HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4673 T O1L�190 �
Y O m 0 0 0
we nm •• �
C) 0N N •• d _
O om n�NO
mom= oo� = 4673
ORDINANCE NO.
OO - wow =—
Y O OO
D � pmwoo =
Om AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF
; �;
O THE HIGHWAY 71 EAST SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE PURSUANT TO A.C.A. §14-168-305 (f)
11 om AND A.C.A. §14-168-307 (c) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
co
co
WHEREAS, several public hearings were held concerning the boundaries
of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District Number One (which was
created and its boundaries adopted by Ordinance No. 4662, December 28, 2004);
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was also held concerning the possible
formation of a redevelopment district of the remainder of the Downtown Master
Plan study area, but such creation has been indefinitely tabled in light of
budgetary concerns when the Attorney General's Opinion removed the 25 mills
authorized by Amendment 74 from tax incremental financing districts; and
WHEREAS, to adequately finance a reduced project plan to remove the
blighted area of an surrounding the Mountain Inn and to finance important
transportation improvements on the western side of the Downtown Master
Planning area, the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One should be expanded to include the entire Downtown Master
Planning Area as permitted in A.C.A. § 14-168-305 (f).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby modifies the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One of Fayetteville, Arkansas to expand this district to the west to
include the area of the Downtown Master Plan as shown on the map attached as
"Exhibit A".
Section 2: That the City Council hereby finds that the real property within
the modified boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District
Number One of Fayetteville, Arkansas, will be benefited by the
redevelopment project by eliminating or preventing the development or
spread of blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas, or discouraging the loss
of commerce, or employment, or increasing employment, or any combination
thereof.
1
I* •
Section 3: Emergency Clause. If this ordinance is not immediately
effective, the goal of the Redevelopment District and its Project Plan to remove a
dangerous, dilapidated firetrap could fail due to lack of time-sensitive funding.
The City Council, therefore, determines and declares an emergency exists which
would imperil the public peace, health or safety, and consequently this ordinance
shall be in full force and effect from the date of its passage and approval.
PASSED and APPROVED this 25th day of January, 2005.
APPROVED:
N% 90&1Y olev4l 00-
; FAYETTEVILLE ; = BY '
DAN GOODY, May
ATTEST: ''i.,dNGTON
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
r Washington Count ,
1 certify this ' YAR ,
02/01/2005 instrument was filed on
antl reco 02:20:07 pryl
File Stad in Reat Estate
t
Number 2005-00004799
Bete arn
Circus Clerk
by
a �, b
p �T t z5 105
ETTEVI&E #wy 71
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS /- J 7.Y_ ./x/ep Y1I I
• �(/S�/fin
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY ,
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO : Dan Coody, Mayor
City Council
CC : Steve Davis, Finance & Internal Services Director
FROM : Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: January 24, 2005
RE: Amendment to "Mountain Ind' TIF District Plan
OPTIONS
The City Council will have several options to consider during your special
City Council meeting on January 25"'. One thing appears certain, the original
Project Plan adopted by ordinance cannot now be considered financially feasible
and must be changed or repealed.
OPTION ONE — REPEAL
The City Council is not bound to attempt to continue the Project Plan with
the loss of use of the 25 mills required for school funding by Amendment 74 to the
Arkansas Constitution. Repealing the Project Plan ordinance would likely end the
Project of removing the Mountain Inn and Courts Building and replacing them
with a $20 million plus hotel, condominium, convention and parking complex. It
would not end our responsibility to do something to eliminate the dangerous and
debilitated Mountain Inn building.
We would probably need to issue a raze and removal order through an
ordinance. I would expect litigation from the current owner. If successful, we
would have to use general funds to pay for the demolition of the Mountain Inn
(which would be more expensive if done between the Courts Building and
adjoining shelter to the west) .
Once condemned and demolished, we would have a (million dollar?) lien
for our costs, but not be the actual owner of the land. It would be unlikely that we
would ever recoup the demolition costs. There would then be a block long brown
field along College Avenue.
OPTION TWO — TIF CONDEMNATION
If the City Council chooses not to enlarge the boarders nor go forward with
the original Mountain Inn Project Plan, only abut a million dollars in TIF bonds
could be marketed successfully until the issue of debt service ad valorem rate is
resolved by the Courts. The Plan would be modified to use all TIF proceeds to
remove the blighted Mountain Inn through eminent domain (if necessary) .
Since most of the available TIF funds would be needed for demolition
costs, we could probably only offer (at most) the appraised "brown field" appraisal
we received from the developers ' appraiser. Again, I expect litigation over the
current value of the Mountain Inn. We probably could not do any demolition until
a jury verdict about how much we have to pay for the Mountain Inn. If that
amount was substantial, we could not both buy the Mountain Inn and pay to
demolish it with TIF funds.
At best, the jury would determine the value of this dilapidated fire trap was
not worth the cost to demolish it so we could then tear it down with TIF funds, but
would again be left with an empty brown field along College Avenue.
OPTION THREE — REDUCED PROJECT PLAN
This option is only viable if the developers agree to: ( 1 ) buy the secondary
bonds on notes above the primary bonds supported by the undisputed 3 . 16 mills
and (2) absorb one million dollars that the TIF Project Plan had envisioned to be
paid for with TIF funds.
If the developers would agree to both proposals, then the Project Plan
would be amended to remove the purchase of the Red Bird Cafe and Niblock Law
Office building and to use the purchase price of the raw land as a payment on the
TIF debt. Both options three and four require an injunction or declaratory
judgment action be taken to Court to resolve the issue of the debt service ad
valorem rate.
Whether or not the developers will take on the risk that the Supreme Court
will eventually decide the debt service ad valoem rate is as proposed by the
Fayetteville School District and the additional one million dollars in costs for this
project is for them to say.
OPTION FOUR — EXPAND THE DISTRICT BORDERS
This option requires two vital components. First, the City Council must be
willing to expand the boundaries of the East Square Highway 71 Redevelopment
District to the west to absorb the remainder of the Downtown Master Plan area.
Second, the developers will have to agree to purchase the secondary bonds and
notes at their risk for the disputed millage (between 3 . 16 and 7.66).
The developers ' notes or bonds would be paid only after the bonds secured
by 3 . 16 mills were paid. However, once the Supreme Court rules on the debt
service rate, the secondary bonds might become payable if the tax increment is
then sufficient.
No other definite project is planned for the enlarged district at this time.
Although there should be funds available for relatively modest projects like the
trail corridor from Frisco Trail to the Scull Creek Trail. This would help complete
a bicycle thoroughfare from 6`h Street to the Mall and Mud Creek Trail. Such a
safe and level thoroughfare could reduce motorized vehicle volume and parking
problems for the entire Downtown area. Depending upon millage available a
cooperative parking deck with the University or business might also become
feasible.
CONCLUSION
The first ordinance that will be presented to the City Council for
consideration will be the expansion of the borders of the redevelopment district
since option four can only be considered if you chose to enlarge the district.
After this decision, the City Council will have three options: 1 , 2, and
either 3 or 4 depending upon whether you enlarged the district's border and
whether the developers agree to the financing to make option 3 or 4 feasible.
w �
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE HIGHWAY 71 EAST SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE PURSUANT TO A.C.A. §14-168-305 (f)
AND A.C.A. §14-168 307 (c) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, several public hearings were held concerning the boundaries
of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District Number One (which was
created and its boundaries adopted by Ordinance No. 4662, December 28, 2004);
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was also held concerning the possible
formation of a redevelopment district of the remainder of the Downtown Master
Plan study area, but such creation has been indefinitely tabled in light of
budgetary concerns when the Attorney General's Opinion removed the 25 mills
authorized by Amendment 74 from tax incremental financing districts; and
WHEREAS, to adequately finance a reduced project plan to remove the
blighted area of an surrounding the Mountain Inn and to finance important
transportation improvements on the western side of the Downtown Master
Planning area, the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One should be expanded to include the entire Downtown Master
Planning Area as permitted in A.C.A. § 14-168-305 (f).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby modifies the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One of Fayetteville, Arkansas to expand this district to the west to
include the area of the Downtown Master Plan as shown on the map attached as
"Exhibit A".
Section 2: That the City Council hereby finds that the real property within
the modified boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District
Number One of Fayetteville, Arkansas, will be benefited by the
redevelopment project by eliminating or preventing the development or
spread of blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas, or discouraging the loss
of commerce, or employment, or increasing employment, or any combination
thereof.
Section 3: Emergency Clause. If this ordinance is not immediately
effective, the goal of the Redevelopment District and its Project Plan to remove a
dangerous, dilapidated firetrap could fail due to lack of time-sensitive funding.
The City Council, therefore, determines and declares an emergency exists which
would imperil the public peace, health or safety, and consequently this ordinance
shall be in full force and effect from the date of its passage and approval.
PASSED and APPROVED this 25th day of January, 2005.
APPROVED:
By: VV
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
Lu
A, - ,: v " * Z i ILA ST .. �:Z; m¢ " p `n in' ._, :� s vDAVIDSON T
J
-inny 0 `J �r _ x O " ¢ „ ¢ # J w 3 ALLEY 519'-
,1 j °a x.F (I1 j a �i ' :W .. . -:y k �. . J .r- a9 In—N 0 3 ' J
> >
¢ s
1i77 In
APLE ST 3.
�L , �- c W i0 � w a - O
> t � J >
.?9 , ar 1 ° 1 F - w 5 -p. 5 ie -
! a F t Z Y r Q .� J
REAGAN ST , �u �, U 1 w * s .< ' 3
a w z .LAFAYETTE ST Q i an
p" �� s p
¢ i z ~
U ..
�` 80LESSTa "< * _sz : -
f U) .
�3 =� i_11 II ¢
"Aar
LLEY 333 * _ WATSON ST x = � " SUTTON ST -
, e t ¢ ,:d ,
3F`F Q .
µW
,e
N
s I
1 u
j Q F art F
WHITESIDE ST , r �-:
��J NERST.
* p�_ `'i a. ¢ Q SPRING ST r ` >j .
rr
en
r in
1 MI . EADOW ST m ' ,, .z "
..r, ! IaaLr F i Q
y r f
Y F
' CENTER STS * = r " Q - _ -
*;' w - JaninN CENTER ST ;
nil I
` < MOUNTAIN ST v x O UNTAIN STIn
- -
3rail +s t+f U "
i ,W'. 7 In
3 s }
�n #s .:q `- ., .¢' U -s �AlLE1' 113` w nil' s
. PUTMAN.ST ;5 - ' - : Nr "~i 4r s
,.w
p . nrinIl W y .
:n. } - J :p
v
¢ w: >` �g�JO 3
STONE ST'` " Q- i r ?-3 J4.�' a ;
" " pM i. �O S - + yG WA(KERR
y ' rr
O eIn
F .,. - tiT
r w 12
, PRG -I al _ > 2S����
In
" 1 T ' Z0
,,., PRAIRIE ST ¢ : O VO
w .r '`11 C7
Q r > - Z
5TH L 11ST ST¢ _
in
. . PRIVATE 421 w W Q F _- 3anI
�z Ira
Iniial l
* v n1 K `� xi rQ __ , ,� '' > 8TH ST. W
a O ¢
' F h W k � �.- ,✓� = Y `fa - S fie >
11 Iz
to l
, a.Z p , Q : m. 7THST . . ae
_2 ALLEY-799 .,. �.L' ".np = a
. all
w ocmmwa rwwn® `n.m owrm.nnrs
V. > N ,}
V.0, 5 . .
� a. ::.9TH ST:..
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROJECT PLAN
FOR THE HIGHWAY 71 EAST SQUARE
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE,
FINDING THE PLAN IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2004, the Fayetteville City Council held a Public
Hearing concerning the creation of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District;
and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4608
creating the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District and authorized preparation
of a Redevelopment Project Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City with input from the proposed redevelopers of a Twenty-
Two Million Dollar hotel project to be constructed after removal of the blighted
Mountain Inn has prepared a proposed Project Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2004, the City held a Public Hearing on this initial
Project Plan proposed for the Redevelopment District; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2004, the City had a further public hearing on this
Project Plan and passed Ordinance 4646 adopting the Project Plan; and
WHEREAS, because of a minor, technical notification discrepancy, the City
determined the need to renotify all statutorily required officials and republish notice of
the public hearings for the Redevelopment District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after 15 day published notice held another public
hearing on December 28, 2004 at which all interested parties were given the opportunity
to express their views on the proposed adoption of the Project Plan for the Highway 71
East Square Redevelopment District Number One of Fayetteville, Arkansas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted this Project Plan on December 28, 2004
by Ordinance No. 4663 ; and
WHEREAS, the Arkansas Attorney General in January 2005 has opined that the
25 mills required by Amendment 74 to be sent to the State may not be used for tax
incremental financing; and
WHEREAS, removing the 25 mills from the tax increment requires amendment
of the Project Plan; and
WHEREAS, the required fifteen day statutory notification of taxing entities and
two publications of notice of the intent to amend the Project Plan have been
accomplished prior to the public hearing for the Amendment to the Project Plan on
January 25, 2005 ; and
WHEREAS, the Amendment to the Project Plan complies with all statutory
requirements of A.C.A. § 14-168-306 and 307.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
finds that the Amended Project Plan for the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District (attached as Exhibit A) is economically feasible.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
adopts the Amended Project Plan for the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District and determines it has complied with all requirements set forth in A.C.A. § 14-
168-306.
Section 3 : Emergency Clause. If this ordinance is not immediately effective, the
goal of the Redevelopment District and its Amended Project Plan to remove a dangerous,
dilapidated firetrap could fail due to lack of time-sensitive funding. The City Council,
therefore, determines and declares an emergency exists which would imperil the public
peace, health or safety, and consequently this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from the date of its passage and approval.
PASSED and APPROVED this 25t° day of January, 2005.
APPROVED: F�
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
M i
Fayettev i I I e Partners
January 24, 2005
Fayetteville City Council
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear City Council,
On January 18'", the Fayetteville Downtown Partners Board of Directors met and
unanimously voted to support the Mountain Inn redevelopment project. We believe
this project is an integral component to our Downtown Master Plan and will
contribute greatly to the health and vitality of our community. We are not alone in this
sentiment. In the Downtown Master Plan , the citizens of Fayetteville identified the
Mountain Inn as one of their top priorities on the immediate project listings.
We urge the City Council to provide the leadership needed to assist in the
implementation of the redevelopment. For years, this abandoned building has
greeted visitors to our downtown area--- its dilapidated appearance sending a
message of apathy, indigence, and instability. We envision a new and vibrant hotel
complex that will restore our eastern downtown border, while creating a special place
that all of Fayetteville can enjoy.
Fayetteville Downtown Partners' looks forward to working with the City and its
citizens as we continue to develop the most exciting downtown experience in
Northwest Arkansas.
Best Regards,
Won Hoover
President, Fayetteville Downtown Partners
Our mission is to ensure a dynamic downtown area through economic development
initiatives, capital improvements and effective marketing of the district.
a '`V
A Feasibility Study of the Highway 71 East Square
Redevelopment District #1
Produced for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
SAM.M.
UMVERSITY COLLEGE of BUSINESS
IARKANSAS
CenterforBusineirs and -EconamicResearch
Center for Business and Economic Research
Reynolds Center Building 217
Sam M. Walton College of Business
1 University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201
(479) 575-4151
Contact: Dr. Jeffery T. Collins, Director
January 2005
E
I
Introduction
This report includes the results of the financial feasibility study of the Highway 71 East
Square Redevelopment District #1 (East Square district) requested by the City of
Fayetteville from researchers at the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER)
in"the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas. As of
publication time, there are various scenarios being considered for financing the
redevelopment of the East Square area together with differing assumptions about the
availability of funding. Because of the lingering uncertainties about the inputs to the
model, a series of 12 different estimations is presented. As policies become more
concrete, decision -makers can use the tables that best represent reality to help in their
processes.
The projections included in this report are based on assessment values from 2001 to
2004. Although some assessment data are available for years prior to 2001, changes in
the property tax laws and in the appraisal process make comparisons invalid. The authors
of this study acknowledge that the use of only four years of data to make projections for
the next twenty-five years is a considerable limitation. However, the authors of this
report also believe that good decisions are the results of good information and the data
from 2001-2004 are of sufficient quality to make reasonable predictions about the future.
More importantly, no reasonable alternative methodology for predicting the growth in
assessment values exists.
The University and CBER are unable to guarantee any outcome, result, or investment
decision of the City, the project developers, legal and underwriting professionals
involved in the preparation of the bond documents; or individual bond investors, and
expressly decline to make any such guarantee. Naturally, economic feasibility studies are
subject to and affected by ever-changing local, state, national, and international economic
and political forces and other economic assumptions. With respect to any investment
decision, therefore, decision -makers must exercise their discretion and best judgment
based upon the best available information, but no assurances or outcomes can be
guaranteed.
It must be clear to all who read this financial feasibility report that the predictions made
by CBER researchers are based upon historical data, and to the extent that the future
differs from the past, the projections will be more or less accurate. Market forces, local,
state, national, and international events, acts of nature, and many other variables affect
the assessed property values in Fayetteville and its districts and cause deviations from the
projected values. CBER researchers and the University cannot be held responsible fro
any differences between predictions about the future and actual outcomes.
2
Methodology
The purpose of this report is to estimate the revenue stream that can be expected to result
from the levying of property taxes on the incremental change in assessed real estate value
in the East Square district. Additionally, projections of the revenue stream resulting from
the levying of property taxes in the East Square district and a set of parcels from
downtown Fayetteville are estimated.
The first step in the estimating these revenues involved data gathering. Staff from the
City of Fayetteville provided CBER researchers the list of parcels that would be included
in the East Square district and in a proposed Downtown TIF district. CBER analysts then
obtained parcel assessment data for the years 2001 through 2004 from the Washington
County Assessor's office. The 2004 data represent a snapshot of the Washington County
Assessor's records as of December 31, 2004.
The property use type of each of the parcels was identified and average annual
assessment growth rates were calculated by type for the years 2001 to 2004 for the East
Square district set of parcels, the East Square district plus the Downtown parcels, and for
all Fayetteville parcels. Then twenty-five year baseline projections for each district were
produced. These projections assume that each property will grow at its parcel type's
average annual growth rate from 2001-2004 for the next twenty-five years. This baseline
scenario shows how property values in the districts are likely to change absent any
infrastructure improvement.
Arkansas Amendment 79 caps the growth of assessed values of existing properties at 5
percent for owner -occupied houses, at 0 percent for homeowners over the age of 65 and
for disabled people, and at 10 percent for other properties. However, when new
improvements are made, the full appraised value of these properties is assessed in their
first year and then in subsequent years, these properties become subject to the
Amendment 79 caps on growth in assessed value. Thus, it is possible for the annual
growth rate of a particular category of properties to exceed the Amendment 79 capped
amount. Using the average annual growth rates by parcel type as the basis of the
projections means that these newly assessed properties are included in the estimate.
After the baseline projections, assuming no extraordinary infrastructure improvements,
were calculated, two alternative scenarios were presented. The first includes the addition
to the tax rolls of two projects in 2007. The "Terminella Project" is one of the
developments while the other is the redevelopment of the old library building. The
Terminella project is assumed to have an appraised value of $2.6 million, which
translates into $520,000 of additional assessed value. The redevelopment of the old
library building is assumed to add $4 million in appraised value to the district, resulting
in $800,000 of additional assessed value. The assessed values of these properties then
grow at the Commercial Improved rate for the duration of the twenty-five year period.
The second scenario presented includes the addition of the Terminella Project and the
redevelopment of the old library along with the redevelopment of the Mountain Inn
property. The Mountain Inn is assumed to come on the tax rolls in 2007 with an
appraised value of $20 million, which equates to an assessed value of $4 million.
Once the projections of total assessed value in each district and for each scenario were
made, the available increment in each year was calculated. To calculate the annual yield
of the TIF district, it is necessary to apply the appropriate millage rate to the available
increment. At the request of the City of Fayetteville, two millage scenarios are presented.
The first assumes that of the 51.86 mills that are assessed in the district, 7.66 will be
available for tax increment financing. These 7.66 mills are the sum of the Washington
County millage, the roads millage, the City of Fayetteville millage, and the library
millage. The second rate is 3.16. This amount is the remainder from 51.86 when the 25
state -mandated public school mills and the 23.7 Fayetteville Public School debt millage
as of January 1, 2001 are subtracted.
Results
The results of the various permutations of scenarios are presented in Tables I through 12.
The first three tables present the results using only the parcels in the original East Square
district, along with a 7.66 millage rate. Tables 4 through 6 present the results using only
the parcels in the original East Square district along with a 3.16 millage rate. Tables 7
through 12 replicate these results using the parcels in both the East Square district and the
Downtown districts.
Table 13 presents a summarized version of the twenty-five year total yields from each of
the alternatives presented in the first twelve tables. Under the scenario where parcels
from both the East Square district and the Downtown district are include and when 7.66
mills are available to the TIF district, the Terminella project and the old library
redevelopment add $775,268 to the total twenty-five year yield. In the same case, the
addition of the Mountain Inn redevelopment adds $2,329,296to the twenty-five year
yield. These are the upper bounds for the scenarios considered for the impacts of these
projects.
Included in Tables 14 through 17 are summary statistics about the data and about the
millage rates considered. Table 14 contains the distribution of parcels by type for the
East Square district, the East Square district and the Downtown district, and for the entire
City of Fayetteville. The East Square district is more heavily weighted Commercial
Improved than the whole city and less heavily weighted toward Residential Improved.
Adding the Downtown district parcels alleviates this somewhat, but Fayetteville is still
much more residential than the districts considered. The information contained in Table
15 bears this out further. A full 79.2 percent of the assessed valuation in the East Square
district is Commercial Improved, 66.0 percent of the assessed valuation in the East
Square plus Downtown district is Commercial Improved and only 32.4 percent of the
assessed valuation in the whole City of Fayetteville is Commercial Improved.
Therefore, the growth rate applied to the Commercial Improved properties will have a
disproportionate effect in the East Square district. Table 16 shows the average annual
growth rates in assessed values by parcel type for the East Square district, the East Square
plus Downtown district, and the City of Fayetteville. For the East Square Commercial
Improved properties, the average annual growth rate from 2001 to 2004 was 8.1 percent.
In Fayetteville as a whole and in the East Square plus Downtown district, the growth rate
was higher, at 9.7 percent.
Finally, Table 17 presents the breakdown of the millage rate assumptions used in this
study. Obviously, there is a significant revenue difference under every scenario
depending on whether the higher or lower millage rate is applied to the available
increment.
Conclusion
This study uses historical growth rates in assessed value to project out the revenue stream
that will be available for use in the East Square TIF district in the City of Fayetteville.
Three model specifications are considered: a baseline where no extraordinary
infrastructure investment is made, an alternative where the Terminella project and the old
library redevelopment are considered, and an alternative where the redevelopment of the
Mountain Inn is additionally considered. Also, projections are included for a district that
would include both the East Square and the Downtown districts. Under the most liberal
scenario, the available yield for the TIF district is $30,668,484. The difference between
this scenario and its baseline is $3,104,564. This difference is the amount that should be
attributable to specific investments, rather than the normal progression of the market.
5
• 0
Table 1: East Square Baseline Scenario with Available TIF millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment:
$1,007,514,922
Total Available Yield: $7,717,564
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $4,496,471
teai
Frozen Assessment
$16,620,078
206
$16,620,078
200'
$16,620,078
-O8
$16,620,078
00
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$21,072,067
$22,819,434
$24,718,735
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
8.26%
8.29%
8.32%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$4,451,989
$6,199,356
$8,098,657
Available Yield
$10,444
$21,784
$34,102
$47,487
$62,036
PV of Available Yield
$10,139
$20,533
$31,208
$42,192
$53,513
ea
Frozen Assessment
20
$16,620,078
21i1
$16,620,078
202
$16,620,078
20 -
$16,620,078
2
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$26,783,908
$29,030,259
$31,474,607
$34,135,448
$37,033,139
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.35%
8.39%
8.42%
8.45%
8.49%
Increment
$10,163,830
$12,410,181
$14,854,529
$17,515,370
$20,413,061
Available Yield
$77,855
$95,062
$113,786
$134,168
$156,364
PV of Available Yield
$65,202
$77,294
$89,823
$102,828
$116,350
Year
Frozen Assessment
5
$16,620,078
2016
$16,620,078
ZOTtr
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
26119
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$40,190,101
$43,631,044
$47,383,230
$51,476,755
$55,944,875
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.52%
8.56%
8.60%
8.64%
8.68%
Increment
$23,570,023
$27,010,966
$30,763,152
$34,856,677
$39,324,797
Available Yield
$180,546
$206,904
$235,646
$267,002
$301,228
PV of Available Yield
$130,431
$145,118
$160,463
$176,520
$193,347
eaZE20
Frozen Assessment
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
I
$16,620,078
I 123
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$60,824,371
$66,155,958
$71,984,747
$78,360,770
$85,339,567
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.72%
8.77%
8.81%
8.86%
8.91%
Increment
$44,204,293
$49,535,880
$55,364,669
$61,740,692
$68,719,489
Available Yield
$338,605
$379,445
$424,093
$472,934
$526,391
PV of Available Yield
$211,007
$229,570
$249,110
$269,707
$291,450
ear
Frozen Assessment
2Q25
$16,620,078
2�6
$16,620,078
2fJ21
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$92,982,856
$101,359,291
$110,545,315
$120,626,141
$131,696,854
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.96%
9.01%
9.06%
9.12%
9.18%
Increment
$76,362,778
$84,739,213
$93,925,237
$104,006,063
$115,076;776
Available Yield
$584,939
$649,102
$719,467
$796,686
$881,488
PV of Available Yield
$314,433
$338,762
$364,548
$391,917
$421,004
CI
i
Table 2: East Square Scenario Including the Terminella Project and the Library
Renovation with Available TIF millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $1,089,070,271
Total Available Yield: $8,342,278
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield:
$4,877,993
ear
Frozen Assessment
2ib5
$16,620,078
2006
$16,620,078
2007
$16,620,078
2008
$16,620,078
2 09
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$22,392,067
$24,246,489
$26,261,528
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
15.04%
8.28%
8.31%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$5,771,989
$7,626,411
$9,641,450
Available Yield
$10,444
$21,784
$44,213
$58,418
$73,854
PV of Available Yield
$10,139
$20,533
$40,462
$51,904
$63,707
Yea120102
Frozen Assessment
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
2011521
$16,620,078
13
$16,620,078
0
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$28,451,825
$30,833,447
$33,424,037
$36,242,982
$39,311,599
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.34%
8.37%
8.40%
8.43%
8.47%
Increment
$11,831,747
$14,213,369
$16,803,959
$19,622,904
$22,691,521
Available Yield
$90,631
$108,874
$128,718
$150,311
$173,817
PV of Available Yield
$75,902
$88,525
$101,611
$115,201
$129,336
ea
Frozen Assessment
X-
$16,620,078
6
$16,620,078
2T01117
$16,620,078
I 2018
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$42,653,349
$46,294,068
$50,262,231
$54,589,249
$59,309,800
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.50%
8.54%
8.57%
8.61%
8.65%
Increment
$26,033,271
$29,673,990
$33,642,153
$37,969,171
$42,689,722
Available Yield
$199,415
$227,303
$257,699
$290,844
$327,003
PV of Available Yield
$144,062
$159,426
$175,480
$192,282
$209,891
tear
Frozen Assessment
220
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
20 .
$16,620,078
02 -
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$64,462,199
$70,088,822
$76,236,576
$82,957,432
$90,309,028
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.69%
8.73%
8.77%
8.82%
8.86%
Increment
$47,842,121
$53,468,744
$59,616,498
$66,337,354
$73,688,950
Available Yield
$366,471
$409,571
$456,662
$508,144
$564,457
PV of Available Yield
$228,372
$247,797
$268,241
$289,787
$312,526
ea
Frozen Assessment
2025
$16,620,078
202
$16,620,078
2i2'7
$16,620,078
2028
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$98,355,352
$107,167,508
$116,824,592
$127,414,682
$139,035,961
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.91%
8.96%
9.01%
9.06%
9.12%
Increment
$81,735,274
$90,547,430
$100,204,514
$110,794,604
$122,415,883
Available Yield
$626,092
$693,593
$767,567
$848,687
$937,706
PV of Available Yield
$336,555
$361,981
$388,920
$417,498
$447,853
0 0
Table 3: East Square Scenario with the Mountain Inn, Terminella Project, and
Library Renovation with available TIF millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $1,336,207,692
Total Available Yield: $10,235,531
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $6,034,119
Year
Frozen Assessment
•2005
$16,620,078
2006
$16,620,078
2007
$16,620,078
2008
$16,620,078
2009
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$26,392,067
$28,570,898
$30,936,656
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
35.59%
8.26%
8.28%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$9,771,989
$11,950,820
$14,316,578
Available Yield
$10,444
$21,784
$74,853
$91,543
$109,665
PV of Available Yield
$10,139
$20,533
$68,501
$81,335
$94,598
ear
Frozen Assessment
2010
$16,620,078
2011
$16,620,078
2012
$16,620,078
2013
$16,620,078
201
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$33,506,117
$36,297,654
$39,331,404
$42,629,450
$46,216,024
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.31%
8.33%
8.36%
8.39%
8.41%
Increment
$16,886,039
$19,677,576
$22,711,326
$26,009,372
$29,595,946
Available Yield
$129,347
$150,730
$173,969
$199,232
$226,705
PV of Available Yield
$108,326
$122,557
$137,333
$152,695
$168,690
ea
Frozen Assessment
201115
$16,620,078
2016
$16,620,078
I2017
$16,620,078
20 8
$16,620,078
2
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$50,117,738
$54,363,836
$58,986,476
$64,021,050
$69,506,541
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.44%
8.47%
8.50%
8.54%
8.57%
Increment
$33,497,660
$37,743,758
$42,366,398
$47,400,972
$52,886,463
Available Yield
$256,592
$289,117
$324,527
$363,091
$405,110
PV of Available Yield
$185,368
$202,781
$220,987
$240,046
$260,025
t:ar
Frozen Assessment
I 202
$16,620,078
02
$16,620,078
22.2
$16,620,078
I 2Q26
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$75,485,920
$82,006,592
$89,120,904
$96,886,708
$105,368,001
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.60%
8.64%
8.68%
8.71%
8.75%
Increment
$58,865,842
$65,386,514
$72,500,826
$80,266,630
$88,747,923
Available Yield
$450,912
$500,861
$555,356
$614,842
. $679,809
PV of Available Yield
$280,994
$303,029
$326,213
$350,636
$376,394
ear
Frozen Assessment
202
$16,620,078
'2P26
$16,620,078
I
$16,620,078
20 8
$16,620,078
I Z02-9
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$114,635,642
$124,768,166
$135,852,704
$147,986,017
$161,275,679
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.80%
8.84%
8.88%
8.93%
8.98%
Increment
$98,015,564
$108,148,088
$119,232,626
$131,365,939
$144,655,601
Available Yield
$750,799
$828,414
$913,322
$1,006,263
$1,108,062
PV of Available Yield
$403,592
$432,343
$462,773
$495,015
$529,217
Table 4: East Square Baseline Scenario with Available TIF millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $1,007,514,922
Total Available Yield: $3,183,747
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $1,854,941
Year
Frozen Assessment
2005
$16,620,078
2006
$16,620,078
207
$16,620,078
2008
$16,620,078
2009
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$21,072,067
$22,819,434
$24,718,735
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
8.26%
8.29%
8.32%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$4,451,989
$6,199,356
$8,098,657
Available Yield
$4,308
$8,987
$14,068
$19,590
$25,592
PV of Available Yield
$4,183
$8,471
$12,874
$17,405
$22,076
ear
Frozen Assessment
2tJX0
$16,620,078
2011
$16,620,078
2012
$16,620,078
2613I
$16,620,078
2014
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$26,783,908
$29,030,259
$31,474,607
$34,135,448
$37,033,139
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.35%
8.39%
8.42%
8.45%
8.49%
Increment
$10,163,830
$12,410,181
$14,854,529
$17,515,370
$20,413,061
Available Yield
$32,118
$39,216
$46,940
$55,349
$64,505
PV of Available Yield
$26,898
$31,886
$37,055
$42,420
$47,998
Year
Frozen Assessment
2015
$16,620,078
2016
$16,620,078
21117
$16,620,078
2018
$16,620,078
2.19
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$40,190,101
$43,631,044
$47,383,230
$51,476,755
$55,944,875
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.52%
8.56%
8.60%
8.64%
8.68%
Increment
$23,570,023
$27,010,966
$30,763,152
$34,856,677
$39,324,797
Available Yield
$74,481
$85,355
$97,212
$110,147
$124,266
PV of Available Yield
$53,807
$59,866
$66,196
$72,820
$79,762
te:au
Frozen Assessment
202'
$16,620,078
2Q21
$16,620,078
2i)2
$16,620,078
253
$16,620,078
2
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$60,824,371
$66,155,958
$71,984,747
$78,360,770
$85,339,567
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.72%
8.77%
8.81%
8.86%
8.91%
Increment
$44,204,293
$49,535,880
$55,364,669
$61,740,692
$68,719,489
Available Yield
$139,686
$156,533
$174,952
$195,101
$217,154
PV of Available Yield
$87,047
$94,705
$102,766
$111,263
$120,233
ear
Frozen Assessment
205
$16,620,078
2026
$16,620,078
202'7
$16,620,078
I 2028
$16,620,078
029
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$92,982,856
$101,359,291
$110,545,315
$120,626,141
$131,696,854
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.96%
9.01%
9.06%
9.12%
9.18%
Increment
$76,362,778
$84,739,213
$93,925,237
$104,006,063
$115,076,776
Available Yield
$241,306
$267,776
$296,804
$328,659
$363,643
PV of Available Yield
$129,714
$139,750
$150,388
$161,679
$173,678
9
Table 5: East Square Scenario Including the Terminella Project and the Library
Renovation with Available TIF millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $1,089,070,271
Total Available Yield: $3,441,462
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $2,012,331
ear
Frozen Assessment
2005
$16,620,078
006
$16,620,078
2007
$16,620,078
2008
$16,620,078
2QQ9
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$22,392,067
$24,246,489
$26,261,528
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
15.04%
8.28%
8.31%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$5,771,989
$7,626,411
$9,641,450
Available Yield
$4,308
$8,987
$18,239
$24,099
$30,467
PV of Available Yield
$4,183
$8,471
$16,692
$21,412
$26,281
ear
Frozen Assessment
2010
$16,620,078
201&i
$16,620,078
2042
$16,620,078
203'20jl
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$28,451,825
$30,833,447
$33,424,037
$36,242,982
$39,311,599
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.34%
8.37%
8.40%
8.43%
8.47%
Increment
$11,831,747
$14,213,369
$16,803,959
$19,622,904
$22,691,521
Available Yield
$37,388
$44,914
$53,101
$62,008
$71,705
PV of Available Yield
$31,312
$36,519
$41,918
$47,524
$53,355
earI
Frozen Assessment
2Jj115
$16,620,078
2016
$16,620,078
2017
$16,620,078
2018
$16,620,078
20
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$42,653,349
$46,294,068
$50,262,231
$54,589,249
$59,309,800
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.50%
8.54%
8.57%
&61%
8.65%
Increment
$26,033,271
$29,673,990
$33,642,153
$37,969,171
$42,689,722
Available Yield
$82,265
$93,770
$106,309
$119,983
$134,900
PV of Available Yield
$59,430
$65,768
$72,391
$79,323
$86,587
ear2020
Frozen Assessment
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
ZO2'7
$16,620,078
2026
$16,620,078
202
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$64,462,199
$70,088,822
$76,236,576
$82,957,432
$90,309,028
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.69%
8.73%
8.77%
8.82%
8.86%
Increment
$47,842,121
$53,468,744
$59,616,498
$66,337,354
$73,688,950
Available Yield
$151,181
$168,961
$188,388
$209,626
$232,857
PV of Available Yield
$94,211
$102,224
$110,658
$119,547
$128,927
ea
Frozen Assessment
2025
$16,620,078
226
$16,620,078
I 202'7
$16,620,078
028
$16,620,078
202
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$98,355,352
$107,167,508
$116,824,592
$127,414,682
$139,035,961
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.91%
8.96%
9.01%
9.06%
9.12%
Increment
$81,735,274
$90,547,430
$100,204,514
$110,794,604
$122,415,883
Available Yield
$258,283
$286,130
$316,646
$350,111
$386,834
PV of Available Yield
$138,840
$149,329
$160,442
$172,231
$184,754
10
r
Table 6: East Square Scenario with the Mountain Inn, Terminella Project, and
Library Renovation with available TIF millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $1,336,207,692
Total Available Yield: $4,222,416
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $2,489,271
Year
Frozen Assessment
2005
$16,620,078
2006
$16,620,078
2007
$16,620,078
008
$16,620,078
2009
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$17,983,461
$19,463,936
$26,392,067
$28,570,898
$30,936,656
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.20%
8.23%
35.59%
8.26%
8.28%
Increment
$1,363,383
$2,843,858
$9,771,989
$11,950,820
$14,316,578
Available Yield
$4,308
$8,987
$30,879
$37,765
$45,240
PV of Available Yield
$4,183
$8,471
$28,259
$33,553
$39,025
Year
Frozen Assessment
20 1(0 I
$16,620,078
2p111
$16,620,078
20W
$16,620,078
2O13
$16,620,078
201
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$33,506,117
$36,297,654
$39,331,404
$42,629,450
$46,216,024
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.31%
8.33%
8.36%
8.39%
8.41 %
Increment
$16,886,039
$19,677,576
$22,711,326
$26,009,372
$29,595,946
Available Yield
$53,360
$62,181
$71,768
$82,190
$93,523
PV of Available Yield
$44,688
$50,559
$56,654
$62,991
$69,590
ieai
Frozen Assessment
I 201
$16,620,078
2ciTh
$16,620,078
I201
$16,620,078
2018'70i119
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$50,117,738
$54,363,836
$58,986,476
$64,021,050
$69,506,541
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.44%
8.47%
8.50%
8.54%
8.57%
Increment
$33,497,660
$37,743,758
$42,366,398
$47,400,972
$52,886,463
Available Yield
$105,853
$119,270
$133,878
$149,787
$167,121
PV of Available Yield
$76,470
$83,654
$91,164
$99,027
$107,269
tear
Frozen Assessment
2020Q
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
2-
$16,620,078
2'3
$16,620,078
-02
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$75,485,920
$82,006,592
$89,120,904
$96,886,708
$105,368,001
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.60%
8.64%
8.68%
8.71%
8.75%
Increment
$58,865,842
$65,386,514
$72,500,826
$80,266,630
$88,747,923
Available Yield
$186,016
$206,621
$229,103
$253,643
$280,443
PV of Available Yield
$115,919
$125,009
$134,574
$144,649
$155,275
a
Frozen Assessment
2025
$16,620,078
02
$16,620,078
$16,620,078
2028
$16,620,078
2t129
$16,620,078
Total Assessment
$114,635,642
$124,768,166
$135,852,704
$147,986,017
$161,275,679
Assessment Growth
Rate
8.80%
8.84%
8.88%
8.93%
8.98%
Increment
$98,015,564
$108,148,088
$119,232,626
$131,365,939
$144,655,601
Available Yield
$309,729
$341,748
$376,775
$415,116
$457,112
PV of Available Yield
$166,495
$178,356
$190,909
$204,210
$218,319
11
• I.
Table 7: East Square and Downtown Baseline Scenario with Available TIF
millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $3,598,422,952
Total Available Yield: $27,563,920
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield:
$15,744,504
Yea
Frozen Assessment
2005
$31,703,839
2W6
$31,703,839
2007 In2OJt
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2009
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$43,237,746
$48,011,059
$53,346,178
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
10.97%
11.04%
11.11%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$11,533,907
$16,307,220
$21,642,339
Available Yield
$26,289
$55,615
$88,350
$124,913
$165,780
PV of Available Yield
$25,523
$52,422
$80,853
$110,984
$143,004
YearI
Frozen Assessment
2OXO
$31,703,839
I ZUlu1
$31,703,839
Z011J
$31,703,839
20 3
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$59,313,167
$65,991,305
$73,470,353
$81,852,005
$91,251,540
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.19%
.
11.26%
11.33%
11.41%
11.48%
Increment
$27,609,328
$34,287,466
$41,766,514
$50,148,166
$59,547,701
Available Yield
$211,487
$262,642
$319,932
$384,135
$456,135
PV of Available Yield
$177,117
$213,552
$252,557
$294,407
$339,408
ear
Frozen Assessment
2015
$31,703,839
20Z6
$31,703,839
2017
$31,703,839
2i8
$31,703,839
2
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$101,799,717
$113,644,944
$126,955,756
$141,923,652
$158,766,349
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.56%
11.64%
11.71%
11.79%
11.87%
Increment
$70,095,878
$81,941,105
$95,251,917
$110,219,813
$127,062,510
Available Yield
$536,934
$627,669
$729,630
$844,284
$973,299
PV of Available Yield
$387,893
$440,234
$496,842
$558,171
$624,723
ear
Frozen Assessment
2020
$31,703,839
I ZO2il202.2
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2t128_
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$177,731,504
$199,100,989
$223,195,775
$250,381,555
$281,075,178
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.95%
12.02%
12.10%
12.18%
12.26%
Increment
$146,027,665
$167,397,150
$191,491,936
$218,677,716
$249,371,339
Available Yield
$1,118,572
$1,282,262
$1,466,828
$1,675,071
$1,910,184
PV of Available Yield
$697,057
$775,790
$861,607
$955,270
$1,057,623
e rI
Frozen Assessment
2025
$31,703,839
2026
$31,703,839
I 7ff27
$31,703,839
D2
$31,703,839
2t[29
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$315,752,037
$354,954,549
$399,301,895
$449,501,199
$506,360,371
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.34%
12.42%
12.49%
12.57%
12.65%
Increment
$284,048,198
$323,250,710
$367,598,056
$417,797,360
$474,656,532
Available Yield
$2,175,809
$2,476,100
$2,815,801
$3,200,328
$3,635,869
PV of Available Yield
$1,169,605
$1,292,258
$1,426,743
$1,574,349
$1,736,511
12
Table 8: East Square and Downtown Scenario Including the Terminella Project
and the Library Renovation with Available TIF Millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $3,699,632,858
Total Available Yield: $28,339,188
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $16,209,996
ear
Frozen Assessment
2005
$31,703,839
2006
$31,703,839
2007
$31,703,839
2008
$31,703,839
2009
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$44,557,746
$49,459,472
$54,935,495
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
14.36%
11.00%
11.07%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$12,853,907
$17,755,633
$23,231,656
Available Yield
$26,289
$55,615
$98,461
$136,008
$177,954
PV of Available Yield
$25,523
$52,422
$90,106
$120,841
$153,505
ea
Frozen Assessment
2010
$31,703,839
2011
$31,703,839
2012
$31,703,839
2013
$31,703,839
2OY4
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$61,057,095
$67,904,886
$75,570,092
$84,156,011
$93,779,683
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.14%
11.22%
11.29%
11.36%
11.44%
Increment
$29,353,256
$36,201,047
$43,866,253
$52,452,172
$62,075,844
Available Yield
$224,846
$277,300
$336,015
$401,784
$475,501
PV of Available Yield
$188,305
$225,470
$265,254
$307,934
$353,817
tear
Frozen Assessment
2015
$31,703,839
2016
$31,703,839
ZEWT
$31,703,839
201118
$31,703,839
20
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$104,573,804
$116,688,900
. $130,295,833
$145,588,658
$162,787,894
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.51%
11.59%
11.66%
11.74%
11.81%
Increment
$72,869,965
$84,985,061
$98,591,994
$113,884,819
$131,084,055
Available Yield
$558,184
$650,986
$755,215
$872,358
$1,004,104
PV of Available Yield
$403,244
$456,588
$514,264
$576,731
$644,496
tEat
Frozen Assessment
I ZGI2O
$31,703,839
021
$31,703,839
202
$31,703,839
023
$31,703,839
20
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$182,144,274
$203,943,041
$228,508,872
$256,211,522
$287,472,295
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.89%
11.97%
12.05%
12.12%
12.20%
Increment
$150,440,435
$172,239,202
$196,805,033
$224,507,683
$255,768,456
Available Yield
$1,152,374
$1,319,352
$1,507,527
$1,719,729
$1,959,186
PV of Available Yield
$718,121
$798,230
$885,513
$980,737
$1,084,754
'je:ar
Frozen Assessment
$31,703,839
2026
$31,703,839
02
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
0 9
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$322,771,478
$362,656,856
$407,753,498
$458,774,990
$516,536,336
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.28%
12.36%
12.44%
12.51%
12.59%
Increment
$291,067,639
$330,953,017
$376,049,659
$427,071,151
$484,832,497
Available Yield
$2,229,578
$2,535,100
$2,880,540
$3,271,365
$3,713,817
PV of Available Yield
$1,198,508
$1,323,050
$1,459,546
$1,609,295
$1,773,740
13
Table 9:
East Square and Downtown
Scenario
with the Mountain Inn, Terminella
Project,
and Library Renovation with
available
TIF Millage of 7.66
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment:
$4,006,329,540
Total Available Yield: $30,668,484
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $17,620,577
Year
Frozen Assessment
005
$31,703,839
26
$31,703,839
2007
$31,703,839
2008
$31,703,839
2009
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$48,557,746
$53,848,600
$59,751,606
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
24.62%
10.90%
10.96%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$16,853,907
$22,144,761
$28,047,767
Available Yield
$26,289
$55,615
$129,101
$169,629
$214,846
PV of Available Yield
$25,523
$52,422
$118,146
$150,713
$185,328
ear
Frozen Assessment
2010
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2011i2
$31,703,839
2013
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$66,341,727
$73,703,618
$81,932,936
$91,137,845
$101,440,724
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.03%
11.10%
11.17%
11.23%
11.30%
Increment
$34,637,888
$41,999,779
$50,229,097
$59,434,006
$69,736,885
Available Yield
$265,326
$321,718
$384,755
$455,264
$534,185
PV of Available Yield
$222,207
$261,586
$303,729
$348,922
$397,483
ear
Frozen Assessment
I
$31,703,839
I zor6
$31,703,839
I 2OJJk7
$31,703,839
2018
$31,703,839
70119
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$112,980,126
$125,913,006
$140,417,279
$156,694,739
$174,974,396
Assessment Growth
Rate .
11.38%
11.45%
11.52%
11.59%
11.67%
Increment
$81,276,287
$94,209,167
$108,713,440
$124,990,900
$143,270,557
Available Yield
$622,576
$721,642
$832,745
$957,430
$1,097,452
PV of Available Yield
$449,762
$506,145
$567,059
$632,974
$704,413
twar
Frozen Assessment
2020202
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
202.2
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$195,516,304
$218,615,928
$244,609,167
$273,878,086
$306,857,498
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.74%
11.81%
11.89%
11.97%
12.04%
Increment
$163,812,465
$186,912,089
$212,905,328
$242,174,247
$275,153,659
Available Yield
$1,254,803
$1,431,747
$1,630,855
$1,855,055
$2,107,677
PV of Available Yield
$781,952
$866,230
$957,955
$1,057,912
$1,166,970
Year
Frozen Assessment
2�Zb
$31,703,839
2026
$31,703,839
2
$31,703,839
02
$31,703,839
029
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$344,042,512
$385,997,178
$433,364,414
$486,877,387
$547,372,590
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.12%
12.19%
12.27%
12.35%
12.43%
Increment
$312,338,673
$354,293,339
$401,660,575
$455,173,548
$515,668,751
Available Yield
$2,392,514
$2,713,887
$3,076,720
$3,486,629
$3,950,023
PV of Available Yield
$1,286,094
$1,416,357
$1,558,949
$1,715,191
$1,886,553
14
Table 10: East Square and Downtown Baseline Scenario with Available TIF
millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $3,598,422,952
Total Available Yield:
$11,371,017
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield:
$6,495,122
Year
Frozen Assessment
205
$31,703,839
2W0
$31,703,839
2007
$31,703,839
2008
$31,703,839
2® 9
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$43,237,746
$48,011,059
$53,346,178
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
10.97%
11.04%
11.11%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$11,533,907
$16,307,220
$21,642,339
Available Yield
$10,845
$22,943
$36,447
$51,531
$68,390
PV of Available Yield
$10,529
$21,626
$33,354
$45,784
$58,994
tear
Frozen Assessment
00
$31,703,839
201111
$31,703,839
0
$31,703,839
2013
$31,703,839
2tLt4
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$59,313,167
$65,991,305
$73,470,353
$81,852,005
$91,251,540
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.19%
11.26%
11.33%
11.41%
11.48%
Increment
$27,609,328
$34,287,466
$41,766,514
$50,148,166
$59,547,701
Available Yield
$87,245
$108,348
$131,982
$158,468
$188,171
PV of Available Yield
$73,067
$88,097
$104,188
$121,453
$140,017
Frozen Assessment
2015
$31,703,839
16
$31,703,839
I ZOIii20Th
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
20119
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$101,799,717
$113,644,944
$126,955,756
$141,923,652
$158,766,349
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.56%
11.64%
11.71%
11.79%
11.87%
Increment
$70,095,878
$81,941,105
$95,251,917
$110,219,813
$127,062,510
Available Yield
$221,503
$258,934
$300,996
$348,295
$401,518
PV of Available Yield
$160,018
$181,611
$204,964
$230,264
$257,719
Meat
Frozen Assessment
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
7$147
$199,100,989
$223,195,775
$250,381,555
$281,075,178
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.02%
12.10%
12.18%
12.26%
Increment
$167,397,150
$191,491,936
$218,677,716
$249,371,339
Available Yield
$,
$528,975
$605,115
$691,022
$788,013
PV of Available Yield
$287,559
$320,039
$355,441
$394,080
$436,304
ea
Frozen Assessment
20202
$31,703,839
6
$31,703,839
21i12 2
$31,703,839
028
$31,703,839
21329
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$315,752,037
$354,954,549
$399,301,895
$449,501,199
$506,360,371
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.34%
12.42%
12.49%
12.57%
12.65%
Increment
$284,048,198
$323,250,710
$367,598,056
$417,797,360
$474,656,532
Available Yield
$897,592
$1,021,472
$1,161,610
$1,320,240
$1,499,915
PV of Available Yield
$482,500
$533,099
$588,578•
$649,470
$716,368
15
Table 11: East Square and Downtown Scenario Including the Terminella Project
and the Library Renovation with Available TIF millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $3,699,632,858
Total Available Yield: $11,690,840
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $6,687,152
Year
Frozen Assessment
2005
$31,703,839
2006
$31,703,839
2007
$31,703,839
2008
$31,703,839
209
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$43,917,746
$48,757,211
$54,164,917
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
12.71%
11.02%
11.09%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$12,213,907
$17,053,372
$22,461,078
Available Yield
$10,845
$22,943
$40,618
$56,108
$73,412
PV of Available Yield
$10,529
$21,626
$37,172
$49,851
$63,326
ear
Frozen Assessment
010
$31,703,839
011 I
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
201
$31,703,839
01
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$60,211,554
$66,977,089
$74,552,037
$83,038,917
$92,553,917
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.16%
11.24%
11.31%
11.38%
11.46%
Increment
$28,507,715
$35,273,250
$42,848,198
$51,335,078
$60,850,078
Available Yield
$92,756
$114,395
$138,617
$165,749
$196,160
PV of Available Yield
$77,682
$93,014
$109,426
$127,033
$145,961
Yea
Frozen Assessment
2015
$31,703,839
201
$31,703,839
w2O1W I
$31,703,839
2018
$31,703,839
0 9
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$103,228,792
$115,213,043
$128,676,402
$143,811,686
$160,838,054
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.53%
11.61%
11.69%
11.76%
11.84%
Increment
$71,524,953
$83,509,204
$96,972,563
$112,107,847
$129,134,215
Available Yield
$230,269
$268,553
$311,551
$359,876
$414,226
PV of Available Yield
$166,351
$188,358
$212,151
$237,920
$265,876
%ear
Frozen Assessment
2Q2T0
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2U22
$31,703,839
0
$31,703,839
202
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$180,004,749
$201,595,379
$225,932,825
$253,384,871
$284,370,663
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.92%
11.99%
12.07%
12.15%
12.23%
Increment
$148,300,910
$169,891,540
$194,228,986
$221,681,032
$252,666,824
Available Yield
$475,392
$544,276
$621,904
$709,444
$808,228
PV of Available Yield
$292,035
$324,807
$360,521
$399,492
$442,070
tear
Frozen Assessment
ZE25
$31,703,839
2026
$31,703,839
II
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
2t129
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$319,368,113
$358,922,404
$403,655,751
$454,278,606
$511,602,535
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.31%
12.39%
12.46%
12.54%
12.62%
Increment
$287,664,274
$327,218,565
$371,951,912
$422,574,767
$479,898,696
Available Yield
$919,774
$1,045,812
$1,188,317
$1,349,545
$1,532,071
PV of Available Yield
$494,424
$545,801
$602,110
$663,887
$731,725
16
L
Table 12: East Square and Downtown Scenario with the Mountain Inn,
Terminella Project, and Library Renovation with available TIF millage of 3.16
Weighted Estimates by Property Taxation Classification
Total Available Increment: $4,006,329,540
Total Available Yield: $12,660,001
Net Present Value of Total Available Yield: $7,269,063
Year ..
Frozen Assessment
2005
$31,703,839
200
$31,703,839
2007
$31,703,839
2008
$31,703,839
2009
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$35,135,825
$38,964,278
$47,917,746
$53,146,339
$58,981,028
Assessment Growth
Rate
10.83%
10.90%
22.98%
10.91%
10.98%
Increment
$3,431,986
$7,260,439
$16,213,907
$21,442,500
$27,277,189
Available Yield
$10,845
$22,943
$53,258
$69,977
$88,631
PV of Available Yield
$10,529
$21,626
$48,739
$62,174
$76,454
ear
Frozen Assessment
2Db I
$31,703,839
2011t
$31,703,839
201
$31,703,839
2013
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$65,496,186
$72,775,821
$80,914,881
$90,020,751
$100,214,958
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.05%
11.11%
11.18%
11.25%
11.32%
Increment
$33,792,347
$41,071,982
$49,211,042
$58,316,912
$68,511,119
Available Yield
$109,456
$132,719
$158,724
$187,811
$220,369
PV of Available Yield
$91,667
$107,913
$125,298
$143,942
$163,975
1ear
Frozen Assessment
20 5
$31,703,839
16
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
20
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$111,635,114
$124,437,149
$138,797,848
$154,917,766
$173,024,556
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.40%
11.47%
11.54%
11.61%
11.69%
Increment
$79,931,275
$92,733,310
$107,094,009
$123,213,927
$141,320,717
Available Yield
$256,833
$297,701
$343,534
$394,971
$452,735
PV of Available Yield
$185,542
$208,801
$233,930
$261,123
$290,593
ea
Frozen Assessment
Z020
$31,703,839
0 1
$31,703,839
2020
$31,703,839
I 2Q23
$31,703,839
2
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$193,376,779
$216,268,267
$242,033,120
$271,051,435
$303,755,866
Assessment Growth
Rate
11.76%
11.84%
11.91%
11.99%
12.07%
Increment
$161,672,940
$184,564,428
$210,329,281
$239,347,596
$272,052,027
Available Yield
$517,647
$590,642
$672,781
$765,271
$869,486
PV of Available Yield
$322,581
$357,348
$395,188
$436,423
$481,413
ea
Frozen Assessment
2025
$31,703,839
2026
$31,703,839
202
$31,703,839
•8
$31,703,839
$31,703,839
Total Assessment
$340,639,147
$382,262,727
$429,266,667
$482,381,004
$542,438,790
Assessment Growth
Rate
12.14%
12.22%
12.30%
12.37%
12.45%
Increment
$308,935,308
$350,558,888
$397,562,828
$450,677,165
$510,734,951
Available Yield
$986,990
$1,119,567
$1,269,247
$1,438,348
$1,629,513.
PV of Available Yield
$530,556
$584,294
$643,117
$707,572
$778,265
17
Table 13: Summary of Yields under Alternative Scenarios
I -A-
Eas S ua
Eas Square
Im
with .
' 0 ntow wit
M.t
7.66 mills
Baseline Scenario
$7,717,564
$3,183,747
$27,563,920
$11,371,017
TIF with Terminella Project and
$8,342,278
$3,441,462
$28,339,188
$11,690,840
Library Renovation
TIF with Mountain Inn,
Terminella Project, and Library
$10,235,531
$4,222,416
$30,668,484
$12,660,001
Renovation
L
Table 14: 2004 Count and Percentage of Total Parcels by Type
ast S uare
Rarge1V1pe
Bast Square
aye vine
1)oWn nWn
0
0
135
Agricultural Improved
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.6%)
0
0
30
Agricultural Miscellaneous
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
0
0.1 /o
0
0
244
Agricultural Vacant
0.0%
0.0%(1.1%)
0
2
Commercial Agricultural
0.0% 0 )(0.0%)0
0
0.0% )
1
18
Commercial Building
(0.2%)0.0%0.0%
0
0
Commercial Agricultural
0
0
5
Improved
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
156
329
1,473
Commercial Improved
0
34.0%
(29.0%)
(6.5%)
16
32
77
Commercial Miscellaneous
3.5%
(2.8%)
(0.3%)
0
0
12
Mobile Home Park
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
5
31
107
Commercial Residential
1.1%
(2.7%)
(0.5%)
0
2
70
Commercial Transportation p
0.0%
(0.2%)
(0.3%)
Commercial Vacant
27
49
489
5.9%
(4.3%)
(2.2%)
0
0
1
Exem t HUD
p
0.0%
(0.0%)
0.0%
36
Exempt Temporary
(7.8%)
(7.3%)1.3
/0
80
150
1,470
Exempt
17.4%
(13.3%)
(6.5%)
2
2
72
Industrial Improved
0.4/0 0
0.2/0 0
2 0 2. 03 /0
)
Industrial Vacant
2
2
55
0.4%/0
(0.2%)
0.2%/0
Mobile Home
0
0
470
0.0%
(0.0%)
(2.1%)
Public Service
4
7
69
0.9%
(0.6%)
(0.3%)
Residential Building
0
0
3
0.0%
(0.0%)
0.0%
Residential lm roved
p
95
381
14,726
20.7%
(33.7%)
(65.5%)
Residential Miscellaneous
5
8
137
1.I%
(0.7%)
(0.6%)
Residential Vacant
30
54
2,149
(6.5%)
(40.9%)
(9.6%)
Void Parcel
0
1
352
0.0%
0.0%
(1.6%)
Total
459
1,132
22,468
19
Table 15: 2004 Assessed Values and Percentage of Total by
Parcel Type
Pazcel Trype
East Square
Fast Square +
Faye evill
D_ wntovvnt.
Agricultural lm proved
$0
$0
$3,680,341
0.0%
0.0/0
(0.6%)
Agricultural Miscellaneous
$0
$0
$140,078
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
Agricultural Vacant
$0
$0
1
$153,53
(0.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
Commercial Agricultural
$0
$0
$39, 4035
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0/u
Commercial Building
$299,207
$299,207
$1,336,240
(1.8%)
(0.9%)
(0.2/0
Commercial Agricultural
$0
$0
$376,753
Improved
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.1%
Commercial Improved
P
$13,164,920
$20,923,872
$197,054,767
79.2%
(66.0%)
(32.4%)
Commercial Miscellaneous
$122,760
$387,187
$1,185,043
0.7%
(1.2%)
(0.2%)
Mobile Home Park
$0
$0
$569,856
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.1%)
$127,682
$942,762
$7,495,564
Commercial Residential
(0.8%)
(3.0%)
(1.2/0 o )
Commercial Trans ortation
P
$0
$34,395
$1,805,719
(0.0%)
(0.1%)
(0.3%)
Commercial Vacant
$250,354
$462,281
$10,195,942
1.5%
(1.5%)
(1.7%
Exempt HUD
$0
$0
$18,018
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
Exempt Temporary
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
Exempt
$0
$0
$0
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
Industrial Improved
P
$153,923
$153,923
$19,966,044
0.9%
(0.5%)
(3.3%)
Industrial Vacant
$13,230
$13,230
$938,415
0.1%
(0.0%)
(0.2%)
Mobile Home
$0
$0
$610,918
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.1%)
Public Service
$1,077,650
$1,266,080
$4,246,660
(6.5%)
(4.0%)
(0.7%
Residential Building
$0
$0
$87,769
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
ResidentialIm roved
P
$1,332,622
$7,064,039
$348,309,600
8.0%
(22.3%)
(57.4%)
Residential Miscellaneous
$11,699
$25,167
$565,200
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
Residential Vacant
$66,031
$131,696
$8,416,970
(0.4%)
(0.4%)
(1.4%)
Void Parcel
$0
$0
$124,586
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
Total
$16,620,0782
$31,703,839
$607,317,071
20
Table 16: 2001-2004 Average Annual Assessed Value Growth
Rates by Parcel Type
EstISquaretI
Pazce1 Type Fast Square Downt wn ayetteville
Agricultural imroved 6.1%
Agricultural Miscellaneous 1.6%
Agricultural Vacant -18.5%
Commercial Agricultural 3.2%
Commercial Building 3.3% 3.3% 6.2%
Commercial Agricultural
improved -10.5% Commercial Imroved 8.1% 9.7% 9.7%
Commercial Miscellaneous 5.6% 6.4% -6.6%
Mobile Home Park 1.0%
Commercial Residential 17.4% 8.3% 23.4%
Commercial Transportation 4.9%• 14.7%
Commercial Vacant 6.1% 6.0% 4.1%
Exempt HUD 4.0%
-Exempt Tem ora
Exempt
Industrial improved 4.0% 4.0% 5.2%
Industrial Vacant 7.0% 7.0% 1.9%
Mobile Home 2.6%
Public Service 6.5% 11.9% 11.7%
Residential Building 3.3%
Residential Improved 12.3% 15.5% 7.0%
Residential Miscellaneous 4.5% 0.0% 2.4%
Residential Vacant 0.1% 0.2% 8.6%
Void Parcel 0.0% -63.3%
Total 7.0% 9.9% 7.4%
'This value is the growth mte from 2002-2004, as 2001 was a significant outlier which greatly affected subsequent analysis.
Table 17: Alternative Millage Breakdown Scenarios
ntity 7. Mills 1 ills
ailabl aila e
Washington County 4.75
Washington County Roads 1.11 3.16
City of Fayetteville 0.80
Library 1.00
Fayetteville Public Schools (Debt Service) 19.20 23.70
Fayetteville Public Schools (State) 25.00 25.00
Total 51.86 51.86
21
•
C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE HIGHWAY 71 EAST SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE PURSUANT TO A.C.A. §14-168-305 (f)
AND A.C.A. §14-168-307 (c) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, several public hearings were held concerning the boundaries
of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District Number One (which was
created and its boundaries adopted by Ordinance No. 4662, December 28, 2004);
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was also held concerning the possible
formation of a redevelopment district of the remainder of the Downtown Master
Plan study area, but such creation has been indefinitely tabled in light of
budgetary concerns when the Attorney General's Opinion removed the 25 mills
authorized by Amendment 74 from tax incremental financing districts; and
WHEREAS, to adequately finance a reduced project plan to remove the
blighted area of an surrounding the Mountain Inn and to finance important
transportation improvements on the western side of the Downtown Master
Planning area, the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One should be expanded to include the entire Downtown Master
Planning Area as permitted in A.C.A. § 14-168-305 (f).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby modifies the boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment
District No. One of Fayetteville, Arkansas to expand this district to the west to
include the area of the Downtown Master Plan as shown on the map attached as
"Exhibit A".
Section 2: That the City Council hereby finds that the real property within
the modified boundaries of the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District
Number One of Fayetteville, Arkansas, will be benefited by the
redevelopment project by eliminating or preventing the development or
spread of blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas, or discouraging the loss
of commerce, or employment, or increasing employment, or any combination
thereof.
a 0
Section 3: Emergency Clause. If this ordinance is not immediately
effective, the goal of the Redevelopment District and its Project Plan to remove a
dangerous, dilapidated firetrap could fail due to lack of time -sensitive funding.
The City Council, therefore, determines and declares an emergency exists which
would imperil the public peace, health or safety, and consequently this ordinance
shall be in full force and effect from the date of its passage and approval.
PASSED and APPROVED this 25th day of January, 2005.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
APPROVED: G.\
®gyp,
DAN COODY, Mayor
a ❑ a>o•Pp _a 'pW o V°°'I'opW .60 �W 000 JLEU iP'•47 0 .
,o¢ o '0> Iul > d a o
o p �❑ .o aflQpO❑ ❑ a q1J vQ 000¢ n> as •DAVIDSON.BT •' C0 QN 1 aprU ILA.ST oC�OcUY6 O1QUQzaip' o Q00❑ q� L5•
�-4 �q}G> _ • 6a ❑ o ,.. ,pUQD aO= Q>g ¢❑ a - a a
a nn 3o Ll rt� p3 ado- v+ -z '-ra CFO ax i J AL•L•EY.519 "1 o•
(J QWI p GQ 0� n o0 ± C o O (� O W -
] UG
Q QOw0p0=4d¢ v dQ13 Cl o p>c •.
¢wa 0 MAPL•E.STf3 �Qa60 0�"c �Woa o�gD.ST 1- Y� a Q. . O p 4 o
W ° ❑v0°1a p> QOp. Q W _ Ow b3 0-
a• 0• �oLU Om 6 0!i 66�pa 0 d0'❑ W W [� 9¢4 d ,p
p 6 00 o> c ¢0 0 10 Q o 0 AFAYE-T,TE.ST�Q�—� �❑ 6 0
V > Q e m D•0L0 p b o (3 a
�e. �D w� o a' • BOLESB: a- �Qo' o ❑O D QQQo fl
, c �� �� Q n _9 0Cl °00 a. as $ •9x 0 -p
00 x N e
LLEY'333 • rJ__- WATON�ST QOOOti❑a
j Ir poD x o3
I� SULfONiSTo
n II Q x Lr-+ D o
P a
N a
�� �p
" n eICK$ONIST 4 e 00 hV
w IL77 6
0 o Q N�
fl ��
ii
eWHITESiDEIST ja a J5� o p
� oPd ID; c°11D }
Q •O� O a a
2 o e o ow �❑P ( esao
F - o a ,e Q c . .v o> r_•7 ° C@NNER.ST 1'
aaa -4 oa 0010 Wp del • ITQ o ♦ u p. 0600p b
a O > U�
w Q s c 0 900 p p fi° it .- — 'SP.RINGSTr o o a tlz+> 000
0Za a q
≥❑ oI
O. P• 0 0 o L, O�IkoI�'1tt-,, O 4 jp1 n. b Q a0p
o pD0ay9pti 9 a0 pl`,J'QmU p > C~')4 Q
Q o QMEAQDOaW.ST (¢ •zP.
dQ a LLL.1 �a d®® W " ,31 p o 0 0
0 O 0 d DI Oa CENTER.ST ¢ aa0o0a p amp a.
'J Q a fl p 6_ II 4 [� rj •> j —1 n �j- a o �CENTER.ST
CyUU a ° c Q' •
� o 0 b.: {{te�a (] f 2 0 o. °
MOUNTA6INST9eu ` pOoaMOUNTAINiST C p
• O'O O 9 b �� a dwl 0 dD n Q( O ,' 4 1° U O o 0
O o o' ¢ 1 O ��JJ ''��'ALLEYo1.13D w r
�PUTMAN ST b ° Q o b p F o
d7 a Q �0 00
-ijfl b❑ Ii
oR °a a OOv 4
0
n ° ❑ o o B c p• a� RUCK.ST ° o_U
[I n m. o a e o O p❑ O p
e o;a 0 u• O O a'7IC > .•¢
•p o
•4 D (IJ ° r i a a a
J 0• a 1n�' _ • a e W o a _J
STON oiSTl/- S 'Qo • a s o 6 0 ° Rl 0 a ^' �VVoe�vJ r
o 0 O oa oa c n °� a•_ a d �O SOUTH.ST00 0 • O• W KER R1 o Q' 0 W0 - o a v o n a0 a •Spep./�0 IDa°I O❑op °�a 0 Io O a�G p
o A 1. 8�a 1 a s v O i iLGN 4 ° c o• p ® .•�0 !YjSOo
(7 n a) o C P OO a e 0.
m d 0 fl a4TH•iS01
T
00 Q fl PLRAIRIE.ST G D •O �e O -1-°a , o ° ° rST.pa EXHIBIT A
o >1 11 ® s D
• �O e [ a p 5fH.ST a • n 00100 r >8,
❑ PRIVATE421 DR o llI
••o p Q 5 ��'SQTia- Amended Boundary of
❑ Oa a. - w o° Q W O I a a s
° 4 . a x1 dl Q q o ,> b - a = Highway 71 East Square
•a wo.
a 0 :1 p,p ° °° '0xaa9W 9 Redevelopment District No. 1
/n/
o o +_ ,, _�i/ S • a ZPj nn Qo (1-25-05)
00
Q �11IL^J Q W 0 °°• 00i0p 0
aJ V Y z o • Q> p p [, •. N
=,AL•L•EY•799w c • r n •,
0 _c cJ ,' v o w+e
p O. nx 00 o - o II p
G x
a 0 ... a .C�
W. c 0 r e oI
ao
7 C+ • 0 .. a QTNfAT q-
pWo po- a ❑�j •^-�- u❑o aOppW .D nwDp ' P-9 0
1_ cQ❑ o _ S> > wd o ood> ❑ aOQ
o Oq . ozdO 0p❑ G a C i3 vv vp <❑ o> 4 DAVIDSON ST
Sv p a 50 Dp a ILA:ST n a pDcp pp�p flaapq❑� 4eq� cya'•
___—__ �C °FOANI
�4Je� D•a OIl�ppvDeO° o n>q.vD� c o .
II 00 x P pv .Z•90: <O dx i W AR`s- Y=fi33. n.
pyp Lu
] > �� oYbfi� 9 Ild,°ti cl d v a
F?LE:ST ° o [1 tlpl
w Q �Qa6d6(�� a��0jClp oll�;❑AIoOp d1
Z Y ❑ Q . q= 4 _�
v q W O D
Ow 03 P•
oWpOo 5 ❑QtaC s0 ❑' a°'o
z > o�p ❑ZPba❑ 00Di
d >n 4 0 as q 0 ° uppA❑YETTE ST < ._O
• a 0 0n m po O � FBOLES�1a�Zpo0 OPQ`3��¢II ro
b.p(O9(Avlf-'� wATSON�ST QpOpD c_� b��p�pq ob0p, f�' r1 �; o °< 3° p p pa x a $ T'fONsT
I q c OflhiOwfl.O1p
(� 4
° DICKSON ST v
7 l�f L1r." tr
D000
w Q _ ❑ ❑
pjj
a wHITESI&:s;= ❑ ❑ yy IO ❑ o ° • a o D ❑ Pd Q O q ?
• rOJ o a o Apo
�Q o p �o ° a° a o> f—�� n NER:ST a
pan 'c3 od ° ❑DIp >p[ �t;n a , eUo•.,f°pp00
° QOa ° o Dp0 ❑ r--2 p < < SPRINGIfST offd� D a pa p•pp
O,Ca o pq O o� oV[aj-p HE L1 D� 601a000& C3
❑ ❑n _ Lam-
ST . °'z 0.
�F�F a ❑ o p 0 p
o 'cd� O ° 017q v v A•
r-. c7 dp ❑ Lull
oil
� o 1 p o Q o
'�� p U6 ❑n •CENTER Sr DaDID of
�Dc0 ❑
v .Q6 IIq ❑ = W ap CENTER:S7
vV r a U t{--
� MOUNTAIN ST ° ° _.JI
O.0 o Q ❑ O L—_ CO EINTAIN:S' ° o
v O �� atlWO 0 £s1 i' P �N p
C7 9 b °
P-UTM N$ p 0 o b Q O F o �U ?LLEY 1130 J U ❑ 0 0
��--�� 0 ❑ - �f Q �7 ❑ Q 0 0
�• 0 I °I a' ❑ o d ❑ 0' aU 9 ❑ ROCK ST ❑ D D° y° 0 0 0 0
❑ U p v o
c> p i� �R C� 0 v -o o pv a Q S�
6 n I(`JrJ)( :� ❑ ^' a o •0 ° v �v v vo
STONEST'Jv °> ° . P ° v 9 o afl �,8�- .tom b ` II
v O // O O ap 'v o v O O D II III 07-,�lr�' Cu o p a❑ Q 4
❑
In 'O• 0 t 0 0�❑ o _A°v OI db 00 D V40 . ,W
$ v
o o° b av p o �J9P Q oDv° DOoaDpo�Io o•ooul/ .I p'uKE
0 v a
p c a PG O v. p f•• -s S�e
o 1. 0 0 a d d• Q I
d0 �.0 ❑J p a �'°uD Do ° ' O<O•? O�F 0� by Q❑ " PRAIRIE ST Ea °O �° °' D0009 a ,o E+ o0 #4), 0 OO'QQ VG
❑ ❑ o EJWO o ID a -II
o ❑ o Lja ❑ 5THST. n ° o DDD ❑ q> ov p° ❑ . v?� O
fib
❑ PRIVATE 4u71 0 n•• o '�evw�� la t° . 0 0/" O a O a l jo a u1 p
J ❑ �0 CP c p wd L ° jj o O° � bll ul oI� - D oe 6
U0.c c
o II 1� /) '�oo9�9DbW _� �•da aD ,D�Lo� q- o V I. L
o o c p L},.{jj4 "ry °p(n0 ❑pDp �6T LST
S vy . . o Q . n .J —
Q 9
°J Qv Oll
O O
o=.= AL1:t�=799 f o
oo p -nfl S
a v
p O. nK o o 0' Cii1111 `7 . Q> .' .1 0 n Q O ComlmniId Wuntein Imud Doxnbxn TlF.
qO II ei
, o .v
V I I _ ,r...;�,
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
of the
do solemnly swear that I am the
gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
i (i 9 -1 was inserted in the regular editions on
** Publication Charge: $
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
l day of ifi i05.
otary Public
Sharlene D. Williams
My Commission Expires: Notary Public
My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
** Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
FEB08 8 2005
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1607 • 212 N. EAST AVENUE • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-442-1700 • 479-442-5477 (FAX)
THANK YOU!
Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, NW Ed.
212 N. East Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-442-1700
VISA PURCHASE
CARD #************4345*
EXPIRATION DATE : *****
DATE 02-07-2005 #002036 A
TIME 14:37:29
SALE 148.80
APPROVED 077605
AVS: YES
CLERK :
MERCH ORDER#
ITEM DESC:
X
***PLEASE IMPRINT CARD***
------------ THANK YOU -------
ORDINANCE NO. 4473
ANOF ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES a e evi le
MENT
HS DISTRICT
EAST SOEARE REDEVELOP
MC § 14-168 NUMBER ONE 68-3Tci Y
ACA. DECLARING
05AN m MJOMER ENC § 14-168-307 (cl
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ARKANSAS
WHEREAS, rveral public heen tgs wets held opt.
_e..• lanes of the Highway TI East Sgtars Redevelopment gatrkt Number One (which was
adopted by Ordinance No. 4662, December 28, 2004); and
WHEREAS, :: jlc hearing was aLo had cortcerni g the poatible tomato, of a red6V00pltlent dis-
:ee of the Dewntovm Master Plan study staff, but such creation has been ydefyinit
ely
tab e- A "' n 74 .dgetsy
o ors wtgtl& Attorney G&wS8 Opxron removed the 25 mtB autltar-
Arertting dmricts, attd
WIflAS• :equates finance a redtced Project pan to remove the bghted area of an a rival -
i g the Mourne.rj ' to and to trance important transportation Improvements on the western side of the
Downtown Master Planning area, the bourdanes of the highway 71 East Square Redevelopment Lismi
No. One should be expanded to include the entire Downbwr Mace' Pyc•rq Area a= oermit-
ted in A C A e'4 -'6&305'n
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYR-
TEYILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of FayetteNaa. AMNsas hereby nooses the bountlargs of
the Highway 71 East square Redevelopment Dfatrlct No. One of Fayetteville, Mwtsas to expand tNa
disekt to the west to inchrde the area of the Downtown Master Plan as shown pn the map attached as
Fe,iM1ir 4•
Section 2: That the City Council hereby finds that the real Progeny within the rmociified boundanes of the
Hghway 71 East Square Redevelopment Distract Number One of Fayetteville. Aransas will be bene-
fited by the redevelopment project by eliminating or preventing the development or spread of
blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating areas. or discouraging the loss of commerce, or employment, or
increasing employment, or any combination thereof.
Section 3: Emergency Clause. If this ordinance is not immediately effective the goal of the
Redevelopment District and its Project Pan to remove a dangerous, dilapidated firetrap could fail due to
sck of time -sensitive funding. The City Council, therefore, determines and declares an emergency exists
wtich would Imperil the public peace, health or safety, and raOnsequently this ordinance shall be in full
once and effect from the date of its passage and approver.
PASSED ar1d APPRav1D this 25th day of January, 2005
wE WDY, ■EFer
ATTEST:
1R A s a map and may be vwed or the Office OI the City CJwk/Treasurer
and 5:00 p.m. ie
Amended
Highway 71 East Square
Redevelopment District No. 1
I
FA;n. I
y,1•:
�N.
I)h11in.uict 4Z I \hihil \
a)
MCUNT NONO $f w
HOI ES SAL] V
i
-
s _
b
r
I
y 11B
S
We d ew Feb 14 NW
o 270 sw 1.080
Feel
I in al Amended Map Approved 01/25/05
Amended
Highway 71 East Square
Redevelopment District No. 1
n..un. aunun 1
Fm�ox�
macs .n tl
rniues
3
a
mum m
we
.........
59N1.n A°� Imp
4 S.e mulall✓ n�W0.. Llxa
LA
nrv. aVmIn.T P
a .a
A,
ni. am. nia ac(
N
l.eMM ee
fin_ w�ye
rn
o av
Ordinance 44673 Exhibit 4 Final Amended Map Approved 01/25/05