going to pay for the maintenance of the park on going?
[29:47] The city.
[29:48] The city will pay for the maintenance.
[29:50] No cost sharing with the common area in terms of the retail that their customers
[29:58] are going to be waiting in this park, which is...
[30:00] Fine, but the city is undertaking. We'll have the D to this space.
[30:04] Correct.
[30:06] Any more questions on what has covered so far? Sorry.
[30:10] Okay, keep going.
[30:12] Let's go to the next slide.
[30:17] All right, so we're going to touch on sort of the job and financial calculations for this project.
[30:22] In years one through three, an estimate of approximately 700 construction jobs on the project.
[30:29] But that's really related, I think, to apartments only, right?
[30:34] The townhomes will have a different set of contractors because that will be a different
[30:39] development group.
[30:41] Upon completion of the apartments, Woodpeel would expect to employ about seven to ten
[30:45] people there.
[30:46] And then this is a rough estimate on the restaurants in retail, 25 to 35 additional
[30:51] jobs there.
[30:52] So you're talking about conceivably between 40 and 50 jobs that would be their long
[30:56] term after construction is completed. Total project value expected at about 200 million
[31:03] at completion. Over the next 10 years the city's property tax collections as I mentioned
[31:09] are expected to exceed two million dollars and that's net of the tax abatement we're
[31:14] considering today. Upon completion the city would be deeded to park with Woodfield
[31:20] about 6.5 million in and that would include title to the land that we would take our ship off.
[31:26] So the summary is net of the million 775 and city fee waivers projected net positive impact to the city,
[31:36] mostly chipped through the park itself, and the value is about 6.7 million dollars.
[31:41] And finally, and very importantly, first major development project in the north end of the decade.
[31:48] And we believe that this could be catalytic to the redevelopment of the water.
[31:54] It is at the gateway, really, as you come down from Roswell across the river.
[32:00] It's going to be the first major project you see as you come into the north end of Sandy Springs.
[32:06] And this has been a target asset for us for a number of years.
[32:10] We've been through sort of starts and stops at times with a previous owner.
[32:15] and now with Woodfield coming in the future looks extremely bright but we've
[32:22] got someone's got to be the first kid in the pool as I use the analogy somebody's
[32:25] got to get it started in the North End and they have stepped up and we're
[32:29] working together to make that happen so we do believe this will be a catalyst
[32:32] for more projects to come in the North End and then finally final slide we'll
[32:39] look at, going back to what we read earlier in the mission statement, your
[32:45] charge as development authority members to support the city-sponsored
[32:49] development projects through taxable and tax-exempt bond financing, which we're
[32:54] discussing today, and that is deemed, projects that are deemed to be in the
[32:58] public good of the citizens the same experience. We believe that the
[33:01] construction of the park, its conveyance to the city upon completion
[33:05] and the catalytic impact that this project should have in the North and the
[33:09] city are the epitome of public good. While it will unquestionably be enjoyed by
[33:15] the residents of the North River project, we think it will be enjoyed by a lot
[33:19] more than just that. This could become, should become a gathering point for
[33:24] many of the residents of North River. So finally, as our recommendation that we,
[33:28] to Chip's point, we believe the transaction is legally meets the
[33:32] statutory requirements of the Development Authority and its mission in
[33:35] intent and we recommend the request of debate that's on the table today.
[33:41] Now
[33:42] we'll open it for more Q&A. All right does anybody have any additional
[33:48] questions? We'll get a motion and we'll have a discussion on the motion I think
[33:52] that's how we're supposed to do it but you can certainly ask questions if
[33:56] you want to gather. If you want to do Robert's Rules we'll do a motion in a
[34:00] second, then we can open the forward question. Yeah, but we can ask questions now and then
[34:04] we can have discussions. With regards to the builder, you said that they have the capacity
[34:11] to do this. Did they go out to bid? You said somebody has the capacity. Did you have a
[34:19] bid process to see who would be eligible and was there other potential capacity people
[34:25] that could actually do the same work?
[34:27] So the city is not driving this process at all in terms of the construction of
[34:32] the apartments, the retail for the town homes. So it really is, it's a public
[34:39] private partnership but we're relying a lot more on the private, meaning that
[34:43] Woodfield, which has secured their debt and equity for the apartment piece of
[34:47] this, they're gonna do the site work on the overall 13 acres. I don't think
[34:52] you all will pull utilities to the town home sites with you, but you'll
[34:56] basically get it. You'll get it scraped and then whoever the builder ultimately
[35:02] is will come in and they'll pull the utilities to the 85 count home sites
[35:07] will be there. But Woodfield has assured us that they've secured their financing
[35:12] capacity to close on the land in October. The goal would be to close the
[35:17] abatement simultaneous with their land closing. Demo has actually already
[35:22] begun on some portion of the retail and the demo would be completed on the
[35:27] overall site when the last of the tenants moves out we expect by November
[35:32] end of November November and so all of the retail would then come down after
[35:37] that and site work would begin they would then do construction of the
[35:41] apartments I guess you all had the retail site here right while you're
[35:44] building the park you get it pad ready but they will not build the retail
[35:49] Those will likely be built by another retail specialist.
[35:54] So they have, they've demonstrated to us they have the capacity and then if I mentioned
[36:00] the home builder name, people would go, yeah, they're the real deal.
[36:05] Public company with very deep name.
[36:08] Thanks.
[36:11] Questions.
[36:14] And I suppose gentlemen from Whitfield might be able to answer a field of question if
[36:19] if anybody had one specific to them.
[36:21] If not, then requests of some sort.
[36:30] Anybody would like to make one.
[36:32] And then we'll have a discussion.
[36:34] And then we'll put it.
[36:35] I think it is a good opportunity for city
[36:37] to brighten up that North End
[36:39] and not give my motion to approve.
[36:43] Okay, and before that, our attorney wants to say something.
[36:48] And regardless of what you want to say,
[36:50] one thing I want you to weigh in on is that first threshold question of is this something that is
[36:56] within our statutory authority? It is, yes. So, and this is something similar to what this
[37:01] developer has done in the past. There's a lot of ways, similar to the Tremel Crow project
[37:06] that we met on last year and approved. A similar project is economic development in nature and
[37:12] we're doing a very similar tax incentive that we've done for several other deals,
[37:16] whether it's apartment homes or other type of projects in the city in the past. So,
[37:20] Is there anything else you wanted to add?
[37:23] So the motion, if you do want to move forward with the tax incentive, what we have in front
[37:27] of you today is a bond resolution, which is your official action to approve all the taxes
[37:32] in the documents.
[37:33] What that includes is a document called the Memorand of Understanding, which is the
[37:37] agreement that covers the tax incentive, but also the other incentives for providing
[37:41] for this project.
[37:42] Also, the parameters of the project, their capital investment goal plus the city park,
[37:50] definition of city park, plus they'll provide and maintain bathroom facilities and parking
[37:57] through the park as well.
[37:58] I'll be that part of there.
[37:59] And so we'll be doing separate agreements for the park and those parts and facilities
[38:03] and bathrooms can actually close.
[38:05] But also it attaches the tax agreement that goes before the board of tax accessors
[38:10] which is required for every Fulton County tax incentive deal, that form document as well.
[38:15] We're presenting that to the Board of Tax Accessors, like we do for other tax incentive deals,
[38:19] plus all the tax incentive documents, which is that lease agreement,
[38:22] where the development authority takes title to the apartment homes and leases it to the bond
[38:27] for titles for tax payment deals. Leases it to determine the tax incentive, which would be
[38:32] construction period plus 10 years, and then all the rest of the tax incentive documents,
[38:36] which is Bond Structured Documents, called Fresno Ventures Bond Purchase Agreement,
[38:41] all relate solely to the tax incentive, not regarding financing, you know, obligations
[38:46] to the city or development authority to find this project. Everything else is on the company
[38:51] to build, finance, and do it on their own. And I think that's important for everybody
[38:55] to know because we haven't done that many of these. And I'm sure we all have to sort of
[39:00] remind ourselves of how it all works. And it's that big, big set of documents that Jim does.
[39:05] But at the end of the day, it's just a pass-through mechanism through which a city through an authority
[39:13] can do these tax payments because the city can't just do it directly.
[39:18] And so the authority, you tell me if I'm saying anything wrong, the authority will
[39:22] take title to this property, but everything's a pass-through, either the city nor the
[39:27] authority nor anybody sitting in this room has any risk or exposure.
[39:31] the risk and exposure remains with the owners and farmers but Jim if for
[39:38] purposes of a motion can you boil down what you just said to one sentence we
[39:43] would be moving to approve the bottom resolution okay in connection with the
[39:48] ad no we have an agenda item sufficient to I think so yeah move that
[39:53] agenda item okay bottom resolution that's what we'll need all right so the
[39:58] The motion and Mr. Park, I believe you were about to make one.
[40:03] If you wanted to approve it, then the motion would be for approval of the bond resolution
[40:08] as presented by Mr. Burnett and staff.
[40:11] So do we have a motion?
[40:14] So moved.
[40:15] I'll second that due to the appropriate sign-offs that have already taken place.
[40:20] Okay.
[40:20] Second by Mr. Dorsey.
[40:24] I'll open it up for discussion.
[40:26] I would first like to take my Chairman's prerogative and just frame it a little bit.
[40:36] First, we've already talked about a reminder of what we are and what we have the authority to do.
[40:41] We're not a zoning board, so it's not up to us to debate whether or not this is the proper land use that has already been decided.
[40:49] It's not up to us to debate whether this project fits the parameters in the city code.
[40:56] that's up for city staff to do in the permitting process. Our job is to evaluate this project
[41:03] in light of our statutory authority and our mission statement of which I think the three
[41:08] that apply would be city sponsored project because the city is by granting and approving
[41:16] the incentives that it can. They've already shown they've the city councils voted
[41:21] signalling the city is in favor of this project. It's clearly a redevelopment
[41:27] initiative. We're scraping and we're building something new and it fits our
[41:31] economic development goal that we've talked about in this group a lot which
[41:35] is we should be incentivizing development and redevelopment where
[41:41] it's not happening as much. So do we need to incentivize development in
[41:46] city springs or inside 25? Maybe not as much but the north end we've all
[41:50] talked about is a great place for us as an authority to focus our efforts.
[41:56] So with that, I'll open it up for anything else anybody else wants to say.
[42:04] Typically we get a fee, so what is the fee for the Economic Development Authority?
[42:10] You want to go through the fee?
[42:12] One-eighth and one-percent of $110 million.
[42:15] So we charge a one-eighth and one-percent fee, do it one time at closing to the Economic
[42:20] Development Authority.
[42:21] to receive. So that would be what? $100,000 or so?
[42:27] $150,000. Okay. All right. Anybody else?
[42:37] All right. We've got a motion on the table for approval of the bond resolution. It's been
[42:41] seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. The ayes have it. The motion passes.
[42:50] We look forward to seeing some activity up there on the north end, gentlemen.
[42:56] Mr. Chairman, I just, in fact, if you guys can head out if you'd like.
[42:59] While they're here, I just want to say it's a real pleasure to work with them.
[43:03] They're approved.
[43:04] This has not been an always easily navigatable transaction.
[43:10] You know, there's been some bumps along the road.
[43:13] So, by Dave, Dave just been persistent and we've worked closely with them for a month now.
[43:19] I just want to thank them publicly.
[43:22] And ready for use.
[43:24] Did it close?
[43:25] Thank you guys.
[43:26] I really appreciate it.
[43:27] Thank you.
[43:27] Thank you, Chris.
[43:28] Yeah.
[43:30] Okay.
[43:31] Thank you gentlemen.
[43:32] Take care.
[43:32] Good luck.
[43:34] Let's see.
[43:35] Now we've got other business open discussion and Q&A.
[43:39] I believe Mr. Bowman did have a question about.
[43:43] No, just Chris, can you update us on the project we approved last year?
[43:48] Yeah, so obviously you can see it's wide open right now.
[43:52] They've started wrapping the garage with the first layer of new apartments
[43:56] and they're already framing the town homes on the western side of the site.
[44:03] They're still targeting a 2027 delivery date.
[44:06] That seems pretty optimistic. It may be Q4 of 27, but you know you think about that still 12 14 months out
[44:14] Yeah, it's it's a big project
[44:17] 19,000 square feet of retail any announcements on the retail yet
[44:21] None that they want to share publicly, but yes, there's some real strong interest in some tenants
[44:27] I think we'd all be pleased to have come there's some good restaurants. Okay
[44:32] One could potentially be a relocation
[44:34] and then others would be new but so that's moving moving ahead well we're
[44:41] funding that project on a percentage of completion basis in fact we got a draw
[44:45] request again today so our inspector Dave Wells and his inspection team they
[44:50] go out they look at the pay request make sure that the work they're getting
[44:56] paid for the work that's already been done comes back it goes through so
[44:59] Tony
[45:00] And so we've got to pay requests by now. So we'll, by the time we fully fund the city's
[45:07] investment, the parking garage should be finished. And of course we'll have 111 spaces that are
[45:13] city-owned spaces that we will own. There is a buyout agreement, if I remember correctly,
[45:20] Jim. They can buy us out of two times cost leave. That sound right?
[45:27] I think they can buy us out if they so choose. I don't think they will. And the there's good
[45:35] probability that they're going to use 12 Oaks parking as their parking service company as
[45:43] well. That's who the city uses here at our facility. They do a good job for us. And
[45:49] And Kristen, hopefully, you feel the same.
[45:53] So they're in those negotiations now.
[45:56] If they do use 12 Oaks, it will make it a little more seamless
[46:00] since 12 Oaks is already doing our parking, probably
[46:03] the same equipment and same revenue oversight
[46:07] that would be done there as well.
[46:11] OK.
[46:12] Chris, how about the movie theater?
[46:18] Parkside.
[46:19] Parkside.
[46:19] So Parkside met with Jamestown just two weeks ago and the the challenge with
[46:28] that plan right now centers around the 80,000 square foot office building that
[46:33] is built into that plan. You all may not remember the conceptual site plan but
[46:38] it included a combination of apartments, townhomes, restaurants, retail, a park,
[46:44] and an office building. And it all has to be built around the theater because the
[46:49] theater has a long-term lease in the theater and has in their lease they have
[46:56] parking space commitments. Obviously you've got to park theater for your
[46:59] patrons. Well most of the potential development would go where the parking
[47:04] spaces are now. The surface asphalt. It's a good
[47:09] complimentary use to have an office building because the theater is
[47:13] filling up at night as the office tenants are leaving. So shared parking
[47:17] between an office building and the theater actually works really well. But
[47:21] it's almost impossible today to get financing until you have at least 50%
[47:26] of your office building pre-leased with credit worthy tenants. And that's a
[47:31] very heavy lift in this market. I mean our rents generally in the downtown
[47:36] office market are in the mid 20s, maybe high 20s of square foot in some
[47:42] of our buildings, but to build a new building today, you need to have rents between $50
[47:47] and $60 square foot to even get close.
[47:51] And when you're in a market of rents in the $25 to $28 range, leasing a building at $50
[47:56] or more square foot is hard to do.
[47:58] So as a result, there are no leases yet for the office building, but once they're
[48:03] able to get to a 50% lease pre-lease mark, I think you'll see that start to get
[48:09] traction to move forward.
[48:10] Great.
[48:10] Does anybody else have any questions for Chris or any of the other staff that's here?
[48:16] That knows all the stuff.
[48:19] No?
[48:20] Okay, well then we will, I'll get a motion to adjourn.
[48:25] But before that, I want to make sure everybody knows we're having our first ever development
[48:31] authority cocktail party downstairs in the city park.
[48:34] Even though our $150,000 fee would buy a lot of booze,
[48:37] We have learned that authority funds cannot be used for such nefarious activities.
[48:43] So, and I have to say this law firm of burn form is happy to be sponsoring this today.
[48:48] I encourage any of the staff and Jim, of course, to come join us.
[48:53] And Mayor Paul will be meeting us there momentarily as well.
[48:56] So please come down.
[48:57] We'll have drinks and snacks in City Bar.
[48:59] And we would have done this after our morning meeting, but that just didn't seem appropriate.
[49:05] But now I do need a motion to adjourn.
[49:10] All right, we've got a motion on favor, aye.
[49:12] Aye.
[49:13] Opposed?
[49:14] Passes.
[49:15] Thank you everybody.
[49:16] Great job.
[49:20] Thank you.
[49:21] Appreciate it.
[49:21] Appreciate it.
[49:22] Thank you.
[49:24] Thank you very much.