CSA Good City Company 01092025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 47 of 65 8.6 Implementation Plan EPS will lead and SDG will advise on an infrastructure implementation strategy for the Development Plan. This task will build off the MTC-funded Infrastructure Financing/Funding, and Phasing Strategy but incorporate new analysis related to infrastructure needs and costs identified as part of this study process. The analysis will culminate in a Financing Plan that articulates, and quantifies to the degree possible, a realistic, step-by-step process for establishing public financing tools (e.g., CFD, EIFD) and securing funding, including potential grant sources, to ensure achievable outcomes from a real estate investment perspective. The Financing Plan will both inform and be informed by the financial feasibility analysis described in Task 5.3 The ultimate selection of financing mechanisms for the Development Plan will be made based upon statutory and legal considerations, development feasibility analysis, and industry standards regarding who typically pays for what; the timing of public improvements relative to private development; commitments regarding the availability of public sector funding, and negotiation-based preferences of stakeholders. The content of the Financing Plan will be informed by on-going study analysis and findings that build on the following inter-related sub- tasks: ● Public Improvement Cost Phasing and Allocation: The ability to strategically phase infrastructure investments to coincide with need (e.g., Plan Area growth and development) and effectively allocate the costs among beneficiaries will be critical to feasible implementation. EPS will work closely with BKF, service providers, and property owners to establish realistic phasing and equitable cost allocation methodologies. EPS will leverage its vast experience crafting effective cost allocation and phasing solutions for complex, multi-party developments. ● Analysis of Cost Burdens and Financial Feasibility: EPS will evaluate the impact of the infrastructure cost burdens, including capital and operations and maintenance, and affordable housing on the overall financial feasibility of private real estate development. EPS will base the analysis on the estimates of finished real estate values for private development as documented in Task 8A above. To the extent that initial cost allocations appear infeasible based upon industry standards, EPS will propose alternate allocations and other measures (e.g., cost reductions, re-phasing, etc.) to advance successful outcomes. ● Analysis of Funding Tools and Resources: The Consultant Team understands that the forthcoming “Infrastructure Financing/Funding, and Phasing Strategy” will itemize likely financing and funding sources for implementing the Plan and describe the merits and applicability of each. EPS will build on this work to refine the list based on additional analysis related to project costs and phasing and willingness of property owners to participate (as determined through stakeholder outreach). Based on the Consultant Team’s initial understanding of infrastructure requirements in the Plan Area, EIFDs, CFDs, and area impact fees appear to be promising candidates for more in-depth analysis. EPS is a leading practitioner in the State in the implementation of these tools, Docusign Envelope ID: 885601F4-01B5-4FAB-A341-08EBC29876AA