The Anderson County Operations Committee on Monday night will consider an amendment to the economic impact plan for the Oak Ridge Mall economic development area. Officials have said some minor changes would be required after a new master developer become involved in the redevelopment of the former mall.
The Oak Ridge City Council and Industrial Development Board are also expected to consider some minor changes to the mall-related documents. The IDB has a special-called meeting on October 19.
The Anderson County Operations Committee meets at 6 p.m. Monday, October 12, in Room 312 of the Anderson County Courthouse in Clinton. The Committee is expected to forward a recommendation on the amended economic impact plan to the Anderson County Commission for its October 19 meeting.
The economic impact plan was approved by Anderson County Commission in November 2013.
Development plans still call for a retail-driven, multi-use development that is substantially similar to what has already been approved.
The project, which has been named Main Street Oak Ridge, would redevelop the mall, now officially known as the Oak Ridge City Center, as a 60-acre mixed-use project that would include retailers, restaurants, a hotel, and residential units. The vacant enclosed space between the two remaining anchors, JCPenney and Belk, would be demolished, although those two stores would remain.
The goal has been to complete the first phase of the redevelopment in time for the Christmas season in 2016.
In September, Oak Ridge City Center LLC, which owns the property, announced that RealtyLink, a South Carolina real estate development firm, will replace Crosland Southeast as the master developer of Main Street.
Neil Wilson, a principal with RealtyLink, said then that his firm intends to move forward quickly with the same plan and same tenant mix as had been previously proposed.
Crosland Southeast and officials had announced a series of steps this year, including pre-demolition activities and bid reviews, and roughly $500,000 worth of pledges from six local employers to help cover public infrastructure costs. In March, Crosland Southeast announced it had signed the first anchor store lease.
A $13 million tax increment financing, or TIF, package was approved for the redevelopment after being considered by the IDB, City Council, County Commission, and Tennessee officials. The TIF would help cover development costs using new property tax revenues generated at the site. The change in property taxes in a designated economic impact area would be used to repay the TIF loan.
Local financial institutions in the TIF lending group are CapitalMark Bank and Trust, TNBank, and First National Bank of Tennessee.
A site plan for Main Street Oak Ridge was approved by the Oak Ridge Municipal Planning Commission in August, and officials said then that an application had been submitted for a demolition permit.
Crosland Southeast had had the property under contract since early 2013 and said it invested more than $1 million in the project.
More information will be added as it becomes available.
Copyright 2015 Oak Ridge Today. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Raymond Charles Kircher says
And the smoke screen gets thicker while Oak Ridgers will be paying more for less. Told you the plan didn’t work with county execs, and needed to be changed. So what deals are now being made to get votes for selling out Oak Ridgers? I can only wish and hope our county is fulfilling their taxing authority over us. This is a real shame that so many people in this city are fooled by the blatantly foolish people of Oak Ridge Leadership. I told you there won’t ever be a mall on that property for 99% of the people currently alive in Oak Ridge today. I told you changes had to be made. My question now, is why are Oak Ridge leadership and elected officials still hiding the truth from voters? Does this city have that much money hidden to waste on developers for less of a project? Put a road through it, for they will come.
Will Smith says
What part of “substantially similar to what has already been approved” and “move forward with the same plan and tenant mix” that you don’t understand, Mr. Kircher?