Avon Interchange by yn5404w


									NOACA – Nagel Economic
Assessment Public Forum
   Presented by:

   David Hartt
   Steve Weitzner
   Lynn Egensperger
   Manjula Boyina
   Don Lannoch

   Aug 22, 2007
Purpose of Study

  • Evaluate Economic Impacts of Proposed
    Lear-Nagel Interchange
  • Based on: Likely Development outcomes;
    build, no-build
  • Considering: Current circulation, land
    use patterns and trends – nearby and
Meeting Purpose

   • Facts/background
   • Assumptions
   • Development Parameters
   • Road Assessment
   • Economic/Fiscal Impacts:
      – Regional
      – Avon
      – Surrounding Area
   • Hear your comments and questions
Project Schedule

   • Alternative Development Scenarios -
        6/15, 7/13
   • Economic Assessment - 7/13, 8/10
   • Review Mtg. 8/17
   • Public Forum – 8/22
   • Final Report – 9/7
   • Final Presentation 9/14

      All documents available at:
Spheres of Influence
   • Where development will be different
     depending on interchange
   • Two spheres
      • Land Use
      • Circulation
   • Based on:
      • Interviews
      • Background Review
      • Current Projects, Community Policies
      • Our Collective Experience
Sphere of Influence - Circulation
Sphere of Influence - Development
Existing Zoning
Known/Possible Developments

      • Henkel – 400,000 sq. ft. Industrial
        (158 ac.)
      • 83/Chester – Retail, 40 ac.
      • Jacob’s
        – 112 ac. Industrial
        – 40 ac. Medical
        – 60 ac. Office/retail
Circulation Issues/Assumptions

      • Rt 83/I-90 improvements needed
      • Westlake termination of Avon
      • Prohibition of widening Detroit
      • New Roads by Developers
Development Parameters
      • Development shifts confined to
      • No “down zoning”
      • Possible shifts at “equal intensity”
        – office, retail, industrial
      • Potential shift from residential to
      • Estimate what is likely, not hope or
        influencing change
Development Parameters

     • Pace of residential construction
     • Pace of Industrial, Office, Retail
       will be influenced by interchange
     • Absorption estimates start with
Development Parameters

    • Interchange $19,000,000
       – 1/3rd Jacob’s
       – 1/3rd TIF
       – 1/3rd Avon Bonds
    • Funds not transferable for other
No-Build Development – Full

       • 1,431 acres
       • Jacob’s property industrial (210
       • Henkel 400,000 sq. ft.(158 ac.)
       • All other per zoning
          – Industrial, other (242 ac.)
          – Office (150 ac.)
          – Retail (72 ac.)
          – Residential (599 ac.)
No-Build Development – Full
Build Development – Full

       • Jacob’s property per “Plan”
       • Henkel 400,000 sq. ft.
       • 50 ac. Shift from Offices to Retail
         (Chester Rd.)
       • 117 acres from Residential to
         Retail/Offices (“Halo”)
       • 50 acres from Residential to
         Retail/Offices (south of “Halo”)
Build Development – Full

       • Industrial
         –Henkel – 400,000 sq. ft. (158ac.)
         –Other (352ac.)
         –Retail (233ac.)
       • Office
         –Medical (60ac.)
         –Class A (95ac.)
         –Residential Scale (96ac.)
       • Residential (437ac.)
Build Development – Full
No-Build Development –2030

       • Jacob’s property industrial
       • Henkel 400,000 sq. ft.
       • 18 acres (25%) of retail land
       • 50 acres (33%) office land
       • 150 acres (33%) Industrial
         land developed
Build Development – 2030

       • 112 ac. of Retail
       • 181 ac. of Offices - 141 (2/3 of
         211 ac.) and the Clinic (40 ac.) to
         be developed
       • 383 ac. of Industrial - 235 (2/3rds
         of 352 ac.) and Henkel (158 ac.)
         to be developed
 Development Summary - Full

               No Build       Build            Difference
Residential    1,336          975              -361
Retail Acres   72             233              161

Industrial     610            510              100
Office Acres   150            251              101
Total Value    $1,069,000,000 $1,309,000,000   $240,000,000
  Development Summary - 2030

                No Build     Build        Difference
Residential     1,336        975          -361
Retail Acres    18           112          94
Industrial Acres 308         393          85
Office Acres    50           181          131
Total Value     $650,000,000 $970,000,000 $320,000,000
Circulation Segments to be Evaluated

Traffic Evaluation – Contd.

        Road Volumes Established by:
             2006 – various sources
             2007 – 2%
             2030 – 1% per year plus
                   development projected
                   within the sphere of
Traffic Evaluation

                  No Build      Build   Difference
   Total Trips   43,000      116,000

   Total Peak    5,200       14,000
   Less Pass by  (400)       (2,500)
   New Peak Hour 4,800       11,500     6,700
Traffic Evaluation – Contd.

        Road Segment Improvements
        Required by Interchange
          • Nagel – Chester to Railroad
          • Nagel – I-90 to Detroit
          • Chester – SR 83 Intersection
          • Detroit - east of Rt. 83
          • Rt. 83 – south of Detroit
          • Jaycox – Chester to Railroad
          • Krebs/Naigle – Bradley Intersection
Economic Impact – The Shift

    • The “Shift” refers to where the
      incremental activity is likely to come
      from under the Build scenario versus
      the No-build scenario
      • It does not attempt to identify where all of
        the new jobs and investment are likely to
        come from, only the net difference between
        the two scenarios
Economic Impact, Cont’d – Important Considerations

      • Study is narrowly focused on a specific area
        within a dynamic region
      • Within the region, there are constant
        investment decisions being made about
      • For example, companies choose to:
         •   Expand at their current location
         •   Relocate within their current city
         •   Move within the region
         •   Exit the region
         •   Enter the region from elsewhere
      • The net effect has been slow but steady
Slow and Steady Growth in the Region

       Source: TeamNEO, June 2007 Economic Review
A Dynamic Region: A Sample of Some Recent

                                    Jurrinov Ltd.             WLS

                                                                          (to Florida)

                                              Technology        Bank of

        (to Oklahoma)

                                    (from Indiana)
Economic Impact, Cont’d – Investment Decision

     • There are trends in investment patterns in the
        • Trends due to the fact that certain locations
          more attractive than others from a site
          selection perspective:
           • Transportation access
           • Business climate
           • Labor force
           • Tax burden
           • Quality of life
           • Available land or buildings
     • These trends are evident in the following slides
Industrial Investment Trends
Office Investment Trends
Medical Office Investment Trends
Overall Shifts in the Region – Number of Firms
Overall Shifts in the Region – Number of Jobs
Economic Impact, Cont’d – Continued

   • These overall investment location
     trends in the region will not be
     significantly impacted by the decision
     to build an interchange
   • If built, may make the area around the
     new exit more competitive for some
     investment projects
     • Net difference between the Build and No-
       build scenarios
Economic Impact, Cont’d – Continued

  • Just because the area around the new exit
    would likely be more attractive, it does
    not make any other particular area in the
    region less attractive
    • The dynamism of the region will continue, the
      overall growth of the region will likely
      continue, and jobs and investments will
      continue to shift into, out of, and within the
Economic Impact, Cont’d – Shift Calculation
    • Weighted indexing formula
    • Varying parameters based on use
    • Index only applied to the Shift (the net
      difference in absorption between the
      Build and No-build scenarios), not the
      total absorption
    • Based on data, assume that 5% of the
      Shift is attributable to net growth in the
Incremental Development Distribution - Annual
Significance of Incremental Development
Incremental Permanent Job Distribution - Annual
Incremental Development Distribution - 2030
Incremental Permanent Job Distribution - 2030
Locations Where Incremental Industrial
Development “Goes” if Interchange is Not-Built
Locations Where Incremental Office Development
“Goes” if Interchange is Not-Built
Locations Where Incremental Medical Office
Development “Goes” if Interchange is Not-Built
What the Shift Calculation does not
    • Calculation is narrowly focused only on the
      immediate area around the proposed new exit
    • Just because analysis estimates, for example,
      that approximately 30,000 to 70,000 square feet
      of industrial will shift from Westlake to Avon,
      one can not therefore conclude that Westlake
      will ultimately have a net loss of jobs by 2030
    • If analysis were completed based on a specific
      geography within Westlake, it would show at
      least an equal shift of activity from Avon and
      other cities into Westlake
What the Shift Calculation does

   • The Shift calculation demonstrates that
     the construction of the exit will probably
     not have a material impact on the overall
     site location trends within the region
 Average Annual Output –Output
                 Average Annual
                                Relative Impact









                        Shift Related Output   Total Regional Output
Average Annual Output      $60,955,000          $145,019,613,000

  Source: IMPLAN
Net Fiscal Impact of the Shift
Study Conclusions

  • The interchange will have positive
    benefits to Avon and no material
    adverse impacts to the region or the
    surrounding areas

  • Positive benefit to Avon because of:
     – Increased tax revenue
     – Improved and more distributed circulation
     – Ability to more than cover costs
Study Conclusions

  • No material adverse impact to
    region because:
    – No change in size or nature of the economy
    – Market demand will continue to be met
       • Growing area
       • Attractive location
    – Well established trends will continue
    – No change in development proportions
      between greenfield compared to infill sites
Study Conclusions

 • No material adverse economic impact to
   “nearby areas” because:
   – This study evaluated one narrow event over 23
     years – redistribution is
       • Less than 1% of Cuyahoga County jobs
       • Less than 3% of Lorain County jobs
       • Less than .04% of two county economy
   – Market demand in this growing sub-region
     (I-90 corridor) will continue to be met “nearby”
Study Conclusions

 • No material adverse economic impact to
   “nearby areas” (Cont’d.)
    – Multiple and continuous economic dynamics
       • “backfilling” and shifting – in response to
         other events will continue
Study Conclusions

• No material adverse economic impact to
  “nearby areas” (Cont’d)
   – Any “push back” (from a no-build
     redistribution) will not achieve any increased
     absorption into existing buildings or onto infill
     sites compared to past/recent trends.
Supporting Observations

  • This is a 23 year horizon; not 1 or 5
  • Interchange will not materially alter
    historical development patterns/trends
  • Market demand in this vicinity will
    generally be met – build or no-build
  • This study narrowly focuses on the
    “interchange shift”- yet
     – Multiple regional shifting is continuous
     – There will likely be “backfilling”
Supporting Observations

• Respecting local community objectives
  may conflict with regional perspectives
• “No-build” does not materially influence
  the ability of the built communities to meet
  their needs to be competitive
• Can not determine if the interchange
  results in more or less total miles traveled
Comparison with NOACA’s Principles/Goals

 • With respect NOACA’s Planning Principles
   and Transportation Goals, the
   – Supports some
   – Does not address or relate to some
   – Does not conflict with any

 • Other procedures assure compliance with
   Clean Air & Clean Water Acts
Comparison with NOACA’s Principles/Goals

  • No anticipated shift in public transit
  • Improves transportation efficiency re:
    mobility and accessibility
  • There is no single “quality of life”
    standard that can be measured; each
    community establishes/carries out its
    own objectives
  • This report provides supplemental
    information for NOACA’s consideration
NOACA – Nagel Economic Assessment
Public Forum

          Presented by:

          David Hartt
          Steve Weitzner
          Lynn Egensperger
          Manjula Boyina
          Don Lannoch

          Aug 22, 2007

To top