HomeMy WebLinkAbout17771 ORD - 08/10/1983 (2)4
AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING THE PROJECT PLAN OF THE REINVESTMENT ZONE
NUMBER ONE, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
WHEREAS, on December 29, 1982, the City Council of the City of
Corpus Christi, Texas established by ordinance the "Reinvestment Zone Number
One, City of Corpus Christi, Texas" (the "Zone") pursuant to the provisions
of the Tax Increment Financing Act of 1981, V.A.T.C.S. Article 1066e (the
"Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Zone have duly prepared and
adopted a project plan for the Zone pursuant to the Act which includes a
description of the kind, number and location of all proposed public works or
public improvements in the Zone, an economic feasibility study, a detailed
list of estimated project costs, a description of the methods of financing
all estimated project costs, and certain other information required by the
Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas hereby approves the project plan for the Zone as adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Zone, a copy of which project plan is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. That the City Council finds and determines that said
project plan is feasible and conforms to the master plan for such
development, to wit, the "Bayfront Plan" of the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas.
17771
SEP 2 81!34
MICROFILMED
IviitAuriuulEU
PROJECT
for :. PLAN
CORPUS .CHR,ISTI
REINVESTMENT ZONE NO.1
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
PROJECT PLAN
for
CORPUS CHRISTI
REINVESTMENT ZONE NO. 1
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Prepared by
Trkla, Pettigrew, Alien & Payne
with assistance from
City Staff of the City of Corpus Christi
May, 1983
yoril
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Title Page i
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures iv
Introduction v
1. The Bayfront Plan: Framework for
Reinvestment Zone No. 1 1
2. Existing Uses and Conditions 12
3. Proposed Public Works and Public
Improvements 14
4. Economic Feasibility Study 20
• Applicable Tax Rate 20
• Proposed Private Improvements 22
• Estimated Levels of Tax Increment
Production 24
• Estimated Project Costs 29
• Feasibility Analysis: Tax
Increment Financing 34
• Estimated Nonproject Costs 35
• Methods of Financing Nonproject Costs 39
5. Proposed Changes: Plans and Ordinances 41
6. Method of Relocating Displaced Persons 42
7. Amendments to Project Plan 43
APPENDICES
1. Boundary Description
2. Summary of Existing Improved Properties in Subzone B
3. Maps
ii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1, Boundary Map Appendix 3
Figure 2, Bayfront Plan Appendix 3
Figure 3, Existing Land Use Appendix 3
Figure 4, Exterior Condition Survey Appendix 3
Figure 5, Existing Zoning Appendix 3
Figure 6, Proposed Private Improvements Appendix 3
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements 15
Table 2, Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 1) 25
Table 3, Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 2) 27
Table 4, Estimated Project Costs (Category 1) 32
Table 5, Estimated Project Costs (Category 2) 33
Table 6, Estimated Non -Project Costs 36
iii
INTRODUCTION
On December 29, 1982, the City Council of the City of
Corpus Christi designated a portion of the city as a "rein-
vestment zone,' pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing
Act of 1981.2 This area, officially designated as
Corpus Christi Reinvestment Zone No. 1, generally includes
the bayfront area consisting of the Corpus Christi Beach
Area and an area in and along the central business district
south to approximately Ayers Street. A detailed boundary
description is set forth in Appendix 1. See also Figure 1,
Boundary Map, in Appendix 3.
This area has recently been the subject of an intensive
study by local staff, leading to the preparation of the
"Bayfront Plan." After a staged review and adoption process
by the Corpus Christi Planning Commission and City Council,
the Bayfront Plan was officially adopted on December 29, 1982.3
The reinvestment zone was created by the City Council
to alleviate excessive or disproportionate expenditures of
public funds or maintenance of public services and facilities
in an area where it is considered necessary to promote
development or redevelopment. This was done after:
• A public hearing was held on the adoption of the
zone (held on December 15, 1982).
• It was shown that the area is characterized by
conditions which substantially impair or arrest
the sound growth of the city, retard the provision
of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic
or social liability and be a menace to the public
health, safety, morals or welfare.
1. Ordinance No. 17418.
2. Article 1066e, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925,
as amended.
3. Ordinance No. 17419.
iv
Following the designation of the reinvestment zone,
the members of the City Council along with one representative
each from Nueces County, the Corpus Christi Junior College
District, and the Corpus Christi Independent School District,
were named as members of the board of directors for the rein-
vestment zone. The principal power of the board of directors
is to make recommendations to the City Council concerning admi-
nistration of the Tax Increment Financing Act in the reinvestment
zone. Additionally, the board of directors must prepare and
adopt a project plan for the reinvestment zone and must submit
the plan to the City Council. The plan must include:4
• A statement listing the kind, number and location
of all proposed public works or public improvements
in the zone.
• An economic feasibility study.
• A detailed list of estimated project costs.
• A description of the methods of financing all
estimated project costs and the time when related
costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred.
• A map showing existing uses and conditions of real
property in the zone.
• A map showing proposed improvements to and uses
of real property in the zone.
• Proposed changes of zoning ordinances, the master
plan, building codes, and city ordinances.
• A list of estimated nonproject costs.
• A statement of a method of relocating persons
to be displaced as a result of implementation
of the plan.
The City Council of the City of Corpus Christi must
approve the project plan after its adoption by the board
of directors of the reinvestment zone. The approval must
be by ordinance that finds that the plan is feasible and
that it conforms to the master plan of the city.
Based on this requirement, the Area Development Committee,
which has previously partially funded the completion of the
Bayfront Plan, agreed to fund the continued service of the
City's tax increment financing consultant, Trkla, Pettigrew,
Allen & Payne, who, with the assistance of the staff of the
City of Corpus Christi, prepared this project plan.
4. Article 1066e, 2E. cit., Section 8(a).
v
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
THE BAYFRONT PLAN: FRAMEWORK FOR REINVESTMENT ZONE NO. 1
The framework for revitalization of the reinvestment
zone is the Corpus Christi Bayfront Plan, as revised and
adopted on December 29, 1982. This plan is presented below.
See also Figure 2, Bayfront Plan, in Appendix 3.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
In recent years Americans have been discovering the
delightful city environments of Europe and other world
locations. In America itself, there is a growing roster
of good examples of urban centers where places to live,
work and play have been built in surroundings of beauty
and delight. Cities like San Francisco and San Antonio
have gained international recognition for the way they
have capitalized on the amenities of their location to
create places of great charm for visitors and residents
alike. The worldwide image of these cities as beautiful
places to live and work as well as visit has increased
their attractiveness for all types of economic development.
The City of Corpus Christi has an excellent opportunity
to create a similar image for itself with proper treatment of
its Bayfront. Unlike most waterfront cities, Corpus Christi
is able to capitalize on its Bayfront without first tearing
down long established development. The basic waterfront
environment of the city is generally in excellent condition.
Some of its sections, however, are underutilized and therefore
open to the kind of new development able to accommodate many
more people living, working, and visiting in the urban
waterfront zone. All of the urban waterfront zone should be
accessible to all individuals, with emphasis on accessibility
for handicapped individuals. In response to this opportunity,
the Bayfront Plan takes a direction beyond merely "fixing up"
those portions of the waterfront which could be made to look
prettier. It is aimed at suggesting strategies for major
development which will fit with steps already undertaken
to permit the City of Corpus Christi to beneficially utilize
its most unique asset --its magnificent waterfront --while at
the same time preserving and enhancing existing features and
protecting Port -related operations.
This document draws upon numerous planning and engineer-
ing studies dealing with the Bayfront for information on
opportunities, constraints and specific recommendations.
In this regard, it is a summary document which carefully
selects those proposals which work best together along with
existing improvements, to most beneficially utilize the
Bayfront. This plan is intended for use as a constant
reference, allowing development of the Bayfront to be
scheduled on a project -by -project basis involving a wide
range of public and private organizations, while maintaining
the continuity of compliance with the overall Bayfront Plan.
It is meant as a clear statement that money spent on recom-
mended projects is an investment in an ongoing effort to
reach definable goals in the Bayfront area. The full
implementation of this plan will require the use of a
variety of financing techniques, which may include utiliz-
ing private sector capital and expertise to achieve public
goals, as well as the use of public sources of funding
such as General Obligation Bonds, Tax Increment Financing,
Industrial Revenue Bonds, and Multi -Family Tax Exempt
Financing. No matter what means of financing are employed,
the Bayfront Plan will help ensure that those involved in
the design and implementation of projects will not lose
sight of the overall public goals for the development of the
Bayfront area. The plan should be reviewed on a continuing
basis and modification to the plan should be made to reflect
changing community interests and needs in the future.
The organization of the document first gives an overview
of the opportunities and constraints that are characteristic
of the four major sub -units of the Bayfront area: 1) the
Central Business District, 2) Shoreline Boulevard and Ocean
Drive, 3) the marina area, and 4) Corpus Christi Beach.
This section is followed by the goals which derive from
the opportunities and constraints, and recommended policies
and strategies to achieve these goals. Figure 2, contained
in Appendix 3, is intended to illustrate in a conceptual
manner the basic elements of the plan and how they relate
to one another.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
The Central Business District is in a position to
benefit greatly from Bayfront development, especially Marina
developments, if it can be strongly connected with the new
and existing activities. This connection will be strongest
if it develops an interdependent relationship with the
Marina area, supplying motivation for Marina users to
frequent the downtown area.
In order to establish this connection, two constraints
must be resolved. First, the separating barrier effect of
Shoreline Boulevard must be overcome, and, second, the
-2-
,1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
downtown area itself must establish its own positive image
and identity, different from but strongly related to the
Bayfront area. This will mean continued renovation and
rejuvenation of downtown businesses, parks, and streets
in a manner which helps establish a strong relationship
with Bayfront activity.
THE PUBLIC SHORELINE
The Bayfront area south of the ship channel showcases
over three miles of virtually continuous public shoreline
that is a symbol of the pride Corpus Christi has in its
waterfront heritage. The public shoreline is appropriately
anchored by the Bayfront Arts and Science Park which, with
its museums, auditorium and convention complex, is the
City's cultural center and the catalyst for future shoreline
tourist development. Other components of the public shoreline
include Magee Beach, Cole Park, the Bayfront open space
parks and Shoreline Boulevard with its median parks and
landscaping. Shoreline Boulevard, along with its adjoining
pedestrian seawall, is the main route of access connecting
many of the major Bayfront amenities and developments.
All of this points to the potential that Shoreline
Boulevard has as a unifying element in the development of
Bayfront. In order to attain this potential, the barrier
effect caused by the physical separation of the downtown and
tourist areas from the waterfront by Shoreline Boulevard with
its six lanes of traffic and 160 -foot plus right-of-way must
be overcome. Movement of people from one side of the Boulevard
to the other at key crossing points must be given unmistakable
emphasis, tying the Central Business District and Bayfront
together physically as well as visually. In order to attain
its ultimate potential as a unifying element, the grand
boulevard concept should be expanded throughout the Bayfront,
including the major entrance point at I.H. 37 and the Corpus
Christi Beach area. This, along with special treatment of
the Boulevard's points of terminus, would go a long way
toward clearly defining the Bayfront zone and its edges.
MARINA
The importance of the Marina is recognized in virtually
all planning studies commissioned for the area since the
construction of the land masses. Its continued growth,
vitality, and appeal is a key element in the future of
Corpus Christi as a city which openly celebrates its rela-
tionship with the water. And yet, the immense potential the
Marina offers in terms of recreational opportunity, image and
economic vitality is only beginning to be realized. Until
recently, little had changed in the Marina in the past quarter
of a century except for a gradual decline in the quality of
the bulkhead and dredge area. Not only must a program for
-3-
continuous maintenance be adopted, but the Marina must grow
and intensify in use if it is to serve as a catalyst to other
public and private investment in the Bayfront.
Intensification of use and physical growth of the
Marina can occur only if the problems which have historically
blocked such development can be overcome. The major obstacle
to intensified and varied use has been the fear of increased
automobile congestion on the land masses. This fear is based
on the long accepted assumption that the T and L heads and
their respective uses must be self-sufficient in parking.
The cost of this assumption is monumental. The land masses
total approximately 18 acres of what has been described as
the most expensive, in terms of land value, surface parking
lots on the Gulf Coast. Higher still is the cost of the
opportunity lost by maintaining these superb water sur-
rounded environments for parking rather than for a multitude
of attractive public and commercial uses for the enjoyment
of visitors and residents of Corpus Christi. It is paramount
to the successful accommodation of conventioneers and the
linking and revitalization of the downtown that a general
intensification of use, including a major public or semi-public
facility occurs on the land masses in the short term. The
utilization of future and existing downtown parking facilities
with convenient transportation and pedestrian access across
Shoreline Boulevard to the Marina would greatly relieve any
congestion problems and would encourage a mutually beneficial
interrelationship between downtown and the Marina area.
The major obstacle to the physical expansion of the
Marina is the means of financing construction and maintenance
of new facilities. While at least part of the cost of a
maintenance program can be offset by encouraging revenue
generating activities, it is clear that some kind of joint
public/private participation and funding will be necessary
for any significant expansion projects. Recently, there
have been encouraging signs that the private sector recog-
nizes the feasibility and desirability of locating public
and semi-publc facilities on existing and new land masses.
If this interest can be extended to include private sector
involvement in the construction of new land masses and
Marina dredging, while maintaining the right of public
access, then the Marina can begin to attain its full
potential as the hub of Bayfront activity and the catalyst
to further edconomic development in the Bayfront and the
City as a whole.
CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH
With its one and one-half mile sandy beach just across
the ship channel from the Convention Center and downtown,
its complete service facilities, and its abundance of
redeveloping land to add to the adjoining lodging and com-
mercial development, Corpus Christi Beach has the potential
-4-
to become a truly unique and distinctive urban beach,
unmatched along the Gulf Coast. The main obstacle standing
in the way of this potential is the physical and visual
isolation of Corpus Christi Beach caused ironically by the
relatively narrrow ship channel. The Harbor Bridge itself
is not enough to connect the Beach with the rest of the
City. It is critical to the future development of Corpus
Christi Beach that it be strongly related to the rest of the
Bayfront. This can be accomplished by improving physical
and visual access to the full length of the Beach, by pro-
viding more convenient transportation links between the
Beach and the other major Bayfront attractions, by promoting
activities which encourage visitors to frequent both sides
of the channel, and by expanding unifying elements of the
Bayfront to Corpus Christi Beach.
As with the other subunits of the Bayfront, continual
maintenance must play a major role in the development of the
Beach for it to attain its full potential. This must include
measures to prevent the gradual erosion of the Beach itself.
BAYFRONT POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
I. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Goal A: To encourage and assist high-density development
in the Central Business District consisting of
a mixture of professional offices, motels,
hotels, housing and specialty shops and
restaurants.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Encourage and assist rehabilitation
efforts in appropriate locations,
especially Lower Broadway and
Water Streets.
2) Housing and business uses should be
encouraged in a variety of types and
higher density.
3) North of the business core, extending
from I.H. 37 to the Bayfront Science Park,
a small neighborhood of high-density
residence and commerce is proposed.
Goal B: Monitor and improve where necessary both
pedestrian and vehicular movement in the
Central Business District, including promotion
of parking facilities.
-5-
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Create a strong visual and pedestrian
connection from the bay to the bluff
along Peoples Street.
2) Improve existing streets, as warranted,
and develop a solution to the complicated
movements between uptown and downtown
for pedestrians and motorists alike.
3) Utilize a shuttle system connecting
downtown parking facilities to existing
and proposed Bayfront attractions.
4) Give clear emphasis to pedestrian .
crossings at key points of connection
between downtown and the Bayfront.
5) Encouragement development of downtown
uses which provide goods and services
for Bayfront users.
6) Emphasize the Chaparral Street connection
to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park with
special landscape treatment, coordinated
with overall landscaping plans in the
Park itself.
II. PUBLIC SHORELINE
Goal A: Improve the overall appearance and access to
Shoreline Boulevard and Ocean Drive as a major
front door to the City.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Pedestrian plaza/crossing at Peoples
Street and other key crossing points
along Shoreline• Boulevard.
2) Landscape planting and sculpture along
Shoreline Boulevard.
3) Design and placement of a standardized
system of lighting, benches, bollards,
trash receptacles, signing, including
the system into the Bayfront Arts and
Science Park.
4) Symbolic gateway arrival points along
I.H. 37 and Twigg Street between Mesquite
and Shoreline Boulevard, and Agnes and
-6-
Laredo Streets corridor areas along Kinney
Street and Cooper's Alley from North Lower
Broadway to Shoreline.
5) Expansion of transportation systems along
Shoreline Boulevard with a continuing
review of the viability of vehicular
and pedestrian movement along and across
Shoreline Boulevard with emphasis given
to pedestrian access to the Bayfront and
the reduction of pedestrian and vehicular
conflict.
6) Protect and enhance the scenic value
of Ocean Drive to its fullest.
7) Provide exclusive jogging and bike paths
in Cole Park.
8) Maintain and enhance the Bayfront open space
parks along the full length of Ocean Drive
including the area in the vicinity of Ward
Island.
9) Continued maintenance and renourishment
of Magee Beach as the major tourist beach
south of the ship channel.
10) Develop and maintain seawall with intermediate
resting platforms to allow people to walk out.
Lighting on seawall is desirable to increase
nighttime activity.
11) Maintain the one -mile minimum distance from
the shoreline for any drilling operations.
12) Permit street vendors along the seawall
subject to stringent guidelines for such
activity.
Goal S: To promote Shoreline Boulevard as the principal
location of hotel/motel complexes, while attempting
to maintain visual corridors for property located
to the west of Shoreline.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Encourage the development of the west side
of Shoreline Boulevard as a hotel, motel,
tourist complex, maintaining views to the
bay through the use of visual corridors.
-7-
2) Continued development of the Bayfront Arts
and Science Park as the cultural center of
the city and appropriate focal point for
Shoreline Boulevard.
3) Full development of the designated historical
district in the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park incorporating the multi -cultural center
and plaza.
III. MARINA
Goal A: To encourage and assist in the creation of
additional land masses in the Marina, primarily
for commercial and public activities.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Induce a new land mass north of the Peoples
Street T -Head.
2) Encourage a public use at the south end
of the south basin.
3) Reserve the north basin area for ultimate
use for additional land masses and public
boat slips.
Goal B: Expand activity in the Marina including addi-
tional slips and commercial activity.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Small boat sailing located in south basin.
2) Water taxi services should be implemented.
3) Development of a public/private activity
center in the Marina, which includes tour
boats, party boats, restaurants, waterfront
shops, a maritime museum and aquarium.
4) City adoption of more efficient standards
and arrangement of boat slip construction.
Approximately 400 to 450 new slips could
be accommodated on the two T -Heads and the
L -Head without requiring new construction
other than the finger piers and slips
themselves.
5) Development of an aquarium on the Peoples
Street T -Head.
•
-8-
6) There need to be intermediate events at
several points aimed at providing a conti-
nuity of life style and physical interaction
between people and places (restaurants,
shops over water, landscaping with
a variety of plants, and lights,
benches and shaded areas).
7) Extend lighting and walkway on the breakwater
from McGee Beach to the marina fairway opening.
8) Establish a continual maintenance program
for bulkheads and Marina dredging.
IV. CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH
Goal A: To encourage and assist in the development of
Corpus Christi Beach primarily for hotel/motel
development and high density housing along
with attendant public facilities.
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Encourage development of tourist -oriented
complex at south end of Corpus Christi Beach
where the remnants of the old commerical -
tourist development remain today.
2) Encourage medium- to high-density residen-
tial uses for bulk of remaining property,
utilizing small block pattern of streets.
Enable properties which are not situated
on the Bayfront visual access to the unique
bayside/beach environment through the use
of visual corridors.
3) Support development of marinas at Rincon
Point and between the Ship Channel and
the north breakwater.
4) Development of existing parks, and the
development of tourist facilities to
include sites for motel or hotel opera-
tions, restaurants, cruise boats, fishing
piers, etc.
5) Provide a sand retention facility with
lighted fishing pier at north end of
Corpus Christi Beach.
Goal B: To improve public access, physically and
visually, to the full length of the beach and
to provide better circulation patterns in the
beach area, including stronger transportation
links across the ship channel.
-9-
Specific policies and strategies include:
1) Develop public -owned area along ship
channel opening as public park.
2) Develop adequate public access to parking
areas in a minimum of seven specific sites
along Corpus Christi Beach adjacent to and
on the sand beach. These access sites
would be designed in general as follows:
large parking areas together with full
restrooms and/or facilities at the south
end, middle, and north end of the beach.
In the area between the south end and
middle and the middle and north end, at
least two additional access sites/parking
areas be built up to and on the sand beach
in a design configuration perpendicular
to the water.
3) Provide mini -parks at some access points
along the Beach with public shower facilities
to emphasize the public ownership of the
entire length of the Beach.
4) Develop a continuous pedestrian walk/jogging
area with light landscaping along the full
length of the beach to tie the various faci-
lities together, provide ease of movement
along the beach, and to clearly define the
public beach from private property.
5) Establish a water taxi service and/or other
pedestrian transportation across the channel
to connect the Beach facilities with the
rest of the Bayfront and downtown area.
6) Expand the grand boulevard concept to
Corpus Christi Beach by developing the old
railroad right-of-way as a green boulevard
to provide strong visual unity and efficient
circulation in the area.
7) Connection of Bayfront beach to Nueces Bay --
acquire Bayfront parcel across the northern
end of the peninsula and under the viaduct
to link the public zone from Corpus Christi
Bay to Nueces Bay and the possible marina
site west of Highway 181.
8) Development of Corpus Christi Beach Park
on north end of terminus of Corpus Christi
Beach recreation area.
-10-
9) Provide a shallow draft boat launching
facility on Corpus Christi Beach in con-
junction with one of the parking/access
points along the Beach.
10) In order to assist maintenance of the Beach,
strictly enforce the ban on glass containers
and place coordinated trash receptacles at
all access points and along walkway/jogging
path along the Beach.
-11-
2
EXISTING USES AND CONDITIONS
Figures 3, 4 and 5, contained in Appendix 3 of this
project plan, describe in map form the existing uses and
conditions of real property in the reinvestment zone.
Figure 3, Existing Land Use, shows the existing land -
use pattern for each block within the zone. Major land -use
categories shown include residential, commercial, industrial,
public, and undeveloped. Key land -use problems include:
• There are large tracts of vacant, undeveloped,
and underdeveloped lands in the reinvestment zone.
This underutiliziation detracts from the economic
and physical viability of the area and causes on a
cost -revenue basis excessive and disproportionate
expenditures of public funds for maintenance of
public services and facilities.
• There are areas evidencing substantial land -use
incompatibility, such as the area north of Inter-
state 37 and west of Water Street. Within this
area, older single-family residences are situated
adjacent to several heavy industrial uses such as
chemical processing companies and numerous automotive
and boat repair shops. The older residential area,
once called 'Old Irish Town", which dates back to the
later part of the 19th century, has been giving way
over the years to small industrial and commerical
uses. Also, there are many older buildings in the
downtown portion of the zone which are in mixed usage.
Figure 4, Exterior Condition Survey, shows the extent
of deterioration of buildings by block within the reinvestment
zone. Surveys conducted in November, 1982, resulted in rating
each individual building within the zone in one of four
building categories, based on the combination of defects
found in various primary and secondary building components.
These categories and the basis for each rating are:
• Sound. No defects.
• Deficient, minor defects. Evidence of one or more
minor defects in any of the primary components or
in the combined secondary components.
-12-
• Deficient, major defects. Evidence of a critical
defect in any of the primary components or in the
combined secondary components, but less than two
critical defects.
• Substandard. Evidence of two or more major ratings
in either the primary components or two major ratings
in one primary component and in the combined secondary
components.
Primary structural components include the basic elements
of any building: foundation walls and girders, exterior walls,
roof and roof structure. Secondary structural components are
those added to the primary structural components and are neces-
sary parts of a building, including porches and steps, windows
and window units, doors and door units, and chimneys.
The exterior surveys show that a substantial number of
substandard, slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures
exist in and are reasonably distributed throughout the
reinvestment zone area. Of 615 total buildings in the zone,
17.5 percent of the buildings are considered substandard,
27.4 percent are considered major deficient, 29.5 percent
are considered minor deficient, and the remaining 25.6 per-
cent are considered sound. Figure 4 shows in percentage
categories the extent of minor deficient, major deficient
and substandard buildings in each block.
Minor deficient and major deficient builldings are
considered to be the same as deteriorating buildings as
referenced in the Texas Tax Increment Financing Act;
substandard buildings are the same as deteriorated
buildings. The words "building" and "structure" are
presumed to be interchangeable.
Figure 5, Existing Zoning, shows the permitted zoning
by district within the reinvestment zone. As the map indi-
cates, there are fifteen discrete zoning district classifi-
cations which are found withn the reinvestment zone.
Other conditions of real property found within the
reinvestment zone include deterioration of site or other
improvements, faulty lot layout, predominance of a defective
or inadequate sidewalk or street layout, defective or
unusual conditions of title, unsanitary or unsafe condi-
tions, and the existence of conditions which endanger life
or property by fire or other causes. These factors and
conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the
reinvestment zone.
-13-
3
PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Public investments to be made in the reinvestment zone
will be primarily in the installation of public improvements
and various supporting facilities. City staff have analyzed
the public improvements needs of the reinvestment zone and
have identified specific projects which are necessary to the
strengthening and revitalization of the area. Additionally,
preliminary cost estimates have been made for each project,
providing a reasonable basis for determining the scope or
magnitude of the total public investment which might be
anticipated.
The estimated total preliminary cost of public works
and improvements is $87,419,000, broken down in general
categories as follows:
o roadway/intersection improvements
o pedestrian improvements
o landscaping
o parking improvements
o shorelines/marina improvements
o signalization
o park improvements
o public buildings
o lighting
o demolition
o utilities
o public/private partnerships or privately -
contributed improvements
$ 7,169,000
1,654000
2,300,000
7,750,000
15,775,000
2,100,000
2,900,000
11,375,000
425,000
425,000
2,300,000
33,250,000
TOTAL $ 87,419,000 (1983 dollars)
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements, lists
the kind, number and location of all proposed public works and
public improvements in the reinvestment zone, along with their
estimated construction periods (projects are listed chronolo-
gically and not in order of priority). As indicated in the
table, there are 70 specific projects proposed for installation
in the 20 -year period 1983 to 2002.
-14-
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements
ROADWAY/INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS:
Asphalt overlay on T- and L -Head roadways:
restoration of curbing $ 250,000 1983-84
Lawrence Street realignment at T -Head 150,000 1984-85
Agnes/Kinney realignment, landscaped entryway 650,000 1984-87
Downtown streets asphalt overlay 650,000 1985-86
Mesquite and Water Streets intersection
improvements 300,000 1986-87
Realignment of Ocean Drive and Water Street
intersection 1,000,000 1986-87
Vehicular traffic improvements at bluff 1,600,000 1986-95
Timon/Surfside Street connection with
landscaping 669,000 1990-93
Timon/Surfside Street°looped boulevard
improvements (north of Breaker Street) 1,500,000 1990-95
Shoreline Boulevard overlay 400,000 2000-02
TOTAL $ 7,169,000
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS:
Peoples Street pedestrian crossing $ 200,000 1983-84
Cooper's Alley/L-Head pedestrian crossing 225,000 1984-85
Lawrence Street T -Head pedestrian crossing 225,000 1984-85
McGee Beach/Park Avenue pedestrian crossing 200,000 1985-86
Pedestrian walkway on Corpus Christi Beach 350,000 1985-86
Twigg Street/new mass pedestrian crossing 200,000 1986-87
Pedestrian connection at Bluff and Peoples/
Schatzel Streets 250,000 1990-91
TOTAL $ 1,650,000
-15-
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements (cont'd.)
LANDSCAPING:
IH -37 Park landscaping and fountain $ 350,000 1983-85
Shoreline Boulevard landscaping 750,000 1983-88
Twigg Street landscaping 300,000 1987-88
Chaparral Street landscaping 300,000 1988-89
Restoration of bluff between Agnes and
Park Streets 600,000 1994-96
TOTAL $ 2,300,000
PARKING IMPROVEMENTS:
Downtown parking project
Corpus Christi Beach middle parking area
Corpus Christi Beach north to middle two
parking areas
Corpus Christi Beach south to middle two
parking areas
Convention Center parking garage
$ 900,000 1983-84
300,000 1983-84
300,000 1984-85
250,000 1985-86
6,000,000 1987-89
TOTAL $ 7,750,000
SHORELINE/MARINA IMPROVEMENTS:
Five seawall overlooks $ 250,000 1984-89
Corpus Christi Beach shallow draft boat
launching facilities 50,000 1985
Construction of sand retention facility
Corpus Christi Beach 1,000,000 1985-86
Maintenance dredging of Marina 250,000 1985-86
New land mass north of Peoples Street
T -Head 3,500,000 1985-87
Barge dock improvements including renovation 200,000 1983-90
-16-
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements (contd.)
SHORELINE/MARINA IMPROVEMENTS (cont'd.)
McGee Beach re -nourishment $ 200,000 1986-87
Restoration of T- and L -Head bulkheading 2,700,000 1988-90
Construction of 400 to 500 new slips 1,600,000 1986-88
Construction of ten water taxi terminals 500,000 1986-90
Two additional north small land masses 3,000,000 1986-95
Breakwater concrete cap extension with
lighting 725,000 1987-88
Corpus Christi Beach landscaping with berms 100,000 1987-88
South basin small land mass with slips 1,700,000 1990-94
TOTAL $15,775,000
SIGNALIZATION PROJECT:
Downtown signalization project $ 600,000 1983-87
Shoreline Boulevard signals, lighting,
street furniture 1,500,000 1988-93
TOTAL $ 2,100,000
PARK IMPROVEMENTS:
Renovation of South Channel Park
Vest-pocket park at LaRetama Plaza
Artesian Park Renovation
North Channel Park development with parking
Cole Park bike and jogging paths
Corpus Christi Beach park improvements
TOTAL
-17-
$ 150,000 1985-86
500,000 1986-87
500,000 1987-88
400,000 1987-88
350,000 1988-91
1,000,000 1989-91
$ 2,900,000
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements (cont'd.)
PUBLIC BUILDINGS:
Development of Multi -Cultural Center, plaza,
landscaping $ 1,200,000
Remove architectural barriers in public
buildings 75,000
Memorial Coliseum ticket office and
landscaping 100,000
Construct 12,000 -seat arena, demolish
Memorial Coliseum
1983-87
1983-88
1985-86
10,000,000 1995-2000
TOTAL $11,375,000
LIGHTING:
Lighting on existing Corpus Christi Beach
breakwater $ 150,000 1987-88
Lighting on Corpus Christi Beach, North
Shoreline, Timon/Surfside 275,000 1988-92
TOTAL $ 425,000
DEMOLITION:
Demolition of public buildings on Shoreline
Demolition of old central library
Demolition of Gibbons Building
$ 200,000 1984-86
200,000 1985-86
25,000 1987
TOTAL $ 425,000
UTILITIES:
Upgrading of utilities in public Shoreline
area
Upgrading of utilities in Central Business
District area
Upgrading of utilities on existing land masses
$ 1,000,000 1983-90
1,000,000 1986-95
300,000 1987-88
TOTAL $ 2,300,000
• -18-
Table 1, Proposed Public Works and Improvements (cont'd.)
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS OR
PRIVATELY -CONTRIBUTED IMPROVEMENTS:
Brown Pelican Sculpture Fountain $ 200,000 1983-84
Marina Office/Patio Bar and Grill 700,000 1983-84
Floating Barge Restaurant 750,000 1984-85
New Corpus Christi Museum Wing 1,500,000 1984-86
Barge Dock Development 300,000 1984-90
Bayfront Arts/Science Park Water Garden 800,000 1985-87
Aquarium 3,000,000 1986-87
New Land Mass Commercial Development 25,000,000 1987-90
Museum of Oriental Cultures Building 1,000,000 1987-91
TOTAL $33,250,000
GRAND TOTAL $87,419,000
-19-
4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY
The principal use of tax increment financing as described
in the Texas Tax Increment Financing Act is to "promote deve-
lopment or redevelopment" within an eligible reinvestment zone.
This is predicated on the premise that, within the zone, condi-
tions exist which may impair or arrest the sound growth of the
city, and that tax increment financing may be used to defray
the costs of public improvements or other public investments
made to overcome these conditions and thus promote sound
development or redevelopment in the area. This section
presents the analysis and findings showing the feasibility
of using tax increment financing for such public investments.
This feasibility study includes (a) an analysis of
the applicable tax rate structure, (b) an identification
of proposed private improvements which are to provide the
base for the production of tax increments, (c) estimates
of various levels of tax increment production based on
alternative captured value scenarios, (d) estimated project
costs supported by various levels of tax increment produc-
tion, (e) feasibility analysis of tax increment financing,
(f) estimates of nonproject costs, and (g) methods of
financing nonproject costs.
TAX RATE
The 1982 tax rate applicable to the reinvestment zone
is 1.79855 (or approximately $1.80) per $100 of assessed
valuation, broken down as follows:
City of Corpus Christi .568
Corpus Christi Independent School District .7412
Corpus CHristi Junior College District .08907
Nueces County (includes Hospital District) .40028
TOTAL 1.79855
Currently, the City of Corpus Christi collects the
taxes for the City, for the Corpus Christi Independent
School District, and for the Corpus Christi Junior College
District. Nueces County collects its own taxes.
-20-
Applying the 1982 tax rate of $1.799 (rounded) per
$100 assessed valuation to the 1982 total appraised value
of properties within the reinvestment zone, property taxes of
$2,979,924 5 are generated. This amount produced from the
tax increment base (or the "frozen base") will continue to
be allocated and paid over to the taxing units levying taxes
in the zone area, based on their respective tax rate shares.
It is important to note that the application of the tax
rate in the reinvestment zone may be modified by agreement
with the various taxing units. The Texas Tax Increment
Financing Act provides that the City and each other taxing
unit may share in the tax increment allocation so long as
the sharing basis is established by contract prior to the
designation of the area as a reinvestment zone.6 The City
of Corpus Christi, acting on behalf of the reinvestment
zone, entered into contracts with the City of Corpus Christi,
the Corpus Christi Junior College District, the County of
Nueces, and the Corpus Christi Independent School District
prior to passage of the reinvestment zone ordinance on
December 29, 1982. These contracts established the basis
for the participation of each taxing unit in the tax
increment allocation, as follows:
1. The reinvestment zone was divided into subzones A
and B with a tax increment sharing plan established
for each subzone. These subzones are shown on
Figure 1, Boundary Map, in Appendix 3.
2. A tax increment sharing plan was established
for each respective subzone, as follows:
a. Subzone A
(1) The CCISD, the Del Mar Junior College
District, and the Nueces County Hospital
District would be held harmless and would
receive all appreciation on existing
properties as well as new construction
and appreciation thereon.
(2) Both the City and the County would
receive increases in appreciation of
existing property and increases in
appreciation of new construction after
such new construction has been on the
tax rolls for one full year.
5. Based on tax valuation data available in November, 1982.
6. Article 1066e, 2E. cit., Section 10(b)(2).
-21-
(3) The Reinvestment Zone would receive all new
construction at a rate of .8104 per $100
valuation (the current City tax rate of
.568 and the County tax rate of .40028
minus Nueces County Hospital District
of .15788).
b. Subzone B
(1) All taxing bodies receive appreciation
on unimproved properties and appreciation
on new construction after such construction
is on the tax rolls for one full year.
(2) The Reinvestment Zone receives appreciation
on improved properties (those properties
for which improvements were in place as
of January 1, 1982) and receives all new
construction.
These contractual arrangements materially affect the
tax increment production for the reinvestment zone, as will
be shown later in this section.
PROPOSED PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
There are over twenty discrete private development
projects proposed or under consideration in the reinvestment
zone showing an aggregate appraised value of over $440 million.
All of these projects show estimated completion dates within
the next four to seven years (by 1990). All of these projects have not yet
reached a commitment stage, although virtually all of them appear to be well
conceived and possible. Therefore, while it is reasonable to assume that most
of this value eventually will be captured and will produce tax increments, only
those proposed private developments which are already committed can be identified
at this time in this project plan. Those private developments which are committed
and under construction are:
Construction
Private Development Period Estimated Value
The Bank of Corpus Christi 1983-84 $ 400,000
Hershey Corpus Christi Hotel 1984-86 35,000,000
Caller -Times Expansion 1983-84 2,262,000
Mann Office Building 1983-84 4,000,000
Marriott Hotel 1984-86 25,000,000
Sandy Shore Motel Expansion 1983-84 7,000,000
Pagenkopf/New Motel 1983-84 500,000
Sea Treasures Retail Bldg. 1983 127,000
Marina Office/Restaurant 1983-84 500,000
Casa Del Mar Motel 1983-84 225,000
TOTAL $75,014,000
-22-
smormmemse
C@CCCCCCC
CCaCCCCCa
IMMINEENEI
E SMILIMMI
e clat a
CCCCeIl is
.�'amus.1 �,�..
The Hershey Carpus Christi
Hotel is a 19 -story bol protect
located on the black df
Shoreline, Mann, Wetter and
Twigg Streets. Cakrstrnction of
the 486 -room hotel began in
Apnl 1983 and is scheduled for
completion in September 1984.
= - The Corpus Christi Marriott Hotel
€- _ _ -,•- _ is a 350 -room, 18 -story budding
1 1 f-' i' _ _ ., located on Shoreline Boulevard
411 t _ -- '- _ between Taylor and Starr Streets.
i¢ ;..� "
}� -1 '4;i; Construction of the hotel began
in March 1983 and is scheduled
for completion in April 1984.
The locations of these development project improvements
are shown on Figure 6, Proposed Private Improvements, in
Appendix 3.
The estimated values are based on information available
at the time of this writing. Because each of these projects
is nearing the development stage, more reliable estimates of
their respective values should be available within the next
months. The values shown here are adequate for purposes of
this feasibility analysis, however.
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF TAX INCREMENT PRODUCTION
The tax increments are the property taxes produced yearly
during the life of the reinvestment zone on the "captured
appraised value." The "captured appraised value" is, in turn,
the appraised value of taxable real property within the rein-
vestment zone which exceeds its tax increment base.
The purpose of this section is to estimate the "captured
appraised value" in the reinvestment zone and the attendant
tax increments produced by this captured value. This is
difficult to measure with any precision because of the
impossibility of predicting what development will take
place beyond what is already committed or considered firm.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, three separate
levels of tax increment production are shown. These are:
• Level 1 -- Low Range
• Level 2 -- Moderate Range
• Level 3 -- High Range
LEVEL 1 -- LOW RANGE
This level represents the most conservative estimate
because it is based only on the captured value of the pri-
vate developments which are committed or under construction.
These are the proposed private improvements referenced in
the preceding subsection and exhibited in Figure 6. Also
included in this low -range estimate is some reasonable appre-
ciation in value on existing improved properties in Subzone B.
As indicated in the earlier subsection, the total value
of these private developments is estimated at $75,014,000.
Table 2, Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 1), shows
the tax increment production from this captured value during
the twenty-year period of 1983-2002. In order to take the
most conservative position, these assumptions were made in
making these projections:
1. No values are shown for the private improvements
during the first year of the estimated development
period for each.
-24-
N E- EN M 1 N 1 1 1 I EN I EN- M- N 1
Table 2
Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 1)
A B1 C
Captured Captured
Appraised Tax Appraised
Value Increments Value
Subzone A Subzone A Subzone B
D2
Tax
Increments
Subzone B
1983 $ -0- $ -0- $ 50,000
1984 5,500,000 44,572 4,252,000
1985 24,662,000 199,861 8,352,000
1986 51,662,000 418,669 8,352,000
1987 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1988 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1989 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1990 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1991 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1992 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1993 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1994 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1995 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1996 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1997 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1998 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
1999 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
2000 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
2001 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
2002 66,662,000 540,229 8,352,000
$ 900
76,494
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
150,252
E3
Tax
Increments
Through
Appreciation
$ 41,976
44,075
46,278
48,592
51,022
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
53,573
F4
Total Tax
Increments
Subzones A&B
$ 42,876
165,141
396,391
617,513
741,503
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
744,054
TOTALS $9,306,766
$2,781,930
$1,035,538
$13,124,234
1. Values in Column A @ .8104/$100 AV in Subzone A.
2. Values in Column B @ 1.799/$100 AV in Subzone B.
3. Five percent per year appreciation on existing improved pro-
perties in Subzone B, levelling off in sixth year and beyond.
4. Total of columns B, D, and E.
2. Gradually increasing portions of the estimated
value for each improvement are shown during the
respective estimated development periods.
3. The improvements are not shown at full value until
the first year after the estimated development
period for each.
Additionally, the tax rates used in calculating the tax
increments reflect the contractual agreements between the
City of Corpus Christi, acting on behalf of the reinvestment
zone, and all other taxing units involved. This analysis
also includes the appreciation on existing improved properties
in Subzone B which were on the tax rolls as of January 1, 1982,
based upon the contractual agreements. As indicated in the
table, appreciation in value of existing improved properties
in Subzone B is shown at a conservative five percent per year,
levelling off in the sixth year and beyond.
An estimated $13,124,234 in tax increments would be
accumulated over the 20 -year period. However, it should be
noted that the maximum yield per year of $744,054 would not
be available until 1987, based on the assumptions made in
this analysis. Additionally, only $1,963,424 will have been
accumulated through 1987. This reflects the usual "front
end" lag affecting most tax increment projects, because the
increments do not begin to show up until the tax -producing
developments are on the ground and fully taxable.
LEVEL 2 -- MODERATE RANGE
This level shows additional tax increments which may
be produced based upon proposed projects which, while not
yet committed, are considered to be of high probability.
There are several development projects which have
been proposed which are considered to be of high probability.
These are expected to produce a "captured appraised value"
of $158,000,000 by 1988, $102,000,000 in Subzone A and
$56,000,000 in Subzone B.
Table 3, Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 2),
shows the tax increment production for the 1983-2002 time
period, based on the anticipated increase in "captured
appraised value." An additional $29,921,764 in tax incre-
ments are produced at this level, which, when combined with
the tax increments from Level 1, will total $43,045,998.
As with Level 1, however, it should be pointed out that
under this conservative approach, the higher yields do
not start showing up until the sixth year and beyond.
Only $2,178,171 in tax increments will be produced within
the first four years, just slightly less than the fifth
year total alone of $2,196,297.
-26-
NM MN I MN= ME MO NM= I MN M MI I N 1 I MN MN
Table 3
Estimated Tax Increment Production (Level 2)
A B1 C
Captured Captured
Appraised Tax Appraised
Value Increments Value
Subzone A Subzone A Subzone B
D2
Tax
Increments
Subzone B
E3
Level 2
Tax
Increments
F4
Total
Tax
Increments
Levels 1 & 2
1983 $ -0- $ -0-
1984 -0- -0-
1985 10,000,000 81,040
1986 52,500,000 425,460
1987 88,500,000 717,204
1988 102,000,000 826,608
1989 102,000,000 826,608
1990 102,000,000 826,608
1991 102,000,000 826,608
1992 102,000,000 826,608
1993 102,000,000 826,608
1994 102,000,000 826,608
1995 102,000,000 826,608
1996 102,000,000 826,608
1997 102,000,000 826,608
1998 102,000,000 826,608
1999 102,000,000 826,608
2000 102,000,000 826,608
2001 102,000,000 826,608
2002 102,000,000 826,608
$ -0- $ -0-
-0- -0-
5,000,000 89,950
20,000,000 359,800
41,000,000 737,590
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
56,000,000 1,007,440
$ -0-
-0-
170,990
785,260
1,454,794
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
1,834,048
$ 42,876
165,141
567,381
1,402,773
2,196,297
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
2,578,102
TOTALS $13,622,824
$16,298,940
$29,921,764 $43,045,998
1. Values in Column A @ .8104/$100 AV in Subzone A.
2. Values in Column C @ 1.799/$100 AV in Subzone B.
3. Total of Columns B and D.
4. Increased by annual totals shown in Table 2.
LEVEL 3 -- HIGH RANGE
Because the City of Corpus Christi is in a comparatively
good growth and development position, it may be possible to
achieve even higher levels of development and tax increment
yields in the reinvestment zone. As indicated in an earlier
report7 prepared in conjunction with the designation of the
reinvestment zone, this' growth potential has been documented
in several recent reports and publications. Key growth indi-
cators include:
• The City of Corpus Christi is experiencing a steady
growth in population. The 1980 population of Corpus
Christi was 232,119 in a metropolitan area of approxi-
mately 330,000. The estimated 1982 population is
approximately 242,000, and the estimated 1990 popu-
lation is projected to be approximately 273,000.
Corpus Christi's population has increased almost
40 percent between 1960 and 1980 and is projected
to increase almost another 18 percent by 1990.
• The local economy is quite diverse, consisting of
petrochemical processing, shipping, construction,
tourism, defense employment, food processing, and
cattle distribution.
• The employment base is comparatively good. The
1981 average unemployment rate of 6.5 percent, while
slightly higher than the state average, is lower than
the national average for the same period. Unemployment
in March, 1983, rose to 10.5 percent, which was higher
than the state or national rate; however, this is con-
sidered to be a temporary aberration.
• The base assessed valuation of the city has more
than doubled from a total of $2,346,814,142 in 1979
to $5,230,617,106 (including industrial districts
under contract with the City) in 1982, reflecting
both new development and property value apprecia-
tion. Projected increases in the next five years
are expected to average 10 to 16 percent per year.
• Corpus Christi and the Coastal Bend are growing
in importance as convention, tourism and recreation
centers. The amenity provided by the sub -tropical
7. Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne, Inc., An Assessment
of the Appropriateness and Feasibility of Using Tax
Increment Financing to Aid in the Revitalization of the
Bayfront Area in Corpus Christi, Texas, December, 1982.
-28-
climate, the natural amenities (including water and
sandy beaches), and the proximity to Mexico (for side
trips) make Corpus Christi an ideal location for new
and expanded tourist -related development, including
restaurants, hotels, and specialty shops.
This potential is evidenced by the additional develop-
ment now being considered in the reinvestment zone. Various
hotel and condominium projects are being considered, which,
in total value, range from $150 million to $200 million.
There are other spin-off office and commercial developments
which also may be possible as various threshold levels of
new development are achieved.
These potentials are not considered in this feasi-
bility analysis, nor can they be because of their uncertainty.
However, it is important to recognize that initial develop-
ment success usually serves to enhance the overall development
climate, thus producing a "spin-off" or multiplier effect.
This has been experienced in many other cities utilizing
the tax increment financing tool.
For purposes of this project plan, however, no esti-
mates are made with respect to the tax increment production
possibilities under Level 3. The higher level of expection
is discussed here only to indicate that the possibility
exists. The feasibility findings are based only on the
potentials shown for Levels 1 and 2.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Project costs are defined in the Texas Tax Increment
Financing Act as ". . expenditures made or estimated to be
made or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be
incurred by the city ... that are listed in a project plan as
costs of public works or public improvements in a reinvestment
zone, plus other costs incidental to the expenditures or obli-
gations, diminished by any income, special assessments, or other
revenues, other than tax increments, received or reasonably
expected to be received by the city ... in connection with
the implementation of the project plan, not pledged to secure
payment of the tax increment bonds. Project costs include:
"(A) capital costs, including the actual costs of the
construction of public works or public improvements,
new buildings, structures, and fixtures; the actual
costs of the demolition, alteration, remodeling,
repair, or reconstruction of existing buildings,
structures and fixtures; and the actual costs
of the acquisition of equipment and the clearing
and grading of land;
-29-
"(B) financing costs, including all interest paid
to holders of evidences of indebtedness or other
obligations issued to pay for project costs and
any premium paid over the principal amount of
the obligations because of the redemption of
the obligations prior to maturity;
"(C) real property assembly costs; that is, the
deficit incurred by the sale or lease as lessor
by the city ... of property within a reinvestment
zone for less than the cost of the property to
the city ..
"(D) professional service costs, including those
costs incurred for architectural, planning, engineer-
ing, and legal advice and services;
"(E) imputed administrative costs, including reason-
able charges for the time spent by employees of the
city ... in conection with the implementation of
a project plan;
"(F) relocation costs;
"(G) organizational costs, including the costs of
conducting environmental impact studies or other
studies, the costs of publicizing the creation of
a reinvestment zone, and the cost of implementing
the project plan for the reinvestment zone;
"(H) interest prior to and during construction and
for one year after completion of construction whether
or not capitalized;
"(I) the amount of any contributions made for the
implementation of the project plan; and
"(J) payments made at the discretion of the governing
body of the city ... that the city ... finds necessary
or convenient to the creation of a reinvestment zone
or to the implementation of the project plans for the
reinvestment zone."8
On the basis of this definition, it becomes necessary
to distinguish between "project costs", i.e., those costs
which will be defrayed by tax increment financing, and
"nonproject costs", i.e., those costs which will be defrayed
by sources other than tax increment financing. This distinc-
tion is important because the finding of feasibility relates
8. Article 1066e, op. cit., Section 2(3).
-30-
only to the use of tax increment financing for project costs.
While it is required that the sources of funding be shown
for nonproject costs, the analysis of their relationship
is not a function of the feasibility analysis or the use
of tax increment financing.
A primary objective of the City of Corpus Christi is to
utilize the tax increment financing tool to install public
improvements and supporting facilities necessary to the
revitalization of the reinvestment zone area. As indicated
in Chapter 3 of this report, 70 needed public improvement
projects have been identified, with an estimated total cost
of $ 87,419,000.
Since this total significantly exceeds the tax incre-
ment resources generated in Levels 1 and 2, respectively,
the projects were ranked on the basis of priority. Priority
projects to be listed as being financed through tax increments
are thus shown in two categories:
• Category I. Estimated project costs listed here
are those which can be financed directly from
the $13,124,234 in tax increments projected to
be produced at Level 1.
• Category II. Estimated project costs listed here
are those which can be financed directly from
the additional $29,921,764 in tax increments
projected to be produced at Level 2.
These are shown on Table 4, Estimated Project Costs,
Category I, and Table 5, Estimated Project Costs, Category II,
respectively. All projects listed in Chapter 3 which are not
shown here as either Category I or Category II project costs
will be considered for purposes of this project plan as
"nonproject" costs, i.e., costs to be borne by funding
sources other than tax increment financing.
-31-
Table 4, Estimated Project Costs in 1983 Dollars (Category 1)
Project
Downtown Signalization Project $ 600,000
2. Mesquite and Water Streets Intersection
Improvements 300,000
3. Pedestrian Connection: Bluff and Peoples/
Schatzel Streets 250,000
4. Shoreline Boulevard Landscaping 750,000
5. Upgrading Utilities - Public Shoreline 1,000,000
6. Two Seawall Overlooks 100,000
7. Realign Agnes/Kinney and Landscaping 650,000
8. Coliseum Ticket Office, etc. 100,000
9. Shoreline Signals, Lights, Street Furniture 1,500,000
10. Restore T- and L -Head Bulkheading 2,700,000
11. Overlay on T -Head Stems, etc. 250,000
12. Extend Breakwater Cap and Lighting 725,000
13. Lighting on Beach, No. Shoreline, Timon 275,000
14. Lighting on Existing Breakwater -
Corpus Christi Beach 150,000
15. Corpus Christi Beach Park Improvements 1,000,000
16. Pedestrian Walkway - Corpus Christi Beach 350,000
17. Vestpocket Park - La Retama Plaza 500,000
18. Water Taxi Terminals 500,000
19. Repairs to Existing Seawall *
SUBTOTAL $ 11,700,000
Inflation @ 12 percent** 1,404,000
TOTAL $ 13,104,000
* No specific dollar amount has been attributed
to this project to date; studies are underway.
** Includes Reinvestment Zone administration.
-32-
Table 5, Estimated Project Costs in 1983 Dollars (Category 2)
Project
—Downtown Street Asphalt Overlay
2. Chaparral Street Landscaping
3. Artesian Park Renovation
4. CBD Area Projects: Upgrading Utilities and
Vehicular Improvements at Leopard and Lawrence,
Laguna and Williams, Lipan and Williams
5. Three Seawall Overlooks
6. Barge Dock Improvements Including Ramp Renovation
7. Convention Center Garage
8. 12,000 Seat Arena; Demolish Memorial Coliseum
9. Realign Ocean Drive/Water Street Intersection
10. Construction 400-500 New Slips
11. Two New Additional Land Masses, North
12. Timon/Surfside Improvements (North of Breaker Street)
13. South Basin Small Land Mass
$ 650,000
300,000
500,000
2,600,000
150,000
200,000
6,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
1,600,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
1,700,000
TOTAL $ 29,200,000*
*Because of the uncertainty regarding the timing of these projects,
it is not possible to determine the impact of inflation. However,
this total is considered to be within the coverage potentials of
the Level 2 tax increments.
-33-
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
As indicated earlier, it is impossible to predict what
development will take place beyond what is already committed
or under construction. From all indications, however, tax incre-
ments are likely to be produced in amounts which could reach or
even exceed $40 million in the next twenty years. This repre-
sents a substantial base from which to implement needed public
improvements projects in the reinvestment zone area.
An important part of the Corpus Christi strategy is
to finance such improvements primarily from the cash flow
generated by the tax increments. Utilizing this approach,
substantial savings would be realized by eliminating the
high financing costs. In order to achieve this objective,
however, it is essential that the public improvements to be
made in the reinvestment zone be organized into a priority -
ordered development program directly related to the projected
tax increment proceeds. Additionally, such improvements should
not be committed to construction until after the•required incre-
ments will have been received by the reinvestment zone.
This may mean a slower start in the capital improve-
ments program to reflect the early lag in tax increment
accumulation normally associated with tax increment pro-
jects. This may require the City to defer many of these
projects for three to five years. Once the annual increment
yields are built up, however, the City is in a position to
maintain a steady level of capital improvement investments
within the reinvestment zone. There is the added flexibility
at this point to utilize tax increment bond financing, should
the need arise. Bonds issued at this time would be easily
marketed and could be placed at comparatively favorable
rates, because the increment base will already have been
established. Additionally, with the increment base in place,
there will be no need to incur high front-end capitalization
costs. The City, however, must maintain the flexibility to
issue revenue bonds based on future tax incremental payments,
should future review of the plan and its priorities indicate
the necessity of shortening time plans for installation of
improvements. Should the City follow this route, it would
be appropriate to issue bonds based on the increments produced
from private improvements, where either in place or under
construction, at the time of such possible bond issue.
The feasibility of utilizing tax increment financing
is thus guaranteed, because it is mandated as part
of this project plan that the only project costs to
be incurred within the reinvestment zone will be those
which are financeable within the limits of the tax
increments which become available.
-34-
ESTIMATED NONPROJECT COSTS
Nonproject costs are those incurred to aid in the
revitalization of the reinvesment zone which will be defrayed
by sources other than tax increment financing. All projects
previously identified in Chapter 3 which are not included as
project costs in the previous subsection are considered to
be nonproject costs. These are shown on Table 6, Estimated
Nonproject Costs. As the table shows, these nonproject
costs total $46,519,000 in 1983 dollars.
Should the tax increment production exceed the total
shown for Level 2, then this project plan may be amended
at a later date to transfer nonproject cost items to the
project cost category so long as the estimated project
costs stay within the tax increment financing limitations.
Additionally, many of the nonproject cost items may be
defrayed privately.
-35-
Table 6, Estimated Nonproject Costs in 1983 Dollars
ROADWAY/INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS:
Lawrence Street realignment at T -Head
Timon/Surfside Street looped boulevard
with landscaping
Shoreline Boulevard overlay
TOTAL
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS:
Peoples Street pedestrian crossing
Cooper's Alley/L-Head pedestrian crossing
Lawrence Street T -Head pedestrian crossing
McGee Beach/Park Avenue pedestrian crossing
Twigg Street/new mass pedestrian crossing
TOTAL
LANDSCAPING:
IH -37 park landscaping and fountain
Twigg Street landscaping
Restoration of bluff between Agnes and
Park Streets
TOTAL
PARKING IMPROVEMENTS:
Downtown parking project
Corpus Christi Beach middle parking area
Corpus Christi Beach north to middle two
parking areas
Corpus Christi Beach south to middle two
parking areas
TOTAL
-36-
$ 150,000 1984-85
669,000 1990-93
400,000 2000-02
$ 1,219,000
$ 200,000 1983-84
225,000 1984-85
225,000 1984-85
200,000 1985-86
200,000 1986-87
$ 1,050,000
$ 350,000 1983-85
300,000 1987-88
600,000 1994-96
$ 1,250,000
$ 900,000 1983-84
300,000 1983-84
300,000 1984-85
250,000 1985-86
$ 1,750,000
Table 6, Estimated Nonproject Costs (cont'd.)
SHORELINE/MARINA IMPROVEMENTS:
Corpus Christi Beach shallow draft boat
launching facilities $ 50,000 1985
Construction of sand retention facility
Corpus Christi Beach 1,000,000 1985-86
Maintenance dredging of Marina 250,000 1985-86
New Land mass north of Peoples Street
T -Head 3,500,000 1985-87
McGee Beach re -nourishment 200,000 1986-87
Corpus Christi Beach landscaping with berms 100,000 1987-88
TOTAL $ 5,100,000
PARK IMPROVEMENTS:
Renovation of South Channel Park
North Channel Park development with parking
Cole Park bike and jogging paths
$ 150,000 1985-86
400,000 1987-88
350,000 1988-91
TOTAL $ 900,000
PUBLIC BUILDINGS:
Development of Multi -Cultural Center, plaza,
landscaping
Remove architectural barriers in public
buildings
TOTAL
-37-
$ 1,200,000 1983-87
75,000 1983-88
$ 1,275,000
Table 6, Estimated Nonproject Costs (cont'd.)
DEMOLITION:
Demolition of public buildings on Shoreline
Demolition of old central library
Demolition of Gibbons Building
$ 200,000 1984-86
200,000 1985-86
25,000 1987
TOTAL $ 425,000
UTILITIES:
Upgrading of utilities on existing land masses $ 300,000 1987-88
TOTAL $ 300,000
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS OR
PRIVATELY -CONTRIBUTED IMPROVEMENTS:
Marina Office/Patio Bar and Grill $ 700,000 1983-84
Brown Pelican Sculpture Fountain 200,000 1983-84
Floating Barge Restaurant 750,000 1984-85
New Corpus Christi Museum Wing 1,500,000 1984-86
Barge Dock Development 300,000 1984-90
Bayfront Arts/Science Park Water Garden 800,000 1985-87
Aquarium 3,000,000 1986-87
New Land Mass Commercial Development 25,000,000 1987-90
Museum of Oriental Cultures Building 1,000,000 1987-91
TOTAL $33,250,000
GRAND TOTAL $46,519,000
-38-
METHODS OF FINANCING NONPROJECT COSTS
The purpose of this subsection is to identify the
general sources and methods of funding which might be made
available to defray the costs for projects not to be covered
by tax increments. As indicated in the previous subsection
and in Table 6, nonproject costs are estimated at $46,519,000.
Principal sources of funding include:
• Private Participation. There are several projects
which might be constructed through private constribu-
tions or public/private partnerships. These include:
(a) Brown Pelican Sculpture/Fountain, (b) New Corpus
Christi Museum Wing, (c) Bayfront Arts/Science Park
Water Garden, (d) Museum of Oriental Cultures Building,
(e) Aquarium, and (f) Barge Dock and Ramp renovation.
These projects comprise a total development effort
of approximately $6,800,000. Additionally, three
projects may be developed privately on a for-profit
basis, including: (a) New Land Mass Commercial
Development (est. $25,000,000), (b) Floating Barge
Restaurant (est. $750,000), and (c) Marina Office/Patio
Bar and Grill (est. $700,000). These potential private
investments total $33,250,000, or 71.5 percent of the
nonproject cost total of $46,519,000. (It should be
noted that the for-profit, privately funded projects
will generate additional tax increments,
Community Development Block Grant Funds. Over the
next twenty years, some of the federal community
development funds received by the City of Corpus
Christi may be utilized for eligible public improver
meats within the reinvestment zone. These funds nust
be used in conformance with the objectives of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and its
subsequent amendments. The U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, which administers the C.D, grants,
has, in the past eight years allocated to the City of
Corpus Christi the following amounts:
Fiscal Year Amount
1975-76 $100
1976-77 2,832,000
1977-78 4,694,000
1978-79 4,876,000
1979-80 5,228,000
1980-81 5,548,000
1981-82 5,341,000
1982-83 4,653,000
-39-
For fiscal year 1983-84 (August 1 -July 31), the City
of Corpus Christi expects to receive $4,186,000.
While these annual funding amounts have begun to
diminish, there is sufficient basis to anticipate
reasonable funding levels in future years.
Other Federal and State Funding. In addition to
CDBG funds, the City is either now eligible or may
become eligible for submitting grant applications
for projects under numerous other Federal and State
funding programs such as EDA public works grants,
Land and Water Conservation Funds, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Funds and various Corps of Engineers funding.
The City should constantly monitor Federal and State
programs and their attendant regulations for possible
avenues for funding of projects within the project
plan.
Municipal Bonds. The City may issue general obligation
or revenue bonds from time to time to finance needed
public improvements within the reinvestment zone.
However, since the mill rate levy for bond debt
service is included within the total mill levy, which
in turn is limited by city charter to a maximum of
.680/100 AV per year, this resource is also limited
in the near term. The current local mill rate is
.568/100 AV, of which, .2213/100 AV is devoted to
debt service.
-40-
5
PROPOSED CHANGES: PLAN AND ORDINANCES
There are no immediate changes required or proposed
in the zoning ordinance, master plan, building code or
other city ordinances to implement this project plan.
However, if the project plan is modified in the future,
changes may become necessary and could be accomplished
by City Council action after appropriate statutory pro-
cesses have been accomplished.
-41-
6
METHOD OF RELOCATING DISPLACED PERSONS
Not applicable. There is no contemplated displacement
of families, individuals or businesses as a result of the
implementation of this project plan.
-42-
7
AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT PLAN
The board of directors of the zone at any time may
adopt an amendment to this project plan. The amendment
takes effect on approval by the City Council. Approval
by the City Council must be by ordinance.
-43-
APPENDICES
1. Boundary Description
2. Summary of Existing Improved Properties
in Subzone B
3. Maps
Appendix 1
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
CORPUS CHRISTI REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 1
BEGINNING AT A POINT in the waters of existing Nueces
Bay, said point being in line with the East boundary line of
the canal commonly referred to as "Canal A South" (the present
City limit line) and 200 feet, more or less, North of the exist-
ing shore of said Nueces Bay for the POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE in a Southeasterly direction in line with the
Northernmost tip of the land mass commonly referred to as
Corpus Christi Beach, a distance of 3,600 feet, more or less,
to a point in the waters of Corpus Christi Bay for a corner;
THENCE in a Southwesterly direction to a point, the
Southeasternmost corner of existing "Cole Park" for a corner;
THENCE in a Southwesterly direction along the existing
South boundary line of "Cole Park" and across Ocean Drive to
the West right-of-way line of said Ocean Drive for a corner;
THENCE in a Northerly direction along said West right-
of-way line of Ocean Drive to its intersecton with the South
right-of-way line of Buford Street;
THENCE in a Westerly direction along said South right-
of-way line of Buford Street to its intersection with the
West right-of-way line of Ocean Drive (extended);
THENCE in a Northerly direction along said West right-of-
way line of Ocean Drive (extended), across Buford Street and
continuing along the West right-of-way line of Ocean Drive
to the intersection of the North right-of-way line of Furman
Street and West right-of-way line of Water street for a corner;
THENCE continuing in a Northerly direction along the
West right-of-way line of Water Street to its intersection
with the South boundary line of Lot 2, Shoreline Terrace as
shown on Plat of Record in Volume 26, Page 83, Nueces County
Map Records, Nueces County, Texas, for a corner;
THENCE in a Westerly direction along said South boundary
line of Lot 2, Shoreline Terrace and its Westerly extension,
to its intersection with the West right-of-way line of South
Upper Broadway (extended);
THENCE in a Northerly direction with said West right-of-way
line of South Upper Broadway (extended), past the North right-of-
way line of Coleman Street and continuing along the West right-
of-way line of South Upper Broadway to its intersection with
the South right-of-way line of Park Avenue for a corner;
THENCE in a Westerly direction along the South right-
of-way line of Park Avenue to its intersection with the
Southerly extension of the West right-of-way line of South
Upper broadway for a corner;
THENCE in a Northerly direction along the West right-of-
way line of South Upper Broadway (extended), past the North
right-of-way line of Park Avenue and continuing along the
West right-of-way line of South Upper Broadway and its
Northerly extension across the section of freeway commonly
known as the "Downtown Exchange" to the intersection of the
West right-of-way line of North Upper Broadway and the North
right-of-way line of Kinney Street for a corner;
THENCE continuing in a Northerly direction along the
West right-of-way line of North Upper Broadway to its
intersection with the Westerly extension of the North
right-of-way line of Twigg Street for a corner;
THENCE in an Easterly direction along the North right-
of-way line of Twigg Street (extended), to its intersection
with the centerline of State Highway 181 for a corner;
THENCE in a Northerly direction with the centerline
of State Highway 181 and crossing the Corpus Christi Ship
Channel to the existing shoreline for a point;
THENCE in a Westerly direction with the meanders of
said existing shoreline to its intersection with the Southerly
extension of the centerline of a street commonly known as
Market Street for a corner;
THENCE in a Northerly direction with the centerline of
said Market Street (extended), to a point on the existing
City limit line and continuing with said City limit line to
a point on the South boundary line of existing Porto Bello
Subdivision for a corner;
THENCE continuing with the present City limit line, in
a Westerly direction along said South boundary line of existing
Porto Bello Subdivision, to a point on its West boundary line,
the East line of aforementioned Canal A South for a corner;
THENCE continuing with the present City limit line, the
East line of said Canal A South, past the existing shoreline
of Nueces Bay to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Addendum to Boundary Description
All boundaries described as shoreline, breakwater, or
seawall shall include in addition to the existing land and
facilities any and all facilities to be built in the future
extending into the waterway.
Revised on December 16, 1982
Appendix 2
SUMMARY OF EXISTING IMPROVED PROPERTIES IN SUBZONE B
Appendix 3: MAPS
Figure 1, Boundary Map
Figure 2, Bayfront Plan
Figure 3, Existing Land Use
Figure 4, Exterior Condition Survey
Figure 5, Existing Zoning
Figure 6, Proposed Private Improvements
t v
That the foregoing ordinance was,rpad for
second reading on this the ,:77 day of
following vote:
Luther Jones
Betty N. Turner
Jack K. Dumphy
Bob Gulley
Herbert L. Hawkins, Jr.
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy
Cliff Zarsky
That the foregoing ordinance ras ead for
third reading on this the aday of
following vote:
Luther Jones
Betty N. Turner
Jack K. Dumphy
Bob Gulley
Herbert L. Hawkins, Jr.
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy
Cliff Zarsky
r-.
f'rst time nd passed to its
, 19 o & , by the
second
ime a
, 19
assed to its
, by the
That the foregoing rdinance w ead for the th' d time and passed finally
on this the day of �, 19 33 , by the following vote:
Luther Jones
Betty N. Turner
Jack K. Dumphy
Bob Gulley
Herbert L. Hawkins, Jr.
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy
Cliff Zarsky �(
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the `O' day of
ATTEST:
I
S,
E Secretary
APPR:
027 DAY OF 19t):
J. BRUCE/AYCOCK, C Y ATTOR EY
By Q: r
ssisfant r�ri rney
MAYOR
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS