Awesome. workshop Monday, February 16th. Please stand for the pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. That clerk have roll please. >> Chairman John Eric Cooper >> here. >> Vice Chairman Chris Mayer >> here. >> Member Robert Hubard >> here. >> Member Lisa Burke >> here. >> Member Christine Sullivan >> here. City manager Don
>> here. Okay. First up is comments from the general public. I have no signups and I don't appear to have any public. I don't think everybody online. So, seeing no hands, I will come back to uh uh the board to move to comments from the city manager and I'll pass to Mr. King for his comments.
>> Uh comments that I have for tonight is um and this is to tie in everything that we're doing in reference to the incentive program. If you look at the policy, you'll see what we've developed and D will go more detail as we discuss
the the the policy here in a few moments. But one of the things I need you to take in consideration is that currently the way we have it set up right now it goes back to the percentages and when the percentages are paid back noble timeline on that. Um but I think one of the things you need to consider as we move forward because this
is a CR funded program that it sunsets in 2032. So depending on what direction and what options that you are looking for or direction or options that you want me to come back to the table on um
after the discussion uh consider that either this is a five-year program in totem and then we we make the most of it that we can with the incentive dollars that we have or we look at how we will do this over a longer term uh longer
timeline based on what we want this program to be, how we want to incentivize, and then what risk we're willing to accept financially now that we'll own the majority of well almost all that uh funding and and resources dollars after the after the sunset of
the CRA. So that's just something to think about as we move forward on this because what I don't want is for us to go into this blind and not understand at some point if it goes beyond five years, we will have a lion share of the responsibility for this. But other than that, that's all I have. >> Yeah. We'll have more than the lion
share. We'll have the entire share. >> Yes. >> Um on the on the CRA before we jump into board business, the um are we are we looking at attempting to extend or we just fold up tent in five years? >> I asked the city attorney. She thinks it's her opinion that we don't we won't
qualify for the extension. There's a lot of steps in between that, you know, beyond just the board vote. we had to do another necessity finding which required and and like I said before the previous findings will not pass the muster of that finding you know talked about
firefighter gear talked about um public facilities all things that are no longer allowed for the sharing to touch so and her opinion also was that the current plan specifies that sunset date is going to be that that January 2032 that was
her opinion that that pretty much seals the So okay so it looks like based on the attorney's opinion that there is no path to other than if we try to create another area I guess after that or we we if we do extend to be extremely small
area I'm thinking uh the inland portion of quist uh maybe papaya those truly would define an area of summon blight it's hard to kind of pass that definition on to homes with high value on canals which you have a lot hub. So,
it's going to even if we're able to, you know, extend this area, it's going to be greatly reduced on the on the area. >> Yeah. And we've reduced it anyway. Like I said, most of those those waterfront homes are are not are not involved with it anymore. So, okay. So, something to keep in mind.
Obviously, that's makes a big difference. Okay. Moving on to uh board business. Uh item number one, redevelopment incentives. Um, obviously we we we had to get together here to talk about um what we want to do for that from a posit perspective. Obviously, keep in mind with the with
the CRA and and when that sun sets um we do have the current development going on, it's looking for uh something to come out of this package to see what's available. Um so, as we go through it and I think uh you're going to walk us through it, right? Is that uh >> correct? Yeah, it's going to be
interactive because uh we need feedback from the board as well. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh and keep in mind also this is obviously not just for that but it just it lives after that right so we got to kind of keep that in mind because it does expose you to um stuff as well as future projects come which is a good
thing it could be a bad thing too depending how the policy is written. Um so that did you have anything you want to add Don or just >> No m I think that covers it. >> Okay so let's uh let's turn over to Derek and let him walk us through it. Right. So, there wasn't great changes
since the first time you've seen this. Just want to go over a few things. Really, we want to know does it stay or does it go or do you have something else you want to put in there as well? And so, you know, page one is just definitions and things of that. We included affordable housing element in
there. Just some basic information, some definitions on what uh types of things we're looking at. If you notice too, there's at the front the very top there's CRA targeted districts. So it's not for the whole CRA, it's for the waterfront and the US19 corridor. We
didn't, you know, we have the industrial part. We didn't feel like that was good use of this program. So we wanted to be targeted in the areas that were looking to incentivize recruitment of of different commercial entities. So we have that whether or not the board like I said we can give direction on doing
targeted industries that's kind of a big step to this. So, we would need direction if you want to go that route with that or open it up to the entire CRA. Um, if you if you could go into just for everybody else that may not have had a
chance to kind of let it all sink in or whatever. So, the the the math behind all this, correct me if I'm wrong, I'll go and explain. So, the way it's currently written is you uh you can get up to a 12% of the value of the
property increase. Okay. Um that establishes your max amount of incentive. Um so if if you have a $100 increase in the value of the property, you can get up to $12 in incentive is what it says. Okay, so that's the first
part. Then the second part of that is how that incentive is is paid, right? And so then the this policy says that you can uh is it you start at 50%. >> Correct. So what you do is you know you
have your 12% and unless we can afford to pay the whole one year obviously we wouldn't. So how do we reimburse that? So you reimburse that with the base 50%. So half of that 12% or half sorry it's half of your annual the the property's
annual payment to the t how you figure that out is you got to take the county rate and the city rate find out what the taxable what their tax bill is just for the tax increment portion. >> So that's let me stop you there. So in in the example we have in the policy
when I was reading through this it didn't take in consideration the county portion >> it it needs to because CRA has to treat both taxing authorities the same >> right cuz it look like in numbers you were taking the the 6.4 is a >> that was an example it didn't break this didn't break out you can imagine that
that 6.4 would be a culmination of both taxing in entities rates that was just an example it wasn't real world it's 7.44 for the county 6.22 here so you combine those together that is double that. So, >> so that's what I'm saying that if >> right
>> when I read through it, I thought it was just taking the city portion. So, that being said, that 50% is really 25% of the whole take roughly if you look at because the county portion is is kicking in. Let's just say they're the same. They roughly are maybe a point
difference. Uh you're getting if you take 50% of the 6.29, 29. Um, you still got the seven 95% of the seven point whatever coming in, >> right? The CRA can't treat them differently. So, the CRA is not working on behalf of the city. It's working on
behalf of the CRA, right? And so you could look at that that way. But in the end, the that tax bill, the final tax bill with county operating and city operating that that person's paying, they'll be a reimbursement rate of 50%
just base on that amount, that total combined amount of what whatever the tax increment. >> Right. So whatever what the example we have in here, it didn't have the county in here. So what >> right what I guess what what I'm trying to make sure if everybody understands is is
if you're giving away 50% if you're incentivizing 50% of what the city takes only you still have the the whole of their amount. So if you got $2 on the city part and $2 on the county part right and we're giving 50% of the we're given a dollar that leaves us three. So
we got 75% of the the CRA still working for the city, right? If we give 50% if we give 50% of both, that's dollar of ours, dollar of theirs, it's truly 50%. We get $2 instead of those $2. >> Well, so so
we as the I guess in in the sense of the city, but but when the tax money comes into the trust fund, it's it's all right. And so what happens is that every year you're going to reimburse out of that trust fund what they're allowed
through the program regardless of what taxing agency it came from. That's how we're >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> But you if you're from So like if this was a city council meeting, right? They would say, "Well, we're getting a good deal because the county is paying more
into the trust fund than the city is and getting and having less of a liability with the incentive program." That's from a city perspective, but for the CRA perspective, we're just it's all the same, >> right? >> Yeah. >> The impact to the actual city itself is
path of from a CRA perspective, obviously. >> And that'd be important to think of too when when it goes beyond the CRA, if it does go beyond the CRA and becomes a city economic development type of thing, right? You're going to have, you know, if you bring that agreement over, you're
also agreeing to kind of the county portion as well. Yes. When Yeah. Right. So, if it does go over to the city, you're you're essentially paying you'll be paying I guess you could Yeah. Whatever that you're It's 12%, right? But then you're going to add in what the county would have been contributing to
and that that agreement carries forward cars over >> and we we could find ourselves into a very long long term. >> Yeah. because you're not you're not terming out the the length because you're you're determining the length of the incentive payout based on the amount
you pay annually. It's a trade-off, right? I pay less annually, but it's going to spread it out for 30 plus years >> for how we're going depending on if it's a big development or not. >> Correct. So, so that being said, what as I reviewed it, um obviously what I did like in
there was the fact that um it talks about it down on let me get there. Yeah. On page nine under 7.2 key policies, the last one CRA sunset unpaid incentives may terminate CRA's dissolved. city council may elect to
assume agreements as discretion. So basically once you fast forward five six years from now if it does actually terminate um then whatever incentives that they would have coming to them would no longer we are bound to them. I guess that's how we would write it up.
>> We'd have to be very forward with that developer. So from a so again as they're as these developments they're talking to the finance companies and stuff like that I would assume they'd read down to that and say well this you know this is great but there's a risk there right in five six years that you're not going to
get that. So um something to keep in mind as well >> is is there any precedent somewhere in Florida whether or not that's um survived a legal challenge >> if if you stopped and then >> yeah this language came from Bradon.
Yeah, because we we >> has it ever been challenged. >> I don't know about a challenge because they still have the CRA pre-existing agreement. If it's stated that once the CR dissolves, there's there's no guarantee of future payments, I don't think there's any challenge to it, right? Part of the know.
>> Yeah, but where's our where's our council? >> Yeah, Nancy. >> Where's Nancy? >> Well, she's reviewed >> this already, right? >> Because this because things are written doesn't mean they survive legal challenges. I think that's a question we definitely need to answer if I do that. Um, is that
does that stick or not? Yeah. >> And precedent case law. >> Mhm. >> And it's one of the things we need to consider in the process of finalizing this piece of documentation on what language we want it to say and what our intent is with the
entirety of this and in and the direction that we want to take. Because if if we're looking at a sunsetting closing incentive, then we need to address it as such and have the language in there to protect the city. And then if we choose or we or we come up with an
option that allows us to go beyond it, that's acceptable to the council as we move forward with it. and we need to caught by that also in order to protect us as we move forward so that we don't we don't expose ourselves to risk with
regards to budget and and and funds that we have. So whereas this by itself as it an incentive under CRA it's great and and it provides good incentives to businesses that want to do business with us. But you know what is what is that
next step as we step out of sunset and we go into let's say we take this beyond sunset. How do we want to how do we want this to look while still being incentivizing or where we reduce our risk?
>> Yeah. So, and I you know when like I said when I read to it first time it it looked like it was approaching just at the city's perspective when counting the counties. Um and so I guess my thought is is while we are having the county contribute um we're we're able to we're able to uh pay out much more in
incentive for that time at the time it and if if we actually did sunset and that was it that's great too because then it takes us off the hook but I think we probably it makes more sense to structure it in a way that um once CRA um was to sunset then we would reduce
down our pay. So our basic we reamortized that point. So we >> cover the city portion of that. >> What's that? >> Only cover the city portion of their tax rebate. Right. >> Right. Makes sense. >> Well, all the should be based on what's available to the city as well. >> You know, it
>> that's what it depends on. We may have more >> at the sunset portion. And then of course we could change the addendum, but it depends what's available to the city. Pasco County does a a CR incentive. It's pretty cool. it's uh 25 years. Let's say
they want a building wants a new roof or windows or doors. The the county pays for it. Say it's $30,000 worth of work. They do a reverse mortgage on the property as long as the person still owns the property, doesn't sell the property, and over the course
of 30 years, it draws like u $1,000 interest free from the debt. So in 30 years they don't owe they don't owe anybody anything as long as they continue to own the project and the building or that business. >> So they finance and they loan the money and then they get it all back plus
interest. So yeah >> they they don't well the city the county gives them they don't have to pay any of it back. It's they give them give them $30,000 or they'll pay for the project to get it done. As long as they stay in that building for 30 years it's debtree. Now, if they sell it, then they have to
pay whatever, you know, they sell in five years, then they got paid $25,000 at closing back to the county. >> That a grant or is >> the grant? >> Yeah. >> Yep. It's a CRA grant in Penel County. >> Let's see.
>> That's pretty popular. And those may be some things we may need to capture as we move forward, you know, based on our current plan because our current plan right now is a platform for you guys to to to to jump off from and
then make adjustments or re-evaluate the whole process and then provide feedback on like I said it comes to risk. What risk are we willing to assume as we move forward and you know with everything there is risk but we want to minimize you know our portion of that risk
because I would I would agree with Derek that when it sunsets that we no longer manage county's responsibility we only manage the city's responsibility because we're going to be paying county and city responsibilities. We'll break the bank really quick
>> to um to put in perspective with that that project and what's kind of been floating around as they've as it's evolved, right? Um they they they wanted four and a half million um in incentives for the um the project on 19. So that
project, the number I saw before was like $50 million project. Okay. So if we use this policy for that $50 million and it' be the the difference between 50 million and whatever it's worth now. So if we take uh for example let's say it's 8 million. So take 50 million it's 42
million right increase. So at 42 million times.12 that would put the eligible incentive at 5 million 40,000. So it's roughly about in the area what they were asking for. But as you go on, so the uh the whole
project um is 150 million, right? So if you take 142 million times the same.12, you're talking $17 million incentive. And that as you parcel that out, you got a long payback. And so as you open up
the policy for, you know, this this this one property, you know, kind of makes some sense. You over time we we pay that that uh 4 and a half to 5 million back. Um but then they're going to come right back to us when they do the other one and same thing. You you could expose
yourself for another 12 million, right? And then anything else that comes in and develops opens that up as well. So it's tough to uh to think about this from a from a broad perspective because you could really I mean you want to invest so that you have investment coming in and you want to share in that so you can
encourage that um but you can get some some big numbers generating from from that especially if it's a significant development like this this will be. So, and mayor, some of the discussions that we've had, you know, just with with public and and and potential opportunities,
um, one of the things that that that I have seen is, you know, there's always questions. How do we benefit? How do we benefit? How do we benefit? And the reality of it is is, you know, where do they get their benefit? once it's approved, he takes advantage of it first
is getting the longer term of that in that benefit as opposed to those that wait >> because they're going to limit, you know, their actual opportunity of that because if you're the first one, you get five years, you're going to maximize your benefits. If you jump on a year four, year three, year two, you're not going to get as much as the next guy. So
when asked that question, well, how can you incentivize help us? Well, I can help you by helping yourself getting into the program sooner than later because that's where you're going to make your return on your investment as opposed to waiting and delaying and
asking for additional um incentives that we as a city may not be able to provide because the cost the cost to that product or that that service may kind of make it a wash on what we're trying to do with the
incentive program because we find ourselves in a position where we're actually losing money trying to support something that's supposed to be a benefit of businesses that take advantage of it upfront and sooner better than later. >> Mhm. >> I wonder
if it would make sense to have a percentage of a tiering percentage. Whereas for your smaller scale projects, um your percentage could be a little higher, but as you get to larger projects, maybe you scale it back and
you reduce it. Maybe the 12 goes to eight or something after they reach a certain threshold. Again, I don't know how you you construct it without leaving yourself open. Um and obviously if you're if you're paying back a relatively small amount comparatively.
So let's say that that we get we take and we instead of 50% because actually the way that the policies written we got 50% you start at and then you can get on additional percentages by doing other things. So way your those are yeah those increase those they'll increase your
benefit they increase your reimbursement rate. So you're still getting a maximum amount. It just gonna get faster, >> right? Which is positive for the for the developer, but negative for the city because we're we're we're paying that back quick. >> Yeah. >> Right. Um and we gota be very careful about that. We don't want to um we don't
we what we don't do is have growth and not be able to service it because we're we're in >> our money we use. >> Yeah. So, um, you know, by all means with the CRAAS here, if we go up to 50%. Realistically, we're only we're only
subsidizing with county money at that point. We're going to keep our share in CRA, right? >> Well, well, again, again, it's it's not the city or the county share. I, you know, CRA, uh, it's it's neither or. It's the trust fund, right? So, >> understand we're putting something in,
they're putting something in. So, >> the city is putting something in, and the county. Yes. >> Right. it's it comes from somewhere and it comes county. So, right, um obviously the uh the city if we give away half of that bucket, we'll give away half and if
you you can look at it like it's the county money that we're subsidizing with. So, once the CRA sunset, then we got to figure out what to do. So, I I'm all about obviously being able to do that with a CRA. Um it's is going past that against a very short runway. So,
>> too, you know, this is a reimbursement. So these incentives don't kick in until they get a co and they're they're putting in the truck, >> right? So you imagine if a project started right now it takes a year or two to construct if it's larger really you're getting about three years worth of that incentive through the CRA
because of just the sunset date. And I think even, you know, if if you think about our tax rate, we definitely wouldn't want to keep anything less than half of that to service, >> right? Yeah. So, yeah, you know, I think
that did 1.2 with the 6.22 was about $7,000 a year in that tax increment that the city, you know, that that's the total tax increment. So, 12% of that Yeah. Or sorry, 50% of that on the on the increment is where you'll be out uh
as a reimbursement back into that. Yeah. And I go to say I would think, you know, maybe 10 years from now, we're in a different financial position, too. I would think we want to try to, >> you know, if we were sharing the whole thing, we didn't have the CRA, you know, I think we probably wouldn't we go more
than what 25% or 30 or something like that. Not even 50 might be too much at that point. You know, I'm thinking about competitiveness with other cities, right? I mean, it's all that's what we're trying to do here. And so, there's another portion on this. It's the cost of doing business portion. So, your your
fees, your permitting fees, and your building fees, your impact fees. And so, all the other agencies that are doing this, they do they they pay for those fees at the time that they're going through the process up to 50 or 75% depends on the on the project. here. The
way this is written is it's reimburseed after the fact. So that's another decision too the board would have to make is whether or not to be comfortable enough risk of paying for this fees as the project develops or do you wait until project gets the CEO and
reimburse. So on the and for folks understand so if we if we were to pay for some of those impact fees out of CRA to incentivize project that's a way for us to shift CRA dollars into the general fund or well building department at that point
>> yeah waving uh fees it gets trouble some because there's some that can't be waved and then you're taking away from those departments too to service this project and so a lot of times a lot of these projects you see in other is the CRAAS are paying a portion of those fees.
>> Yeah. So, while the developer sees that, it's really the city should just shifting money around. So, it's really not costing us anything. The opportunity cost is actually taking in more building revenue. Oh, >> I will say, mayor, one of the things that that we kind of discussed,
especially when I'm talking with public works, is that, you know, there's certain there's certain areas that that we would try to restrain ourselves from giving in permitting or or cost savings for certain utility type stuff because I
will tell you from the city manager position is that I want those elements that are coming in to provide infrastructure that connects into the city. >> Sure. >> Because I think having them part of the community and being part of, you know,
the the development of the waterfront and and part of the community is that there should be some agreement of that, hey, we we put incentives in place, you know, therefore, I have an expectation that you have your own infrastructure
that that we tie into that helps the collective Well, that actually improves, you know, the surrounding systems that we have, especially when it comes to and being able to move things around because what I don't want to do is end
up buying 45, 46, 47, 48, you know, lift stations, you know, that that help us manage that because that becomes an increased cost to us and it's an increased cost in services. It's an increased cost in in just installation. Whereas, if I can get
them to do that as part on their part as they're receiving these incentives, I I think that would be a win-win for both of us as opposed to, you know, just giving them that and then giving them incentives because now I'm now I'm, you know, cutting the nose off at a certain
point, you know, with but with what we're investing into it because at some point, you know, we got to look at to what extent or to what end do we really want to push those incentives to the point where now we put ourselves at
risk. >> And I I think too I think this plays into an advantage um because if we if we tie it to the CRA um we're only exposed for a relatively short period of time right now. And so the the incentive plan
would die with the CRA. Now over this next 5 years or whatever we would have that but again you can see how long things take or whatever. Um, so I I don't know that we need necessarily need to worry about having this uh this potential obligation out there
for long periods of time. City's uh future um as because it dies with CRA. Um we'll probably only have a couple be able to take part in it. So So that does help. Um
>> and I think it'll incentivize you know those those um prospects or those uh vendors out there that that want to participate to participate early get on board early >> while the opportunity is there to help you know develop you know
>> the the larger product that we're looking at as far especially for the waterfront. I mean bringing that in, bringing it together, uh I think that also helps you know the city in its vision to not only bring in those businesses but to help those
businesses succeed because the fact that they're actually taking on and they're moving and they're developing other investors are going to see that >> and they're going to want to get on board. So what you're going to have is you're going to have current investors that are building the opportunity for
other investors who are going to come on board making providing opportunities to those that have made their original investment. So you're looking at a system that if put in place right time within the right window with the the right amount of incentives to get them
started that we could you know start a chain reaction of just different companies and businesses getting online sooner and wanting to participate. So that what we actually have is we have a strategic plan that is now not a 20-year
plan, now it's a five-year plan because it's built into a five-year window. And in that in that aspect, we're actually starting to develop our water flat faster with with those things that we want in place.
>> Eric, >> yeah, >> I would think this is my thinking. This is my first time at city government, so I'm not going to try to pretend I know everything. and you know roll it out there like that. But I would think you would want as a city council the ability to assess each situation as it comes at
you and then incentivize it. You know, depending on what you want to happen, you know, example, you know, somebody's selling their house, you know, house is sitting there, it's not selling. Hey, realtor, throw a $10,000 bonus onto that one for the realtor. You know what I'm saying? Now all of a sudden, you got people coming out there bringing
clients, you know, across the county to get to it. So depending on what we want to do and how we want to incentivize them. I mean obviously right now we're in a situation where we want some grass growing, you know, we want Chia Petet down there going poof, you know, and then all of a sudden we'll get and that's not meant to be the high stories
and all that stuff that people are concerned about. Okay? It's meant to be some growth, some shovels in the ground, pipes running, those kind of things. So how we incentivize this plan, the initial one to get off that's happening right there may be different than what we throw out there in the future. Obviously, we're going to have less
gunpowder coming from CRA in the future. So, we can't just roll out one deal and say, "Yep, here's our plan." >> You know, we haven't done it yet. So, why can't we just keep it to a per situation? >> So, the answer to that obviously is I'll come back to you. The um you don't want
to do one thing for one because then everybody else, well, you did it for this guy, so it's a it's a it's a fairness conversation. That's why uh and and you could be sued for that. Well, you for this developer a you you had this I should be entitled to the same thing which is a which is a true
statement there. So there's they're standing for a lawsuit there. And so that's why the policy is so important. Um is you know here's what willing to give across the board. Um and so you take that out of it. There's no they can't accuse you of of discrimination
whatever right? So that's the real purpose. So I think as we tailor a solution and keep that in mind, I think we can handle like say with the with expiration or CRA and we can put something in there that uh you know in order to qualify for the incentive you
have to be able to uh have your project done uh and the occupancy there to before the CRA closes in order to receive the incentive. So that way as we get closer up against that date, you don't have the ability to to incentivize
anymore, but it serves a purpose now that we do have something if that makes sense. And then the policy goes away and then you don't have that. So as long as they're coming in right now, they can get access to these incentives. But uh as you get farther along, like say this
project jumps in, um you know, two years from now, they they start drawing some of the incentive back because they're done. Two and a half years or whatever. Well, we only got, you know, two and a half years left of CRA. If they all come in, then it's iffy whether they'd be able to get a project off the ground that we actually could uh use instead of
before that CRA sunset. And so, they wouldn't be able to qualify at that time. So, that would kind of protect us, if you will. >> Well, most developers looking at it's an investment for them. They're going to looking at I would think mostly tax incentives down the road and it's going
to improve their investment return. Mhm. >> But being towards tanks incentives and upfront money. They got the upfront money. They want the they want the return on their money. >> Well, that's >> Oh, you said you want Go ahead, Lisa. Back to you. >> Go ahead.
>> Um, I want an explanation further on the incentive summary table on page 11. So, depending on what it is that that's the max allotted for that purpose, >> right? Those are add-ons for the reimbursement rate, not the total
benefit amount. >> So take them over the 50, right? >> If they do So yeah, so your 50% reimbursement rate, if they do the urban canopy, they can add a percentage to that reimbursement rate. So they're getting >> But it's not set at what you have here. It's just this is just shown possible
broken down. >> Yeah, the the definitions are >> maybe somebody just wants urban canopy in 50% or whatever percent they could do that more than 1%. No, that was capped at it's capped at one and I think we have you in a category cap too. I think
6% for each category as well. So that we can >> I wanted to be sure what these percentages are. Is that the top max they can they can do out of that category? >> That's if if yeah what happens if they if through the review they put enough trees that satisfy what we're looking
for urban canopy they have 1%. If they do enough for share to reduce parking that's 5%. So there's your percentage that you're going to get. That's not on a scale. Now I >> That's the max. >> That that is what you would you would get. That's the number that's on a scale
from from men to max. It's what you would get. Now each I think we have written here each subcategory because each of them have a subcategory is capped at 6% each. So that we could kind of spread uh spread the different categories out. So you're not just you
know stuck into one particular category. Where did these percentages come from exactly? Like is this all Braden? >> This one's all Braden. The uh the upfront cost of business is from Newport Herie. >> Um what about similarly situated cities
throughout Florida that are uh size small? They have two, but they're very small CRAAS. There's not too many cities that completely cra their whole city. It's hard hard to find that also have a program like this. >> We're just a much smaller footprint.
>> We are so small. I'm afraid that this is >> and to grab a bra and thing and put it in here. >> I feel like this is >> Exactly. It's like too big. >> Doesn't fit the same thing we're dealing with uh you know with the residential grant changes too that came from Delray Beach. That CRA has 15 staff just for
that CRA. And so we try to scale the best we can but we can only find certain examples and things. >> That's that's a concern I have. was going to tell you is that and how long have you been doing CRA Derek? >> Uh this well for this city. >> How long have you been doing?
>> Disaster redevelopment. What about in your lifetime? >> A few years. >> Few years. Just a few years. >> How what is the population of Bradon? >> Uh a lot. >> A lot. You want to know >> times bigger than our population of
Bradon, Florida. So I can't see I can't see that we could commit to anything of >> 59,000 people. >> Yeah. I can't see that we could commit to anything of this size. >> We're not even tenth of them or like less than a 20. >> 20 times the revenue too. >> If we were to start slicing this
fractionally based on size, we would be looking at these numbers coming way way down. >> Let me ask you this, Derek. Okay. And I'm just trying to understand as I dig into this. Don't be offended by it. I'm just trying to understand
is there any expert people in this field that they're trained and educated. I'm not picking on you to understand at at how to set these things up, you know, not just a guy who's got CRA some experience, but somebody who says, "Hey, you know, this is how you set them up and it's done this percentage and blah
blah and it pulls it all. Is there anybody out there like that?" >> There are some, you know, private entities. A lot of times we refer to the Florida Redevelopment Association that helps us on a lot of these items. The thing the issue is, you know, CRAAS are highly catered to their communities and
so you try to look and see what everybody else is doing like that 12% that 12% came from what everybody else is doing who had a program. Newport is 12.5 others are 12%. So that's kind of like we we try to work with what everybody else is doing because to not reinvent the wheel, but really it is up
to the the agency to to pick it. There's a lot of flexibility with CRA. As long as you're working within your plan and state law, there's a lot of flexibility. So if you don't like 12, you can go lower. There's nothing saying that you can't. And that's something that the pork can do.
>> I would definitely think lower. Um I just believe this is too risky and also my concern is also that um the risk analysis involved in all of this case law studies I mean I don't NY's not
here now but I think as we go through this process this whole thing has to be reviewed by council each step of the way and maybe not even our own counsel but outside legal counsel that has familiarity with these because of the
the uh you know increased risk to the city >> I guess expensive >> I know the complexity >> yeah the complexity of this >> it's above our pay grade I can tell you right now we don't understand where >> all of us >> you know with our different backgrounds can just come in here and pretend to
have an understanding of what's going on I know I'm I'm overwhelmed >> by what is a non-conforming elimination I don't know what is a C face. I don't know what is micromobility. I don't know. Um the these are each things that
we have to look up each step of the way. And I believe we need professionals for this. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking if Don is familiar with these that that Dawn begin the process of reviewing all
of this, coming up with numbers that would suit a city this size. um breaking down some of these um these in what's on this summary table to where it would be understandable to the rest of us. So, we would understand what
we're even meeting about because we can go through this at our at our homes, but it really doesn't mean the same as if we have some kind of consultant or our own professional city manager that may have been through something similar that could guide us through this.
I think we're asking too much >> of Don to fully understand this. I'm not I'm not saying Don's not a smart guy. I just think you're gonna have to reach out and get some expert. >> Well, we got we got this from from Bradon. I think that >> this was based on Bradenon
County has >> new rich has incentives. that we can compile this and new paricies incentives and Pasco counties maybe we can decipher it a little bit better and with with assistance from Pasco County I think cost us to get an expert in the >> I think part workshop too was to find out if you wanted any of those on the
incentive table you can get rid of all of them if you wanted to only pick a couple >> I I want I want to do something that incentivizes people to come drop their money here but what I don't want to do is commit to something we don't understand and then six years from now we're gone they look back like what in the world were they thinking and all of
a sudden we're like sucking I absolutely want something to stop as soon as the entire train of incentivizing to stop with >> nothing that we're still obligated to do
or >> anything is over. like it happens while we're here and that's the best we can do because we only are so so big or so small with so much revenue and >> well well again if you if you
incentivize a project um and I think I think you have during the CRA you're more generous but again after the CRA goes if you got somebody in the program and you still owe them money um I mean nobody's in their right mind is going to come in saying well in five years you're
the check stop So, but you you you basically change uh the structure. So, let's say we're given 50% during the CRA. Um well, when we come down to Siri expire, then we only service with 25%. So, we're keeping 75% of money, but we're still servicing a little bit. It
just takes a term out longer. So, you know, cuz you have bonds and stuff that that uh as as cities do different things or whatever that you float that uh there's a long-term payback, right? Eric, >> could you clarify one thing for me? Sure. When you say 75% 20%, you're talking about tax reduction.
>> Taxes. So if if you get uh if you get $10 in tax. Yes. Right. Okay. So we're servicing $5, you know, $5 of cities, $5 of the the counties. All right. So >> um we're giving $5 towards whatever that total incentive is, right? And when Sir
ends, um we don't get >> still give our five. >> If we give our five, we won't get anything, right? So we would we reduce the 50% because we given 250 at that point, right? We're still reducing, but it's going to be much more tougher on us. So
>> you would only be I don't know for for half of the 12%. >> Yeah. 12% was the number, right? >> I still you still have the same incentive there's a million dollars or whatever. It's just going to take longer to pay back because you're only going to service it with 25% of the tax revenue
that you have coming in. >> You do a recalculation of that. a recalculation, the term changes. It's like you refinance a loan. Um, you know, you can you can you can, you know, frontload it where you're paying most of it back, but you're using county money and our money at that point, but once it goes just our money, you know, we got to
provide a police, the fire, all the different things that go with it. Um, and so we we don't have the, you know, think of your if you're buying anything on your personal side. Um, you know, you're you got two jobs, right? You got two jobs for five years. You know, five years you only have one job. And so when
you lose that other job, you got to restructure your your debt. >> And I think anybody coming in for incentives, somebody said u they wouldn't do it if they knew if it was not after 5 years. Well, they'll be real happy to get it up to the 5year mark. >> Sure. But if it doesn't cover what they need to make the project happen,
>> well then they ask for less >> or like I said, if you >> because they have to consider that >> right to after the fight. And see the the the the problem you run into though is if and let's just say for easy figure purpose they need $5 million to to make
the project happen. Okay, the banks use that that TIF money that they're they're going to be receiving as as a guarantee on the loan. So if the bank looks into this all detail says, well they're going to get they're going to take it for five years, but then they're going to need something else. They're got to show that
that gap is going to be satisfied or that they're not going to get the lending. If they don't get the lending, the project didn't happen. So if the project will happen then we don't get anything. >> But we have to do steps they might have to do steps too. >> Right. Again I don't again all I'm saying is if when you look at this from thing if you don't if you don't carry it
out to uh the end of the what they need there's going to be a gap there that has to be fulfilled. And again if if if all the gaps aren't filled projects don't happen because they've got to get the the lending. >> But what is being asked of us is that we commit to something that will that will
live on well after we're off of council. We're not even here anymore. And without having legal studies, without having >> um full understanding, financial studies, a professional involved in this, I wouldn't want to put my name on
anything that's going to survive 25 years after I'm off of council or 26, 27, whatever. Okay. >> And have the city suffer because of a mistake that I made for something that I wasn't educated inactive way. going to suffer. But keep in mind
as it lives on, so does the continuing tax revenue which is increasing every year. You know, valuation increases. >> That's something we can determine today. They got this incentive summary table on tax breaks, tax incentives. That's something we can pick and choose. I mean, that's pretty simple. We can pick
and choose what we want to do with that. They got percentages here. As far as CRA funds, that's very difficult. As I said before, it should be incentivized equally and uniquely. Everybody's different. You know, you got a little shop open up down there and
they just got one little square unit that's maybe a thousand square feet and then you got a hotel project. It's not going to be the same. But you can do percentages. They do have percentages in here, but that's always limited on what's available to the city. And you can and every incentive is going to be
based on what's available to the city except for these tax breaks. The tax breaks can be they can be changed. You can change the addendum. You can addize all those things. But you can pick right now for for people looking at wanting to develop property down here. These are a
tax incentives depending on what your project is like parking. Well, permit fees. It says right here 2BD to be determined. So that's something someone's building something they want a they want to w us to wave permit fees. need to come to us and
we'll see if it's worth it and we may do that or we may cut it or whatever to help them incentivize it but we can't put it in black and white alternatively on each project. >> What I didn't like about that is is those those those don't go towards the incentive. So I think any any break
that's given should all be rolled into because right to to them it's it's real money that they're not having to pay. >> It helps their investment. >> So Don had mentioned something that I'm listen I'm highly intelligent. I pay attention, but I don't understand what
does it take to supply water and sewer to an operation this side here size here. And what is it going to take us as a city after we say, "Yep, Chuck, you're good." And all of a sudden, they hook everything up and they're like, "Well, we everybody took a shower at one time and everybody else's water went like this. We got 30 pounds." Who does all
that? We have engineers do all that. I mean, we're talking about $40 million plus for water treatment plant here. Low impact development plan. That's what that is. Environmental low impact development public works 4%. Maybe they'll put in a lift station. Maybe
they'll put in drainage on their property. We don't have to. We can give them 4% tax breaks if they're going to do that. Now, and I will tell you that that that my intent speaking with, you know, staff and and just my own personal
opinion on it is that, you know, for infrastructure like for lift stations and all that other stuff, you know, I want them to bring in the systems they need to support their development piece. What I don't want to do is is is out of pocket the city's money >> on the back of the taxpayers. >> Yeah. on the back of the taxpayers.
Whereas one, it brings them in for a a a requirement they they must have and it also what it does allow and where the benefit that we get out of it at the end of the day is it helps the infrastructure that we have to better serve and support them because without them making an
investment in that, you know, and the investment coming from us, it's going to limit what we're able to do for them because there's going to be a certain price point where we're going to have to say, "Hey, enough's enough because, you know, we're spending a lot of money and that's why I want to come back to you guys is what I will do is you know based
on your comments based on your comments based on your comments mayors I think that maybe we scale it to Port Richmond to better fit what we think would be more suitable you know not only for what we we we want to provide but also what
we can afford to provide during the CRA portion and then the long term as we move it out because I think as we move it out we lose dollars I think, you know, we need to take an assessment and look at what we what can we afford to provide that does it that provides us
the least amount of risk but keeps the incentive program moving forward and and I think those are options and then you know once that we get that together have a legal review of it so that you guys are comfortable with the fact that we can do this and then providing you guys
that option maybe at the next meeting so that you guys are going okay yep you build us this is plan. Now we're looking at this plan. We're more immediable to this because it's meeting the intent of any investment that's coming in, but it's also reducing our risk not only in
in in dollars but also in resources and man-hour, you know, to support and develop these these projects. We want them. But in the same breath, to what end do we want them? You know, do we want it at the end of that, you know, we blow our budget for the next 10 years or
do we strategically plan it so that it minimally impacts us, but we're actually drawing some revenue from the process as we move forward? >> Go ahead. Go >> ahead. Listen, sorry. >> Because we didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
Let's let's just look at Newport Richie. Let's look at Braden's. Maybe the wheel needs reinvented for a smaller city. Maybe once we come up with something that we all understand, we all get and is suited for a city of our size, we are now the wheel and the other smaller
cities >> is there >> can follow what we're doing. Just because we don't want to do the whole thing doesn't mean we have to do the whole thing, but we need to gear it down >> to us. And there's other lots of other small cities that that >> Right. But I think we should bring that
option to you, those options to you so that you guys can to decide what you want, what you don't want, and what works best for you as we scale it for you because I'd rather us do the homework for you and provide you options that you could actually move forward and
make decision on or at least adjust from. I would rather we all sat here and said we don't really know everything because we don't >> and and find out the correct answers than to then like Christina said and others wrong. >> It's much better to say I'm not sure
because even with Derek doing this for a couple of years he doesn't know it all either. There are actually other people like you said private companies expert they know more than Derek more more obviously we are not we are not experienced enough to figure
out the correct that we need to be the smartest people in the room >> we have to know the smartest people in the room >> we need to know our resources >> I I'm just telling you in all my years in real estate and everything else I've heard a lot about impact fees but I haven't heard a lot about incentives you
know what I'm saying I mean blighted areas and Danners, but we're taking Listen, and this is no shot at our developers because I'm thankful the people bringing money to the table. I I'm very thankful for them and I pray that every dollar they invest brings them, you know, multiple folds back. But
this is our beautiful downtown district. This is the, you know, we don't have this is not our armpit. We're trying to please go in there and, you know, get rid of these slums and build up. This is the place on the water where all the beautiful restaurant everybody wants to go spend their money on. It's a premium
place. So, I've heard a lot about impact fees in the past. Like, somebody goes in, they're like, "Hey, we want to put up 280 units over here." Well, Darl, how much is that going to cost for water and sewer for the next 20 years? We go in there, look at what an impact fees, and boom, then we have an impact fee. Now, we have a trading bargain. You know,
here's the impact fee, here's your incentive fee, and how do those wash out together? Right now, we're just looking at how much can we give them. And I'm looking at, well, hold on a minute here. This is our the only jewel we have. I'm just telling you right now, poor Richard, that's it. That's our That's our baby right there, you know, and we
need to make sure we don't just give away the farm. And I said this before on our baby because we don't have a whole lot of babies. We got some blighted areas that knocked on all the doors here, you know. So, like I said, the tax incentives is not out of pocket. And I think we can put down agree on certain
tax incentives that we have right in front of us and we can put that down so they have something to work with today. >> The reason I can't do that is because I don't even know what this includes. Um if if I say a 4% low impact development,
does that mean that the a low impact development is something under a certain size with permeable you know >> it would be low on low on water and sewer >> but there's no definition of that and the way my mind works is all defining
everything there are definitions at the beginning so low impact development 5.2 is the it defines that >> there there's another there's another portion too we talk about in the future
is >> do do we want to set an annual reimbursement rate or do we want to set a max because of the uncertainty with the property tax uh legislation you know the CRA has no other way to fund itself
other than property tax so if we start seeing those exemptions and hit our bottom line, which if anything any of those things pass, we will see a reduction in our revenue. Uh if if we do an agreement say we're going to cap you at $180,000 based on your valuation now. Well, well,
next year your valuation may go down because of those, you know, state pass exemptions. >> Well, this commercial development, so I wouldn't be impacted. They're not building home. They're not building homesteaded things. So, it's it's >> the rest of the money. >> Well, yeah, that plays a part, right? But yeah, that's what he's talking to.
>> That's all we'll get is commercial. >> Legislation did include commercial. You know, I think there was one capping it the percentage at 15% and it could only be reassessed after, you know, three years. There there might be some impact to the entire well there's going to be impact to the entire CRA fund if one of
those pass. So you're talking at a whole the whole CR impact. Yes. But again, when you you're incentivizing a particular project, that particular project is is a commercial project. And so the the and keep in mind what you're incentivizing is future tax revenue that
that that project is creating. You're not taking away not you're not on the backs of other taxpayers. It's really that project what that project generates you're incentivizing in that. So for and just use an example for um certain period of time if you're giving back 25%
of the taxes it's bringing in you're getting 75% of taxes it's bringing in that they wouldn't be bringing in if you didn't put 25 in. So you're getting something for your investment. It's it's a return, right? >> Completely. Yeah. I completely understand. I just don't feel like this is scaled for us and I don't think that
that is considered yet. >> Yeah. And I like I said, I I can tell you a few things I would do right off the bat is take the 12 to 10. >> Take 12 to 10%. Um >> I'm thinking lower than that. >> Um >> just based on size from Braden to Fort Richie. I mean, I have no idea at this
point, but unless I saw something that told me that 10% was the number, I would I would instinctively think that Port Richie size would make it much lower than 10, like six. >> Well, that these are these are
percentages. I mean that's we can tweak them if you want but a lot of this stuff we can tax like if you if you have a condo going in and a hotel going which was explained a couple weeks ago a condo may not get quite the tax incentives as a hotel does because a hotel we can tax
a lot of revenue off tourism that we can't do on condos nor would we want to. So that could be an incentiv incentivize for us because we're going to get a lot more revenue u say a parking garage if someone puts in a parking garage uh we can tax them we give them a bigger
incentive so they can build that for so we we don't have to spend the 25 million but we can tax 5% on every ticket sold in that parking garage and they can collect the rest of the money too. So, but like you said, the the environmental like low impact development like that's
that's it's laid in there. Either they're going to spend the money on the lift station, they're going to spend the money on the water plant and the or the not the water plant, but maybe a fire fire uh hydrant or whatever. Are they going to maintain it or not? But they're they're willing to
put in $40,000 for a lift station. We don't have to pay for it. They'll get the 4% tax break. That could be $8,000 a year to them. They'll get that back over the years on a tax break. >> That to me is right now there's nothing in here that says they would provide one
lift station or they would provide 10 or 40 or whatever is required to meet the needs of what they're building. Um, so I don't have anything that I need here. I mean, I've looked through it. I still don't even see >> that's per project, right?
>> Yeah. There's a development review portion that anybody comes in the city goes through development review. So it looks at your your water service, your fire service, your police service. Everything gets figured out once you get plans and it's going to be per project basis. So there may be one lift station or there might be four.
Just depends on the project in the >> each project. The lift station would be different. >> Okay. But there's no that's not defined anywhere in here. I need absolute like I need everything defined in detail.
I I'd have to I can't make these kind of decisions. >> I never know what it's going to be until the project comes forward. >> So I would get too wrapped around the axle on the on the on the minutia, right? It's um you need to look at it from a from a higher level perspective.
>> The development is going to require infrastructure. Okay. So whatever it needs, it's going to have to have. That's outside of any >> is it not some of that planning and zoning, >> right? >> So, so all that stuff's going to be worked out. Okay. So, all you're looking
at is from okay if I want some kind of development to come in. >> Um am I willing to put little skin in the game to make sure it happens knowing the fact that if you don't it may not happen and you you remain stagnant. No, there's no there's no growth at all. So, again, all the little details are going
to be worked out. Um you don't need to know how many list stations. if they need two or three, they're gonna have to have two or three. Um, and they're gonna they're going to pay for them, right? What they're looking for or whoever any developer is going to be looking for is is, you know, if I
and I'll use a I'll use an example here that, um, that near and near all is parking, right? So, if you look at shared and reduced parking, uh, plus 5%. And you can even, um, look at that to provide some public parking or whatever. if they're if they're willing to develop something, they're going to provide some
public parking and um that that get there's going to get a certain percentage toward that uh that incentive because it helps the city. So, we're we're in a sense we're incentivizing that because we're going to get something out of it, right? Same thing when you talk non-conforming use legalization. Um Whiskey River, for
example, over there I believe is non-conforming use. Frank is not here, but uh that's a residential area. You got a commercial restaurant, right? So, it's non-conforming use. So if somebody comes in there, purchases all that, and they're basically put that back to residential where it's supposed to be, um it gets rid of the non-conforming use. Um so that's why they're getting
incentivized there. Again, that that's why you do that. >> But wouldn't we wouldn't we want to know certain things before um incentivizing as well? Like right now, we don't know if we have purchase units. We don't know if we have rental
units. I mean, wouldn't we want all of those kind of things solidified before we know how we incentivize? >> Well, it well in in the case of property tax reform, it makes a huge difference if it's commercial or for it's homestead of properties, right? So, if they're building individual single family homes, >> right, >> that uh we definitely would need to know
that because that could possibly we could possibly get no tax for it. The the targeted district I think covers that too. You're not building a single family home like 2019, right? So, that's >> not single family homes. I'm talking about purchase condos or apartments. rentals. The developer maintains and
holds those as a package. >> That incentive goes along with that package. Condos, it's each individual person's pay homes. Town homes are individually right now. I don't I I'm telling you, I just don't have enough information in any of this.
>> Well, each project is different, so it's hard to to say >> to know any. >> It's percentages. It depends on how big the project. Small project is going to be the same percentage. Well, I think the one thing we all agree on is it needs to be >> more >> more geared to the size of our study. I
think we all agree on that one. >> Like when you're in college and you need money from grandma, well, somebody's grandma is going to have a lot of money and somebody's another person's grandma's not going to have as much money and you're not everybody's going to be the same. So that's Braden and Port Richie. Our grandma doesn't have
that much money. We've got to consider what what the funds are available. And so you can limit the the policy to commercial development. So to take away any any property tax reform risk, um you basically state that
in there and then you're you're good. >> So condos are >> if it was if it's a if it was a condo, that's not commercial. >> If it Now, if they're rental condos, it is. But if it's if it's individual purchase condos like they have back in um San Pebble, I think those are individual owned and those are
homesteaded and all that. those those would would produce taxes based on property tax reform, but their rentals and the whole building was one entity and I give you example is a Villa Bay down there. Those are um all rental units and it's all one owner and that's
our largest it was I don't know if there's any more but it was our largest taxpayer in the city because it's it's it's a commercial property, >> right? >> So you limit the the the incentive of commercial so you don't have to worry about property tax reform. That's definitely key. Um, as far as us
comparison to Braden and all that, it's it's it's somewhat relative. Um, uh, you're gonna you're going to and it's also relative of what the what the what the lower tax rate is. I don't know what
Braden's is, but you need again think about it from the aspect of how much investment are is a city willing to do to to get that return back and growth and whatnot. And keep in mind
too that once something starts, other things will follow. And so you're going to continue to reap on that investment because you're starting to unbllight the area. That's you revitalize. Look at downtown Newport Richie, what they've done. It's booming. Um, you know, they make key investments
in certain properties to kickstart that and then then the whole area benefit benefited from it. It it's where it is today, right? And they're continue to invest in it like River. >> Can we can we get with Newport Richie and see exactly how they decided? >> Well, their their policy baked into this and
>> but can we get with them and and find out how they developed it and what what they looked at in order to determine their policy? >> Sure. They do tax increment projections as well. So they'll take each project. Currently villa del soul is the one they uh a new one they just did. So it
projects out tax increment. They take a small loss in the beginning the CRA does but they make quite a bit in the end. They also included the developer uh you know paying for some public infrastructure and then reimbursing the the developer for that. They added a few other things in there. They do uh more
they'll do construction uh some some upgrades to public the public realm in front of the development too. We didn't add that in there >> but they do a couple other different things as well. And they have the transfer development right which we don't have to >> and you also have to understand that
their incentive policy is extended out to 2047. So they have a lot more flexibility in using you know Pascal County funds based on what they invest into it. So they're in a completely different situation than we are right now, okay? Is we're sunsetting where
they get a full full window 15 year window to be able to support resource their incentive program as they move forward. That's one of the discussions I have. >> So you're saying that that that they're not a good comparison. >> They're not a good comparison because they have more available resources and they have a longer timeline in which to
execute it. So, it'd have to be something that we'd have to scope within our structure and with what our goals are, you know, not to exceed um sunset or if we do exceed sunset, you know, where where are we willing to where
should we reduce costs that will only be provided by the city so that we're not covering down for um county committed funds under CRA which no longer apply to us. and how do we support it from a city
perspective where we're not significantly causing risk to our budget, you know, in the out years that we're actually supporting this project till uh fruition where it closes out. See, know that sounds really good to me. That everything that you just said
sounds like what I need to hear that to know that we have the right person right here to go out and start making the connections with the city managers from other like the similarly situated cities as Port Richie and develop something
that would suit this city. Not Bradington, not Newport Richie, but Port Richie. And you just spoke it eloquently in a way that makes me trust that you're the man to do that for us. >> Well, I hope I am. >> Okay,
>> Chris. >> So, keep by obviously as as projects happen, >> um you know, the uh what's the saying? The uh rising tide lifts all boats, right? So you're going to as something redevelops your property values are going to increase all around
it even and that's what you see in Newport Richie now very desirable even here. Um and so that small investment that you're looking at whatever that is like I said what what makes sense um you're going to you're going to get back more than just that project. So, why
that project is is um um not paying their full share because they're getting some portion back in the taxes that they're they're increases providing. Um you're getting more in from other places because it's it's that the area is is uh
is rising in value as well. >> Oh, it's not at all that I don't want to incentivize. I just want to do it correctly. Yeah. in a way that doesn't injure the city long term long after we're gone and they're looking back going,
>> you know, um and I just don't feel like based on what I have in front of me here today that I'm even prepared to discuss it until Don goes and does what he needs to do to present us something that looks like it's viable for Port Richie. >> And really what we need to see, so I was
hoping to have some some real numbers to go off of is >> Yeah. >> What? So when we have a development of let's say X valuation say $150 million development you know in in our and we figure out our military 6.29 and we bring in X amount of dollars
for that right um how much of that do we actually need to service that property? Do we need all of it? Do we need if we need more than that then we actually need to look at raising tax rates right um can we get by on 75% of it so we don't necessarily need that 25%. I mean
obviously it's going to be accretive. So service definition, you're talking about police, fire, or you talking about utilities in general, right? >> What's the cost to the city to to uh service that devel? So again, if we if we find that um we only need half of it,
well then that's great. We can give half it away to service that we have it. And then once that's done, then you get the whole amount once it's it's the >> aren't used for police and fire, you know, uh you know, wages, right? And so the tip's going to keep those
because until such time it comes out of the CRA, right? And so that's when the city can use those funds and then service, you know, that that development for police, fire, and other personnel. >> I would so from a police, fire, public safety perspective, I would venture to say that we could handle a little more
growth and not have to grow police and fire. >> So, so that's that's where the benefit comes in. Um, I don't know. the you know we build this development and we I don't know what our numbers is residence per officer res you know however that works
out or whatever but you know if we can service it with what we already have or you know we don't have to maybe we add a a cop and a fire whatever it works out to I'm pretty sure at the end of day you're going to see that we're going to get more out of it than we're going to
outlay in services >> you're just saying we need to understand >> we need understand those numbers it's a math problem >> right >> everything boils down the correct >> said the same thing. We just have to understand that when we start making >> this is just you know we're just following percentage police officers get funded on the
general fund not the CRA right so then this discussion is once this development is done you know >> do you how long does it stay in the CRA of course there's only five years left right and so but that that police and fire personnel that you need to service this new project is going to have to get funded out of general fund not CRA right
if you literally had to hire an officer FTE to service that area it could be service it could be paid out of CRA because it's it's >> well well so no uh it the definition is uh written definition for the police for fire it's absolutely no absolutely not
police it's uh innovative community policing and therefore that that officer can only work in the CRA and it has to be for an innovative like um I don't know like the cops program or something like that it's very strict on personnel >> that's what I'm saying if we had to have a Again,
>> got an example. >> If you had an officer that had to stay at that development and work the desk or whatever, whatever, you know, to he could be funded out of that that that CRA because it's dedicated. >> Well, yeah, they just couldn't go and respond outside of >> That's correct. They're dedicated to that in terms of
>> Well, that that project development either they would hire their own security. >> Well, yeah, bad example, but I'm just saying. >> Well, it is a good example. I mean they could either have if we have to furnish it then then they don't get if they furnish their own security then they could get an incentive for doing that
because it wouldn't cost us anything. We could incentivize them to do that >> save us money and >> with the residents the the um uh the commercial and all that. Um I use Walmart as example. Most of our crime happens Walmart. We got officer all the time. Right. I'll come back to you in
just a second. So, you know, you we could probably post an officer at Walmart 24/7 and that they just stay there and handle all that. I mean, it just depends on >> what what they need. But >> if we're using Walmart specific example, Walmart's selling a little longer in the CRA, so it's free. You can do whatever
there in the context of CRA, but I'm saying there's there's places that you need that presence all the time. And so, u you know, we could probably sit on 19 running traffic all day long. That's just they're dedicated to traffic on there, right? So I think there's there's
ways that if we do need to bring on uh certain staff if they're dedicated to that because like I said it's going to it's it's a large development. So that you know it's not to say that you wouldn't need that dedication there. Lisa J >> are we I mean I understand we sunset in five years but are we under in any other
timing constraints for to put this together or either either legally or just what you are looking for? I I right now have everything budgeted out to 2031. So 2032, which is actually sunset date.
It's going to be a little interesting at that point. We need to have a sunset plan we'll have together, right? >> By when? >> Uh so 2032 is the last day, January. It was kind of a weird time of year to start year, but it's because it doesn't fall within a a fiscal year. But what
happens is we don't get our So the city pays us and the county pays us by January 1. Well, then a week later, we're done, right? And so we're going have to figure out that's going to be a situation where we have to reimburse. We'll get it and then we have to instantly reimburse it back to the taxi authorities or pay off a bond if we
happen to have a bond at that point. That's going to be a little bit of a weird year for >> coming up with the plan. Are we under any time constraints that or are you trying to get it done by a certain time? >> Well, so what what what's going to be the best because when you create a plan and the budget for it, right? For example, Newport Region's budget right
now, they have $1.9 million for incentives, another five for 245. So, they budget it. You're supposed to budget everything you do in CRA. If we do this, if we want to do this before the budgeting process, it's going to be complicated. If we can roll this into the regular budgeting process coming up
here really soon and then implement it on on October 1st, it's going to be much easier. We we'll have to do a bunch of other votes if you want to do it before then because you got to update your CIP because you got to take it from somewhere, right? Everything is assigned in your CIP. You're going to have to take it from somewhere. You got to readress your CIP. Readress your your
budget as well. >> So interest to do it during budget. >> That'd be the best. Yeah. >> So we're looking at coming up with a plan before then. >> Well, the the the whole behind the plan to pay for the plan and and and all that that needs to be done then. But the
actual policy that >> that's we don't want to wait till then because then once you finish all that you already through budget. So we need to figure out >> you know >> I didn't know if legally there was anything or if he just had >> we don't have to do this at all. There's no
>> right or he had a time frame or whatever >> if you get the policy together we'll have an idea of how how to budget. We'll have you all set that budget right you to set what budget you want based on what you're going to provide. and we'll have to do some estimation and then that will be part of the budget that's
presented to you. >> So, and the the I this is this is not something we have to do. Um >> I didn't know if we were going to do it if there was timing whether whether whether legally or on >> Yeah. Well, whatever we do has to be
incorporated into the budgeting process. >> So, basically before budget before budget it would have to be so that's a time. Yeah. >> That's what I'm looking for. And and the other the other important time is is that you obviously have a developer that is ready to put shovels in the ground mid mid year and so they are waiting on
uh the >> So another timing thing. So timing matters. >> It does. Absolutely. And it's >> that's what I'm asking. >> What's the timeline for the developers that they that they'd like to see us have a plan? >> I'll just sum time kills deals. >> Okay. So the longer the time you wait, the more risk that the project just
>> I'm just saying if there No, I'm just saying. I know. I know, but what what would they like to what date would they like to see this done by? I mean, so if we can set a goal, >> they would they would like to have this yesterday. >> Yeah. Well, >> so and again, they're they're they're
will the conversation we had the other day. Um obviously they took a a look at this. Uh they did have a a a great comment said that uh their candidate they they liked it. They um uh said it was very well done. that they don't normally get this level of input from
the city. I can't remember exact comment or whatever, but it was it was very promis good work behind this, right? Um and so, you know, the thought is is we need to kind of hone this in and and and tailor it. If we need, you know, if we need some explanations, that's what the workshop is for is, you know, what is
this? What's this mean? Um well, maybe we don't want to incentivize this. We want to incentivize, you know, we're water community. We want to incentivize uh providing uh drainage uh things. So maybe it's we we we put a percentage behind um storm water management or something there. So we can we can tailor
those things. Um but we've got to come up with with something um as long as we don't have anything that puts that project at risk because they're asking for something. Now they >> can I say this? >> Let's just use an example. >> Okay. You get arrested,
>> right? And they throw the book at you and you got 15 different charges there, right? You run out and you get an attorney. He says, "I've been through this a thousand times. Sit down there. Right there." Okay. We just got the ticket. There's the ticket right here. Okay. We're not sure what to do to make
sure we don't go to prison. So, what we want to do is get expert advice from somebody who does this for a living that can look over and say, "Hey guys, give me a few minutes. I've already reviewed all this. I've seen the people who are doing this. Here's what you should do as a small city your size." P like this. And then we're like, "You know what? I
feel good about that. Are you going to keep us out of jail?" Yep. And we're, you know, and then we can go. That's what we need right now. >> Yeah, I'd ask for I'd ask for a consultant engagement six months ago. >> We need that right now. >> What are you lawyering up there, Chris? >> No reason to want that. >> You're very, you're right. >> But that's I'm trying to give you that
scenario like this. I would be hiring a professional to look into this for me. >> This is too big for us not to hire, >> right? So, the next best thing that I can think of doing at this point is to allow Dawn to take a better look at it
and Don to hone it in a little bit for us and determine what professionals need to come talk to us or review it or whatever it takes to be able to get this to something that council make decisions on because today we're
just not there. We we don't have that you have a meeting at 6. We don't have time to even begin starting to break down what needs to be broken down here for us to come to some kind of understanding. So, I understand it's disappointing to to you and to the
developers and everybody, but I'm nowhere close. >> Well, no, it's it's not disappointing me. I mean, we we've got to put the work in for sure. And um keep in mind, too, I've been asking for a consultant to get on this, like I said, six plus months ago. >> Yeah. Well, we did it. Um we now have a new asking for >> Well, that was was when Andy was here.
So >> that consulting cost is about $60,000. The one we found. Yeah. >> No, it's that was GI. >> This could be millions of dollars of failures for 30 years if we >> for somebody to look at this. >> Yeah. >> To look at this our little city to look
at this document you just printed and to look at that down there. $60,000. I have a hard time. >> Or he could get tax incentives maybe from like Cedar Key or from other little towns on the water and some little towns that aren't on the water
>> and compile it. Maybe you could have written a >> written offer and then we could analyze all of them ourselves on our own time. >> If you got if if the council doesn't mind, I've already done a scale sitting
here talking to you guys. I've scaled it down significantly for what would best fit no for Port Richie. Um, if you will allow me to further develop this and then once I have a solid plan on the development of this going through all the key points that we just discussed,
you know, to talk about, you know, where we're at, where we're currently at, what we want our percentages to be, what best fit us is, you know, size and and structure of our our uh city, you know, kind of look at the post um sunset rates and adjustments and reduced risk.
There's a lot of things that I can develop now that when I take it to a professional that we can scope down a lot of his work and then get probably what we really need by doing a good portion of the leg work to have them
look at it, review it, and then what I'm what I'm assuming is we can get it for significantly reduced amount and then bring it back to council say, "Hey, this is what it would cost." And if you guys are willing to approve it, then what I'll do is I'll move forward. But right now, I have a good skeleton to present
to a a company to review where we as Fort Richie would sit with this policy. >> And because I know Christine doesn't I'm going to call you an expert in your field with AI. Okay? I'm just gonna say
that because she's brought some pretty impressive things forward. AI is only as good as the information you put in. Sure. instead of dropping 60 gez on why don't you drop this report all the parameters that have to do with where we are sun setting on the you know 2005 and AI is going to go out there and all
those people that are you know feeding information and grab that it's going to give us a much better road map I'm just thinking that okay >> I just did that while you're talking >> okay thanks >> trust me I'm 100 miles >> if you need grock I've got gro on my
Tesla truck we can get in there feed it some information >> and Keep in mind too guys that um uh as we were having those conversations about consulting all that Nancy so the Braden one the reason Bradington was brought in in the first place is that and I forget
there's their staff or something experts in this. So so what they put together is re is is has really been vetted and is really good and again it's it's it's a solid program. It's all right. It may be need to be scanned a little bit different but it's a pretty solid program. It's it's had very high level
uh engaged individuals on it and so that's why Nancy brought it back to kind of use as a as a template and that's why the staff went to kind of Newport Richie our next door neighbor and kind of merge it. So I think there's good stuff here >> and that coupled with what he's able to do as you know the conversations we've
had or whatever. Uh I think it's a great approach. >> I agree to our numbers. I don't doubt that it's good and I don't doubt that Don can really tweak it >> and get it to a scale where we can get it to a professional for a small dollar amount and get this handled if we need that. I really don't
>> because what I will tell you have to take those from just just just a global top looking down just how we'll we'll initially look at this based on our size and and our timelines that we have available to us is this is this going to be a three-phase product and what I'm
looking at is you figure during the phase up until sunset 10% cap is probably where we want to go and then I would say phase two as we get to the final 24 months preset adjusting the cap to 8% and then when we own it post sunset where the city redevelopment
program is now in our pocket. You know, we start looking at a 5% cap >> if at all. >> But that's that that'll come back to to you guys whether or not you want to carry it forward or you want to sunset it. >> Yeah. We had the optic renew at that point past that. >> I just have to think, okay, as you walk
through some of these inner city streets that are less than desirable, you know what I'm saying? They're they're obviously biting. you know, there's got to be more incentive for us to, hey, we we really want to incentivize them to go in there and like clean up that versus now we got our waterfront popping and things are going up all over the place
and that kind of stuff. I mean, it would definitely be a different incentive, wouldn't it? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, just the value you're going to create in the beginning um is going to help those projects. I mean, banks are going to be willing to invest. I can tell you right now, banks are a little skittish about Fort Richie. This is just honest truth
>> because 20% of our houses are not because all the the history and stuff behind it. It's just it's not uh it's not a development good environment. >> They must remember that mayor thing, do they? >> They remember everything. When you let a million dollars, you remember everything. >> Do you think that too is tiered
>> because they think is also Port Richie, >> county, city, whatever. or they think it's all port rich. >> Do you think that applies to bank banking? Banking could >> it could be. I mean, you know, I'm not I'm not in that field, so I don't really know. I just know that my conversations
um there's a stigma out there that um you know, >> you want to make sure you're going to get your money back if you loan it. So, >> it's getting better all the time, Eric. >> It is. It's getting better all the time. That's why that's why um you know you know the people think that there's
there's something going on funny business. is not right. Um the reason I'm so excited about this is this is transformational for the city and it can unlock the the value that we've had for many many years and if we if we falter this it's just going to be another uh
just another example. This is another example that uh you know they they can't get anything done. >> But I think what we did today is progress. I think with what Don is about to do I just asked Don if he could also bring us back some tiered options tiered development options. He said yes he can.
So I think once he goes and does everything that he's going to do, this meeting will have been very successful. >> Absolutely. Gives direction to >> We didn't have to nitpick through it, but we guided our city manager and we all hired. >> If we just all rubber stamped this and
said, "Yep, yep." I mean, we got to fire all of us then. You know, we're not doing our jobs. Yeah. But I think this was a great discussion to have based on a a a starting point >> from a successful current CRA policy that's out there. But the most importantly is us tailoring it to what
port Richie needs and what best supports, you know, our strategy moving forward. And I think I think you guys have made great comments, provided great great feedback. And what I will do is I will take that and hopefully in the next two or three days I'll push out some
some some flat information and if you guys give me feedback then what I'll do is I'll tighten up um what I need to do and then maybe the next meeting kind of give you the one over with Derek and say hey this is this is where we're at for
Port Richie and if you guys are comfortable I can go to somebody and say okay now that we're where we need to be develop our our C our CRA um incentive policy based on one either do do me two
do me one of that sunsets and then do me one that goes beyond sunset and then kind of I'll give them kind of parameters. Let's make it a 15-year window. Let's not put it in where it goes on forever. Let's let's kind of give it a timeline that we can work with because that timeline will
help us and it'll also help us with resource management and resource recovery >> and a legal review of absolutely of the two options. >> Yeah, absolutely. guide guidance which one would >> and I will provide I'll provide you the options for review and then what I will
do is I'll give you notes legal review notes on each one of the options and and where they how they impact what they may impact and then you know kind of what is the best option scenario out of the legal based on all the information based on you know the current state of Port
Richie and where we should be to include where we want to get where we want incentives for, you know, buildings and and people want, well, I want to say investors coming in and
being able to provide them the incentive to start laying the groundwork for for for projects that'll benefit no Port Richie and the waterfront district >> and we can make it as broad as, hey, this applies great to the waterfront, but it also will apply across all of
Port Richie, >> Gran Boulevard, all places >> to to help you know those projects that you know in in their development of the process. But I think what's going to be really important to this is sooner we get it done, the sooner we get on the table because it's going to come down to time. He who participates in this sooner
will benefit, you know, more from it. Whereas those that delay, it's going to be, you know, it's going to be delay process bit less benefit, less incentive from it. And hopefully this will spawn some creativity and some some energy with actual, you know, investors that
are out there that want to do it. Maybe this will be the push point to where, hey, if I get on this now, I'm actually going to get in incentivized for the projects that I'm going to do as opposed to waiting till later. Because if we wait till later, eventually there's not going to be an incentive for them to be able to um
to receive, you know, any incentive for the projects they're actually doing. So sooner than later like the question we've got you know what what what would be the incentive for me doing this what incentives are you offer I'm offering you the first chance to be the first person to get on board and take advantage of the full
time period >> you know whereas if you don't get on board now you get on board later six months a year later you're losing opportunity you're losing you know investment >> or incentive >> and just make sure when you bring back like I said bring some real numbers that
we can look at and visualize how that actually plays out in a in a in an investment. >> Okay. >> And uh obviously I'll close with this. You know, the I'm glad we're all together talking about this. Um you know, without us doing some kind of
incentivizing to to to make that vibrant waterfront happen, the vibrant waterfront is just not going to just be there one day. It it's a it's going to take the effort of the city uh working with investors uh to to to develop that area into something that uh the residents be proud of. And so, you know,
we uh we need to definitely look long and hard at this as we go forward to try to put something together that makes sense. Um is is fiscally responsible and uh creates the vision that uh the city's long had. So, >> anything else, comments? All right.
Motion to adjurnn. >> Uh yes. >> Yeah. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor sign by saying >> I uh