Despite a setback for a planned mega-development in southeast Fresno, Mayor Jerry Dyer is committed to seeing it through.
The Fresno Bee recently sat down with the mayor for a 40-minute interview to discuss his accomplishments as mayor so far and how he looks forward to the remaining two years and 10 months of his second term. Read the first part of this interview here. One of the major topics of discussion was Ssoutheast development area specific plan, a large-scale expansion proposed to add 9,000 acres and about 45,000 homes in Southeast Fresno.
Dyer pointed out that throughout his administration, he has committed to adding infill housing within city limits. But he also said he sees SEDA as essential to the city’s growth for the affordable homes and good-paying jobs it is expected to bring.
“I would be remiss as mayor if I didn’t pursue this with a vengeance,” he said.
The project, with a total estimated price tag of $4.3 billion, is controversial, with some opponents saying the city should prioritize investment in existing neighborhoods that “it faces blight, damaged infrastructure and insufficient investment.“
Others have argued that the project has a “shortfall” of more than $3 billion, an estimate that a city-commissioned study says the city would need to raise through a new SEDA. the special funding district which would generate revenue through fees, charges and other sources levied on SEDA developers, new SEDA home owners and business owners.
On a 5-2 vote in December, The Fresno City Council sent the plan back to the Dyer administration for further financial review.
While acknowledging that the city’s history of sprawl has had a negative impact on the city’s historic neighborhoods — Dyer expects developers to pay for the bulk of the project and “generate additional revenue to the city.”
Here’s what Dyer had to say about SEDA, with slight edits for clarity. Q. SEDA, the Southeast Development Zone, is another big topic. In December, the Fresno City Council voted to send the project back to city administration for further review. Any idea how long it will take or how it will go? Based on what has been requested by the board in terms of further studies, I think it will probably take six months to complete all of this information. It was something I anticipated, but it was probably requested by the board more than I thought. I knew there would be quite a few, but I didn’t know there would be this many.
Q. What do you think of all the opposition to SEDA and how would you respond to concerns about expansion? So number one, I’m not a proponent of expansion. I think what has happened in Fresno over the decades has really been a disservice to the people who lived in some of our older neighborhoods. And ultimately, what ended up happening with the expansion of the highways and the development of the land that was in the far north—not just in Fresno, but in Clovis and now in Madera—really put us at a disadvantage. And so I worked very, very hard to make filling. In fact, when the master plan was presented, a goal was set for at least 50% of new development to be within the city limits, and then 50% outside the city limits. I am proud to say that since then, 76% of all development has occurred within the city limits. So we’ve made huge progress in development in our core. We still have room to develop in this.
But I think we’ve gotten to the position where we also have to expand into certain areas in a very smart way to where we remain competitive and provide opportunities for home ownership. And I believe that the SEDA plan that we have proposed in the southern part of our city is one that will meet that demand. It will allow 467 acres for housing, and most of that would be for single-family housing, for home ownership at what I think is an affordable rate for people who grew up in Fresno. But the most important thing, I think, of the South SEDA development would be the 1,547 acres that open up south of Jensen Avenue (between Jensen and North avenues and between Minnewawa and Temperance avenues) that would allow us to have advanced manufacturing in that area. So that area would be 100%, 99% for flexible R&D, which would allow for advanced manufacturing that will attract good paying jobs.
Exhibit J – South SEDA Map by Melissa Montalvo
And the reason that’s so important to us is if you look at the statewide average right now of land suitable for research and flexible development, for industrial development, the state average is about 7.5% suitable land available. Visalia is at 16% and Fresno is at 5%. So we’re at a competitive disadvantage in that we don’t have the right terrain for that to happen in our city. And we need good paying jobs here too.
Q. How about the concern about the multi-billion dollar shortfall to cover SEDA costs? Would this be covered by the city or private development? I would say first that it is misinformation, because this multi-billion dollar and $3 billion figure is not accurate. There are infrastructure costs that fall directly on the city and are reimbursed by the developers.
And in fact, all the infrastructure is paid for by the developers. Nothing is paid by the city. But there are some upfront costs. Even $267 million, however, was too much for me as mayor. I didn’t feel like that was the risk I was willing to take, nor did I want to put that kind of debt on the ratepayers. So then we moved to South SEDA, and that infrastructure cost for South SEDA is about $61 million for water, sewer, streets – an upfront cost that I think is something we could tolerate as a city. And I also think that development will happen sooner than it would if you opened it at the north end (of SEDA). So reducing the risk to the city to $61 million – it’s going to be another cost per housing piece, and we don’t have that number yet – but it’s going to be under $30 million. And is that a cost that’s consistent with what we’ve done in the past for development? Yes. And so I feel comfortable, the return on investment will be substantial.
And the reason I say that is because many, many years ago, we didn’t have community facilities districts. That’s money for people moving into the new development, who pay an extra dollar out of their paycheck as part of their property tax to cover all future street maintenance. We have that today. We also have one Community Facilities District, CFD 18 which also pays for police, fire for further development. We didn’t have that years ago, like none of this was available before 2005. And we also negotiated a new county tax sharing agreement that instead of the city getting 38% of the property tax and the county 62%, the new tax sharing agreement in SEDA allows the city to get 51% of the property tax and the county gets 51% of property tax. So between the CFDs and the new tax sharing agreement and the developers paying back all the infrastructure, I am 100% confident that not only will this new development pay for itself, but it will generate additional revenue for the city to provide additional services like police and fire.
Stay tuned for part three of this interview.