WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=e6vK0JEnm_U

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:15.280
one, we're not going to say we're going to give you, you know, $100,000 back when that may fluctuate in year two or three. So, we want to review the uh the value of that project each year through the annual resertification until the agreement is over. So, out of the gate,

2
00:00:15.280 --> 00:00:32.079
it's a base of 30 or is that something like a yearly like we would your your percentage is going to be 30, right? That's what you get. Your base is 30 throughout any years. Now, what that 30 equates to in dollars will adjust based on the condition. So the the military may adjust or whatever, but that's a

3
00:00:32.079 --> 00:00:49.200
question. So this this 30% that's set. It never changes. >> Well, unless you guys don't like this number and you can tell us >> that was my next question. So >> where did 30% come from? Why not 25 or this >> just a place just a conversation starter. It could be the number that you

4
00:00:49.200 --> 00:01:05.439
>> Yeah. Nothing set in stone kind of an example, right? And this is this probably came from was that Chris? This probably came from the Bradon or wherever. is is a combination of that and a couple other you know >> so yeah so the 30% number it certainly

5
00:01:05.439 --> 00:01:20.640
is not just a conversation chart is that something that they're doing in other places that you kind of mimicked is that correct or not >> it is yeah as a base and then you know on the same side you have permit fees one time uh impact fees one time uh 50%

6
00:01:20.640 --> 00:01:36.799
or or 20,000 max whatever is the lowest so you're also adding that in there too but that's only one time >> so they can get up to on impact fees or permit fees in addition to the 30% tax reduction on their current time. Correct. >> Right. So in in the uh exercise later,

7
00:01:36.799 --> 00:01:53.040
this will all be fleshed out for it. I'll wait for this review. We're going to dive in between the lines. Right. Deep dive. >> We'll hold your hand there. >> All right. Yeah. So we got the base uh for the incentive on the increment. Right on the increment. So that's the

8
00:01:53.040 --> 00:02:08.560
value that they're providing to uh a project provides added value, right? So we're just looking at that value there. And then like I said, the permit fees, impact fees, you'll see in our example where those fit in. So those are your administrative incentives. They're kind of grouped in a

9
00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:26.560
few different, you know, buckets here. Next, please. >> Sorry, I still needed my mouse. Okay. So now you have kind of these incentives that tie directly to portions

10
00:02:26.560 --> 00:02:44.160
of the CRA plan, right? And there's a maximum on on these percentages that you can get in each category. So you have an economic development incentive package, environmental incentives, social and community incentives, and with these you can max out at 20%

11
00:02:44.160 --> 00:03:02.480
added to that 30. These are going above and beyond that 30 looking at the CRA plan saying you know the CRA wants uh tree can be and there's a percentage and you'll see it as we go through you can get if you go above and beyond you can get a couple percentage points extra to

12
00:03:02.480 --> 00:03:18.640
make sure we're incentivizing not only just the recruitment but also our plan. So that max of 20 um you also have the category maxes too. So once you get to, for example, in economic development incentives, let's say that they they

13
00:03:18.640 --> 00:03:34.080
checked on there, they qualified for 7%. Um they couldn't get they only take six. They'd have to get the other 20. They have to get the other basically six and eight. So basically they they pretty much got to have that spread to get 20. >> Correct. And you'll see as we go on the the percentage is higher than six, six,

14
00:03:34.080 --> 00:03:49.040
and eight in each of those categories. That's the max. Yeah, that's the maximum. >> But in order in order to max out, you got to you have to max each one of these categories just like this. This is this is how you get to the max 668. >> Correct. Y >> there's no other >> Yeah. And there's a there's a menu in each of those sections a menu of

15
00:03:49.040 --> 00:04:03.920
different types of things you could do >> which and that's designed that way to balance the uh benefits across those c you want benefits in every category. >> Yeah. Yeah. Y and so here they are. So the economic development pool uh these

16
00:04:03.920 --> 00:04:20.799
are all the there's six there with the associated percentages. And if a developer does one or two of these, right, or they max out, maybe they do four, uh they're still maxed at that 6%, but these are the items that they can pick based on our our plan. So, I mean,

17
00:04:20.799 --> 00:04:37.600
share reduced parking, unconformity, uh there things that will be vetted by that particular department. So, if it has to do with a building issue, they'll take a look at their project and make sure that it fits within uh these incentives and be confirmed by the

18
00:04:37.600 --> 00:04:53.280
building official department to make sure they can get the percentage. They're just not checking the box. We're making sure that they actually are doing it. >> Here's the environmental package. So, like I said, urban canopies on there flood plus. So, right now we're at BF plus one. If they go plus three, they'll

19
00:04:53.280 --> 00:05:10.320
get uh maybe 3%. Uh the infrastructure extension if they extend arc infrastructure into the project, you know, 5%. That fortified is uh building code going beyond the standard building code. And brownfield some of the items

20
00:05:10.320 --> 00:05:28.160
for that one. Now these these categories are set, but the percentages don't necessarily have to be set if you want something different. and then social community historical preservation um water and improvements workforce housing and so that it's afforded

21
00:05:28.160 --> 00:05:43.680
housing that because the AMI is different on those two things >> but those percentages are are too based on what other cities are doing that that those are approximate amounts for a treat that's approximately what other cities

22
00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:59.759
>> Yeah you balance that out too that mean basically the percentages weigh where your priorities Right. If you want to, you know, give more weight to something else because you really want it more more trees, you know, >> make that a better percentage. Try to attract that developer to do >> more trees, right? >> Yeah. Because you can change, you can

23
00:05:59.759 --> 00:06:15.440
change depending on what our city want. >> Yeah. And actually, that was one of the call outs I had was that on the waterfront piece. It was 3%. I think we probably staged that higher because in that waterfront incentive that talks about getting public spaces, boardwalks, and all these different things. So if if

24
00:06:15.440 --> 00:06:30.560
we're getting those kind of things out of the project, we want to incentivize that more >> that get bumped up. I mean, um you know, let's say we bump it to six, you know, they'll pick that one and that's the only one they can pick really. They won't get an incentive past that because

25
00:06:30.560 --> 00:06:46.240
uh you know, your maximum actually I think this one's 8%. So let's say, you know, you did that uh let's and crime prevention. So you did those two categories, you maxed out. Let's say if you do bump that up to six, >> there's no incentive, you know, really to do anything else if they max out already.

26
00:06:46.240 --> 00:07:01.599
>> Yeah. >> So, uh that's what we're trying to do too is uh try to open it up to where the incentive is for more than just one or two. I mean, I think we could probably look at that adjusted some of those where work workforce housing down. Maybe bump waterfront for improvement up.

27
00:07:01.599 --> 00:07:18.319
Maybe not, you know, because if you get five, like you said, you only get one more percent, right? So >> yeah, you probably you probably want and affordable housing is a six already, right? >> Uh yeah, depends on uh yeah, it depends on the level. I mean those Yeah, those can come down. You you can knock those

28
00:07:18.319 --> 00:07:35.199
down percentages and then by that percentage raise something up, you know, even bounce it out. >> But Derek, we're not tied to those percentages that you have there. We can fluctuate those however we want because one of the things I would consider is waterfront improvements would be a big goal and objective for the city. So as as a developer comes in and they do have

29
00:07:35.199 --> 00:07:49.680
reinvestment back into the waterfront development that would be maybe you want to score that higher than something else here that is marked higher. >> I would you probably want to solidify these percentages just so that we're applying them equally.

30
00:07:49.680 --> 00:08:07.360
>> Well I mean if you want to adjust them and then set the program and spell once we adjust it that's fine. I I think it' be hard to then, you know, every time we have to go to a developer and tweak these, I think we set this what you want, >> right? >> And then that way the developer doesn't

31
00:08:07.360 --> 00:08:22.479
have to guess. >> The reason I bring this up is is I I I want council to think about your strategic plan moving forward and what that investment is for your 5, 10, 25 year out as we get as we get investors in that can help us achieve our our larger objectives.

32
00:08:22.479 --> 00:08:38.159
>> There's also, you know, we could too, right? uh reduce the base and increase the extras, right? And so you're still under the or under the 50%, but if you if you want to reduce the base because you want to work more on your goals, do that, too. >> Yeah, that's I like that.

33
00:08:38.159 --> 00:08:55.279
>> So when you're saying it's set, it's set. It doesn't change >> the the different project, right? It's always the same whether it's your project or his project or her project. It it doesn't change per project. >> And and you can provide developer a menu, right? every time say hey this is

34
00:08:55.279 --> 00:09:10.560
what we can offer this is what we have and it's you know consistent >> and what makes the difference is the developer selections that gives them the ideas that they want to get up to 50 then they can provide those things if they don't they they don't they don't have a choice but it's same the same for everybody >> right yeah

35
00:09:10.560 --> 00:09:26.000
>> yeah about this thinking about trying going through this process and make sure that we're consistent with our program >> could we offer an option of tiered incentives in other words you could start out a first year as an example 50% and at the end of five years or 10 years

36
00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:42.080
it could be at 8 n 10% or 12% depending on what they're they're doing. >> I I think I mean at what which how would you reduce that I guess what c because your because your percentage is based on the categories that the developer is

37
00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:58.880
applying to based on the project. So then where you know where are we trimming that at? >> Well that's I say certain projects we could possibly if it's a large project possibly or even small we could like I know when we and Chris knows this you go

38
00:09:58.880 --> 00:10:15.279
to get into a retail space they give you six months free rent. Sometimes they give you buildup money. So we could do a similar thing in incentives give them a bigger incentive the first year and then as they go on for five years then we get up to just like maybe 10%.

39
00:10:15.279 --> 00:10:31.920
>> That's something actually it will come up because that is a question that we need to address too. >> So this is I created an an actual application. So uh this guy I think his name is John right? Yeah. Here's our exercise. So John from this camp company came in gave

40
00:10:31.920 --> 00:10:48.880
me a g application. Hey, I want to come to the city and I own this crappy shirt mall and I want to redevelop it and what can you do for me? So, he filled out this application. I think it's only four pager. Uh, so basic information, his information, property information,

41
00:10:48.880 --> 00:11:05.040
so project, you know, new construction, estimated investment 100 million, uh, project completion date 2028. you figured couple years, right, to get that uh built out. Brief description. So, we're demolishing

42
00:11:05.040 --> 00:11:21.040
a direct commercial strip mall, construction of a new multi-story mixeduse retail residential development. Right. So, as we go through, well, John here, he wants, you know, assistance with permit fees and pet fees, and he selected his menu here. So, demolition,

43
00:11:21.040 --> 00:11:35.440
obviously, it's an old strip mall. He wants some points for that. He wants to do some shared uh parking. going to plant some trees. So, beyond what's required, so urban canopy. Uh he's he's going to extend our

44
00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:50.560
infrastructure on his time uh to service the development. So, he decided he wanted to get that incentive. There's we like workforce housing and uh he's going to improve access to waterfront. Just an example I pulled out of my head. This

45
00:11:50.560 --> 00:12:06.480
here maxes him out the 30 the permit fees and the extra 20%. So this is a maximum reimbursement scenario. Our last page kind of internal, right? We're going to check make sure he's got all his documentation and then we're going to go through the

46
00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:22.959
process. He's going to sign uh CRS and make sure he's got all of his ducks that are row there when it comes to paperwork, add comments, sign, and then come to the board with the final approval uh of this uh application is going to come into play and then an agreement will be

47
00:12:22.959 --> 00:12:40.800
worked out. So, here is the fun part. How do we pay this incentive? And so, here's my scenario, right? So, we have an approved application October 1st, 2026, right? We know that it's going to take him two

48
00:12:40.800 --> 00:12:58.880
years to get going on this. Now the taxes that he pays on his increment, so the value added to his project, the annual tax paid is just over a million dollars. This scenario, this is scenario one where the incentive

49
00:12:58.880 --> 00:13:14.320
is only paid while the CRA is still alive. Right? So as we go through the incentive starts fiscal year 28 because again it took him two years to get his uh you know building up and he's starting to pay the taxes. You'll notice that

50
00:13:14.320 --> 00:13:29.760
so half 50% that they maxed out at but you notice it's 580. It's 580 because those impact and those permit fees are are reimbured up front. So that's why it's a $40,000 difference. Right there is you skipped ahead to the payout. Can

51
00:13:29.760 --> 00:13:46.000
you can you show us the the math that went behind the X because it was a $100 million project, right? >> Right. >> Uh what was the what was what was the pre-construction cost? post construction is 100 million and and show us before you get to the actual payoff because I think that's important. I have my uh

52
00:13:46.000 --> 00:14:01.760
calculator right here. Hold on a second. >> Okay. So prevalue was 1.5 million. Post value 85 million. So your tax increment value is 83,500, right? So the taxable that the the tax that you pay on the increment on the

53
00:14:01.760 --> 00:14:18.399
83,500 is the 1 million 081 93. So that is the taxes the extra taxes you're paying because now you have redeveloped improved and improved the value of it. So that's your extra tax bill, right? Because you improved it.

54
00:14:18.399 --> 00:14:34.000
That's what we're incentivizing. Okay? >> Not not not the condition before because that's not the point. We want you to improve it. So we're going to t we're going to give you that incentive on the the value that you added at the combi. So this is that combined millage rate. So taxes combined millage rate is county

55
00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:51.040
and the city, right? And so based on this application, he was approved for 50% of that reimbursement. So 50% of this that's over 1 million is the is is 540. Now the first one says 580 because we're giving back we're reimbursing the

56
00:14:51.040 --> 00:15:06.240
permits and the impact fees the first year. Right after that, so those that's good that's a good point. So the um it's not a waiver of permit fees, it's the reimbursement of them. So they pay them up front and then they get them back >> because you get into issues with now you're taking from building department

57
00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:22.320
or you can't waiver on you can't wave some state fees, right? So to get around all that complicated mess, we're just going to reimburse them for it >> from the from the tax revenue. >> Yeah. Yeah. From and this is their tax bill, right? >> Nothing is coming out of like a CRA

58
00:15:22.320 --> 00:15:39.920
line, right? It it'll show as like a reduction in revenue because you're you're taken in and you're giving back, right? on the on the revenue side. And so then again, we're at we're at 540, you know, over 540 per fiscal year for the remainder of the CRA. CRA sunsets.

59
00:15:39.920 --> 00:15:56.399
So it's the last fiscal year fiscal year 31 even though the CRA sunsets fiscal year 32 because when they set up the CRA, they did it confusingly and they did it calendar year, which makes it it's kind of a pain. And so at fiscal year 31,

60
00:15:56.399 --> 00:16:13.120
uh that's going to be, you know, the the the last time that you actually you can't even do a reimbursement because you don't get your money till fiscal uh the end of the um calendar year and then the CRA is gone 8 days later. So that's why we're having these three fiscal years here. Total incentive for this

61
00:16:13.120 --> 00:16:30.720
project for from the CRA is this number here, the 1.662. That's just for those few years >> and that's combined county and >> that's the county and and the city dollars. Here's where it gets fun. So now we're looking past the CRA with a

62
00:16:30.720 --> 00:16:45.600
cap on time. Same tax amount, but now we have the option either 10 years or 15ear agreement. Same thing as before. We show what the CRA puts in that 1.662

63
00:16:45.600 --> 00:17:02.240
and then the CRA is gone. What happens after? Well, the city picks up. We notice there's a reduction in it because the city is only going to re reimburse the city portion, not the county anymore. Oh, sorry, the CRA, right? Right. Had originally reimbured the county portion as well. That's not going

64
00:17:02.240 --> 00:17:17.919
to happen anymore because, you know, CRA is gone. So now this is half of the city portion of the taxes, right? So you're at 246 fiscal year. So on the left, you know, fiscal year 37, 10 years, the last year for this uh cycle. On the right is

65
00:17:17.919 --> 00:17:32.640
biscally your 42, but that's your total city. So on your left, total city contribution 4.7, on the right 2.9. When you combine that with the CRA, you have 3.3 for a 10-year agreement and

66
00:17:32.640 --> 00:17:49.520
4.6 on a 15-year agreement. Now, this last one is how the program was originally written, and we don't prefer, not probably see why here. It is a it's a cap on the value that they're providing. Right? So it's this is past

67
00:17:49.520 --> 00:18:04.960
sunset. This is an approach that you take. Now this is common. The 12% is common. I think we saw before where you you cap the value of the project and that's the capping incentive, right? So 12% of 8.3 million is that 10 million.

68
00:18:04.960 --> 00:18:21.760
So that's your cap. Again, how do you reimburse that? You have your annual tax, your incentive of star is very, you know, we're repeating this, the CRA is going to, you know, provide that 1.6. Then what's left? Well, the city's going to do it 246, but

69
00:18:21.760 --> 00:18:37.039
we still have to get to that 10 million cap. So what you do is basically you start with your 10 million cap, you subtract what the CRA paid into it, whatever's left, you take that number and divide it by what you're going to estimate that fiscal or fiscal year

70
00:18:37.039 --> 00:18:54.160
amount is. So, you're pushing out to fiscal year 64 on this agreement and then you're at your cap 10.2. We don't staff doesn't like the timeline on this. It was I put it on here because that's how some programs do it. A lot of them do it this way and also that's how it was originally presented, but we don't

71
00:18:54.160 --> 00:19:09.919
really prefer this one just because they didn't think of time and amount of money and that. >> Well, Derek, what happens if the property changes hands after a certain period of time with this incentive plan? Let's say we're 5 years into it and now somebody sells the property. Does that

72
00:19:09.919 --> 00:19:25.840
investment go with them or does that investment die on the spot? >> So much like the residential and commercial, the improvements have to stay. officially if someone buys that house, they the CRA

73
00:19:25.840 --> 00:19:42.400
needs to ensure that that new homeowner knows that that improvement on their property has some stipulations with it and that they'll have to agree with that uh on transfer. I've never seen it have to happen like that. >> You know, when you get a new you get a

74
00:19:42.400 --> 00:19:58.480
new front door on your house and we pay for that, generally the front door stays, right? If you get a uh if you're building, you know, a mixeduse project here, generally you're not going to pack that up and take it with you. We're looking at we're looking at bid the improvement stay and it did. So, we're

75
00:19:58.480 --> 00:20:15.280
still getting our money's worth. We might have to put something in the legal language about, you know, making sure whoever, you know, purchases that if it goes beyond the agreement period would assume that responsibility. I was going to add that when um when you do all

76
00:20:15.280 --> 00:20:31.280
this, do the application, you get through all this stuff, and you actually have a project you're working on, you're going to have a very, very large written agreement with this developer, and those kinds of things will be addressed that if it changes hands and it stays as it's anticipated, the money will keep going

77
00:20:31.280 --> 00:20:47.280
the way it's projected to be going. If it changes hands and you change it, you do something contrary to what the the project was supposed to be, that money will stop. like that will be within the agreement you will ultimately sign >> so they can't just flip it >> and say hey you get all these incentives

78
00:20:47.280 --> 00:21:03.280
and then somebody new comes in and says I don't like the way the whole thing I start rewriting the project because that doesn't work that way okay got it that was the question >> so let's say somebody goes through this they have the incentives and and you know if this take timelines out of it um

79
00:21:03.280 --> 00:21:18.799
you're you're carrying a more or less a a liability on your balance sheet right because We owe them, let's say, a million dollar in incentives and it's over year for doing $100,000 a year or whatever. Well, after year two, they paid they've got their $200,000 incentive back. We we owe them $800,000

80
00:21:18.799 --> 00:21:36.080
incentives. They flip the property. Um, do we have the ability to on a sale terminate that so that that liability gets wiped? >> Yes, that's what I'm saying. Your agreement will address that. So what you what you usually will see is if you obviously you know you're not saying you can't sell the property but if you

81
00:21:36.080 --> 00:21:54.240
choose to it needs to continue in the way that the agreement anticipates for those incentives to continue and and if if if the person who's purchasing doesn't care about that money they stop they can we're going to knock it down and start over. Okay. Well now your incentive is

82
00:21:54.240 --> 00:22:08.960
>> Nancy can we write it in there? >> Yeah wait. Can we write in there that if they flip >> sorry >> that if they flip the property that it does not transfer. We can just write that in there or no we can't. >> Um probably not that black and white. It would probably be more like if you flip

83
00:22:08.960 --> 00:22:25.679
it and don't and that the new purchaser doesn't live up to the the intent of this agreement. Probably just the fact that someone may want want to sell it probably be a little bit restrictive of property rights. >> Isn't even the word intent a problem? >> No. because the agreement is going to be very detailed and you're going to have

84
00:22:25.679 --> 00:22:41.919
what they're expected to do. >> That's the same way we treat the residential, right? You know, uh you know, if they take that door with them, right? Then they technically clear and go after them for that money that we provided them because they took that door. I that's the way it's written. Has that ever happened that way? No. Um I

85
00:22:41.919 --> 00:22:57.360
think that's kind of how the the the rules written down, but obviously if they if they take their door with them and this we obviously we're not going to give them, you know, incentive for a door that's no longer there. And I would imagine the kind of development you're you're going to seed with this. It's large scale. It's not someone that's

86
00:22:57.360 --> 00:23:12.400
gonna just sell. I mean, they're going to sell it. A lot of people do develop to sell, but they sell their their plan to sell is what they built. They're not trying to sell it just like a house and they don't care what happens to it next. It's, you know, it's a it's a bigger project. So you don't usually see that

87
00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:27.520
kind of I'm going to sell it and this next guy is going to completely change what >> got to sign on to if they want the taxes to what the original agreement was and if they don't we take it away. >> Yeah. There' be language in there that the the the entity that the CRA's

88
00:23:27.520 --> 00:23:42.320
contracting with there'd be language if you were if they were to sell it that new a person is going to have to also deal with CRA and understand the >> in this scenario too. So we're talking you know incentive start time of 2028. Now, let's say

89
00:23:42.320 --> 00:23:58.400
you pick that this uh program is going going for years and years, right? Well, you might have, you know, where someone may apply after this area is gone. So, they're going to apply straight to the city, right? And so, you're not going to see these big numbers necessarily. The numbers going to be different. The

90
00:23:58.400 --> 00:24:12.880
percentages still be the same. Your numbers will be different because there won't be a money, >> not as count, >> correct? >> Yeah. Right now, right now, it's both, right? Uh but but uh you know we we wouldn't have the ability to have any power over that Pascal portion.

91
00:24:12.880 --> 00:24:29.600
>> So Bob that answers your question if if people jump in now they get the full benefit. Right. Correct. If they wait they don't. >> Well that helps in the >> exact project too >> with the tier. It's kind of like a tier right kind of in that way because it's

92
00:24:29.600 --> 00:24:45.440
going to be reducing just because >> just like to have a lot of tools in the tool box depending on the project. So, so I think our big ask is, you know, those those percentages are a small ask. They're easy, but the big ask

93
00:24:45.440 --> 00:25:01.440
is what approach. What of these four directions would the board be comfortable with? Or maybe something different. >> If if I could, I'm going to share what I have so we can we can plug and play numbers, switch them out, kind of see the impact. I think that that'd be

94
00:25:01.440 --> 00:25:18.240
helpful to to explain. And um uh before I do that though, going back to my original question because I don't I thought I had an answer but it looked like it changed. So the question again is because the purpose of incentive is to get the project off the ground. All

95
00:25:18.240 --> 00:25:35.120
right. Um the developer gets that incentive. It's it's financed in everything like that. um as they're partway into that, if they do sell that, there's probably going to be a a large gain on it, right? So, they may not be

96
00:25:35.120 --> 00:25:51.360
interested in whatever the incentives are. Do we have to give them the option to carry them forward? Is it like is that like a an asset attached to that property, those incentives, or can we say if it changes hands, they're gone? Because again, we're not worried about what happens to it after that. the

97
00:25:51.360 --> 00:26:06.000
purpose behind the incentive in the first place was to get it off the ground. It's already done. So, it's not like you're going to come in and they're going to if they want to change the door or whatever. That's not really helping my >> If I'm understanding your question, I don't think you can just blanket say you

98
00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:22.799
can't sell. I don't if you if you sell, you lose everything. I think there needs to be some conditions on it because I think that would be a property rights issue. We can look I mean we can look to make be sure, but my initial instinct is you're >> kind of invading some property right issues. So basically once we put those in place we owe that to that property no

99
00:26:22.799 --> 00:26:38.720
matter who if they're if the >> they still have to do what they have to do to to continue that but we can't just back out of it because of the sale. >> I I think the answer is probably no but we can I can make sure. >> But Nancy is that a special deed >> that's special deed is different.

100
00:26:38.720 --> 00:26:54.240
>> No this is just a separate agreement. It wouldn't I mean you you would file something in the public record so anyone that's looking to purchase a property would know this agreement is out there. Um, but it wouldn't be it wouldn't be the documentation they use for selling and purchasing. >> This city has never given incentives before.

101
00:26:54.240 --> 00:27:12.520
>> This is brand brand new and must be sorted out. >> Later so we can get this. >> Yeah. On that question, I don't know if that's a if that's a real estate question. We do have Ron here as a broker. Do you know the answer to that, Ron? About >> what's got

102
00:27:16.320 --> 00:27:32.240
your name address for the record? >> Hey, Ronald McDonald 7610 Dedra Circle. Um, I'm a broker with Coast to Coast Real Estate and I'm also president of the Nature Coast Chamber of Commerce. So,

103
00:27:32.240 --> 00:27:48.880
we're excited about trying to bring any projects in here. And when you look at what developers are, and I've been a developer, the amount of capital outlay that we have to put forth in the beginning on a lot of soft costs that include

104
00:27:48.880 --> 00:28:04.080
everything from engineering and you name it, we just end up with this huge list of bills before we can even get to the point where a project is paying us back in any kind of recovery.

105
00:28:04.080 --> 00:28:20.320
You have two recoveries. return on investment and return of investment and what we're looking at here is helping with the return of investment. >> Yeah, I let me cut you off. So I wanted there's there'd be times to for more dialogue but I wanted to get possible

106
00:28:20.320 --> 00:28:37.200
answer to this question and the question is is that when the city if you know I don't know if you if this in your wheelhouse or not but when the city puts together a incentive package with a property that property gets built it's going and that property owner flips it from the real estate side how does that

107
00:28:37.200 --> 00:28:53.919
how does that remain durable for a future owner that incentive >> well the future owner we're talking about whatever happened that money is here to help uh supplement what the developer put in initially. And for you to cancel it, you've taken away the

108
00:28:53.919 --> 00:29:11.039
motivation for a new buyer to come in that may have to improve that property cuz we improve properties every 3 to 5 years. I think that incentive should stay in place and transfer over to the new buyer. >> Yeah. I guess the question is does it have to? I mean that makes sense and

109
00:29:11.039 --> 00:29:25.840
that would be obviously I was looking at property and I knew they had incentives that would be incentive to buy it right but again sometimes it's you know some people just buy a place and just tear it to the ground they don't care what the value of it is they just build whatever they want you know it just depends true >> what they're doing so I didn't know if it if it's something that had to be in

110
00:29:25.840 --> 00:29:43.600
place or if it if it um if it could actually be removed >> if you look at what happens with community development districts CDC's when they get in and that's what LAR uses and everyone else to help pay for the roads the utilities, the infrastructure that goes in. Those CDC's

111
00:29:43.600 --> 00:30:01.039
transfer completely to the new owners on every one of those projects. They don't stop because you sold the house and you made a profit. They still stay until that entire amount has been covered regardless of what it is. And this is no different than the CDC's that we see

112
00:30:01.039 --> 00:30:18.480
with all the residential developments. So yes, >> thanks. Appreciate that, >> Eric. I think to understand that what Nancy said, as long as >> Well, she gonna knock you out. >> She's going to knock you out. >> Yeah, she she usually does. Um,

113
00:30:18.480 --> 00:30:33.840
as long as they follow the game plan that was initially set out, they should get those rights. If they come in and say, "Hey, we're going to level the whole thing and start again from scratch," we're not going to give them any more incentives because we're under a whole new program, right? Then they're under the new restrict or the requirements we have for an incentive

114
00:30:33.840 --> 00:31:11.039
program. Y let me let me share. Okay. So what what I've got here is I've I've kind of pulled out the attributes the cap of 12% our city millage of 629 the

115
00:31:11.039 --> 00:31:28.880
county millage of of 74042 the combined millage is those added together uh the CRA percentage is 95% which we didn't talk about I won't get to that um the base of 30 the additional 20 and then the years to the CRA completion so this you mentioned I I'm

116
00:31:28.880 --> 00:31:46.240
using I'm subtracting from 2032 so do actually have five years or six years left. >> So really you've got you it >> it depends on when the project starts I guess if you're talking about right now. So you got >> it ends on January 1st of 2032. Right. >> Right. But your fiscal year it's weird

117
00:31:46.240 --> 00:32:01.039
because your fiscal year starts you know October of of 2030. Right. Or sorry 30 >> 31 right. We don't get our money until uh the January, I think January of 2032.

118
00:32:01.039 --> 00:32:17.120
Essentially, we have eight days to either pay our debt or give back to the city and the county, >> right? So, it's it's kind of weird how CR was was put together on a calendar year instead of a fiscal year. It does

119
00:32:17.120 --> 00:32:32.399
throw things off a little So if we were if we incentivizing a project that finished today, how many more years would we have in the hopper? Six or five, I guess, is my question. Let's see here. So we've got fiscal year 26, 27,

120
00:32:32.399 --> 00:32:50.960
28, 29, and fiscal year 30. Okay, that was my question. Let me change this so I get it right. Okay. So, the numbers I have in here are not correct because I I'm balancing them

121
00:32:50.960 --> 00:33:08.240
back to the the packet information. So, that that packet information showed a uh a $1.5 million difference in your packet. So, I just wanted to show you that the math. You see that tax was $20,000 a year from your packet. So, I just want you to see that the numbers jive. They're a little off because

122
00:33:08.240 --> 00:33:25.600
you've rounded down on your combined millage. This is the actual full millage. Okay. So now what I'm going to do um and one more question because you see there's two lines here. You've got appraised value and purchase price. Um when you're doing the post construction value um take it back. When you when you

123
00:33:25.600 --> 00:33:43.120
take the pre-construction value, you're using I assume the appraised value on the tax collector site for those properties, right? I'm so I'm going to look at the tax bill from the year prior, what they actually paid actual in taxes, and I'm going to look at the improved tax year and the

124
00:33:43.120 --> 00:33:59.600
difference between those in actual taxes, not the value, the actual taxes. What I'm looking at >> because in this there's there's probably some lag. That's that was another question I had. So, obviously, you can see that the appraised value on the eight or so acres that Gild Dogs was was if if these are four parcels added

125
00:33:59.600 --> 00:34:15.280
together, $1.1 million. But if you look at the purchase price they paid, it's seven almost $8 million. So at some point that's going to that 1 million is going to adjust. >> That's why I wanted the actual numbers. I want to see what they were actually paying in taxes, which is public record. It's easy to get around, right? >> It changes, right? Because there's a

126
00:34:15.280 --> 00:34:30.960
lag. And so I guess >> conceptually you could have somebody purchase something, right? Then come to the city and start developing. This has been in in hop for a while. So, I would assume at some point and probably next year um we would see this closer to this $8 million valuation and that would be

127
00:34:30.960 --> 00:34:46.639
our >> right. Is that fair to say? >> Well, yeah. Your base value. So, >> whatever it is when when we go through the packet. >> Yeah. The base value would be prior to the year just prior to improvement, right? Because then you know that improvement is what we're incentivizing,

128
00:34:46.639 --> 00:35:02.160
right? So, the I'll look at the base year before improvement and then after and find that difference. So what we'll do for for easy figuring we'll just we'll we'll assume that that tax valuation is going to adjust by the time they would come forward. So I want to I want to try to use real numbers for this project because obviously they're the

129
00:35:02.160 --> 00:35:18.599
ones be going to come in force uh to use this first. Um so what I'm going to do here is I'm going to change these back to the um let's see post construction value and I'm going to put 150 million

130
00:35:26.079 --> 00:35:41.359
Okay. So, based on the the the current structure of the the plan he's put before us, we've got a 12 12% cap. And so if you take a pre-construction value of 785

131
00:35:41.359 --> 00:35:58.000
uh and you do their post construction value of 150 million which is a number that they've kind of tossed around between it that both both phases phase one and phase two that difference is 142 million 150,000 um so that would put their max incentive at $17 million and so this this problem I have with with

132
00:35:58.000 --> 00:36:14.240
that structure because that puts potential incentive out there for $17 million take a long time >> and that was option four that the staff said we So, so we'll just we'll just leave that there for now. Obviously, we can adjust that 12% cap. All right. But

133
00:36:14.240 --> 00:36:32.640
at that 12% cap, um that uh our city tax is 894,000. The county tax is, you know, that million 52. Um I want to talk a little bit about how CRAAS are. So, we don't we don't pay into the CRA the full 100% of

134
00:36:32.640 --> 00:36:47.599
that tax increment and neither does the county. It's 95% of it. So 95% of both those millages. Um that leaves so actually we have left over $44,000 in tax money that stays in our general fund. The the difference is so what you

135
00:36:47.599 --> 00:37:04.320
see going in our CRA the county portion our port portion is 1.8 million. Okay with these numbers. Does everybody follow me so far? Okay. Um then if you go down to the next thing, we talk about a combined millage tax. That's showing the the full tax um

136
00:37:04.320 --> 00:37:22.160
of both city and county based on the the the numbers we have. The annual payment for that purchase price 973,315. Okay. The remainder of the CRA for that year would be $875,983.

137
00:37:22.160 --> 00:37:36.960
So that first annual payment we would rebate $973,000. We would we would be getting $875,000. Um that's what we have left after the rebate. That make sense? >> Yes.

138
00:37:36.960 --> 00:37:54.800
>> Okay. Okay. Then if you if you take that out to 20 32 or 31, however you look at it, it's taking that five basically, we'd have paid out $4,866,000 in itself. we'd still be on the hook for $12

139
00:37:54.800 --> 00:38:10.880
million after the CRA sunset. Okay. And so with the way the program's written, the incentive would stop with the CRA sunsets. So that $12 billion would then go away. Correct. So

140
00:38:10.880 --> 00:38:25.520
>> no, that's not true because we we would still >> this is different. So the the program the program stops when the CRA stops is way and that's something different than so you basically you can't you can't go past the time unless you write that in

141
00:38:25.520 --> 00:38:42.160
the programs. So really this is it's it's phantom numbers because you're never going to get there because it's not going to live past CRA. But didn't Derek just talk about the fact that we're on we're on the hook for half of our tax money after that date >> only if we if we go past the CRA

142
00:38:42.160 --> 00:38:57.200
>> only if we continue the program >> right I mean so >> which you can do that but you don't have to do that is that that's correct right Derek >> you gave us like four options >> right that was uh so so this is option of those four options this would be a combination of option one and four

143
00:38:57.200 --> 00:39:13.760
because the the 12% cap doesn't count in option one uh the 12% cap I've only counted for option four and that's why it's so big. But now option one that I showed was just the lifeline of the the CRA. >> Yeah. So if I'm going to make a couple more adjustments. So if you look at

144
00:39:13.760 --> 00:39:29.359
these numbers, you see that remainder. If we just take this down to 0.05, then at the end of CRA, you only have $2 million left. Um, which would go away. The problem with the cap is you know >> the problem with the cap is the cap is

145
00:39:29.359 --> 00:39:46.800
based on valuation >> and we're paying taxes which >> extended timeline too right because such a large cap we won't really wouldn't be able to pay that out in the five years really and that's why that timeline was to fiscal year 64 because that was more feasible at an annual level to pay back

146
00:39:46.800 --> 00:40:02.640
than trying to squeeze all that into a condensed timeline >> for the CR still around. Yeah. >> Yeah. And the original ask on the on the project that they kind of floated around was about four and a half million. I don't know what those numbers are going to be um but somewhere around $4 million um is is kind of the gap that they have

147
00:40:02.640 --> 00:40:18.160
in their in their numbers. So and if you look at that um if you to take that 005 in there uh see where's the uh the max incentive that's well above what they asked for. So the the propensity there is to is to

148
00:40:18.160 --> 00:40:34.160
achieve what what they need with those numbers. I can we tweak these even further. >> Tweak it further to what? 3.5. What's 3.5 do for you? >> 3.5 >> on the cap. 3.5. Yeah. Whatever. >> You mean lower than 0025? >> Yeah. Note.35.

149
00:40:34.160 --> 00:40:49.520
>> Well, 005 is is 5%. If you want to go lower, you got to go 4% 3%. >> Three and a half%. >> Oh, you want to go higher? >> No. >> Uh, sorry. Three. I'm sorry. >> That was at five. You're right. So now

150
00:40:49.520 --> 00:41:06.000
you're almost where they need to be with only $100,000 left over on the end that gives them what they need, >> right? But again, the there's no unless this is assuming that they're going to get the full 20% additional stuff as they go to

151
00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:22.480
check those boxes. This is assuming the max, >> but that's up to them to do that, >> right? So I and and the purpose of this exercise obviously is just to see will our incentive program kind of work with around what we we knew before um and then it would apply across the board. So if somebody else coming in whatever

152
00:41:22.480 --> 00:41:37.040
there maybe there's 100 million or 50 million or whatever and whatever boxes they check it. My main concern is we don't we aren't on the hook for years and years with all these incentives. So I like the fact it dies at the NCA. I

153
00:41:37.040 --> 00:41:53.440
think that uh but you know do we do we write it in there with the option to extend it past that? I think we do but doesn't all happen automatically. >> Maybe a a review at that point in time right because there be actually there'll be a lot of things that we transferring from the CRA to the city at that point

154
00:41:53.440 --> 00:42:08.079
anyway. This would be one of them. Yeah, because it as as the city has these developments come in, especially this this initial one, whatever, um you know, five, six years from now, we may not need to incentivize. >> Exactly.

155
00:42:08.079 --> 00:42:24.960
>> And and and if we don't need to, why would we, right? So, we want we want to protect our our revenue. >> So, the incentive after the CRA sunsets is going to be different from what it is right now. >> Yeah. Yeah. it be and so the reason so that it's capped at 50% which is good.

156
00:42:24.960 --> 00:42:40.079
So you're never going to give more than 50% of what your income is, right? So if you're getting a million dollars tax revenue, you're only giving away half million, >> right? >> Half million you're keeping. You got to have something to continue to operate, right? >> Um obviously the more you give, the quicker you pay off that debt, if you

157
00:42:40.079 --> 00:42:56.400
will, that incentive debt. Um, so but I again I think we we look at numbers that we we don't end up with too large of incentives. Um, and that we can terminate when the CRA terminates. I

158
00:42:56.400 --> 00:43:12.160
think that gets us started and then as we look forward six years down the road or whenever maybe the CRA gets extended, but if it stops um, we have some development, maybe we don't need any more incentives out there to maybe we do need some more. Maybe we do at that at that point we'd say

159
00:43:12.160 --> 00:43:27.599
>> CRA at that time can make that decision, right? Yeah. >> So, can we get legs on this thing and make this run so we're not dragging this thing out another year and a half? >> It it sounds like option one then uh where we factor in the CRA sunset is the option that we want to go.

160
00:43:27.599 --> 00:43:44.319
>> Yeah, I think I I think the C I think we and let me know if you guys disagree. I think the CRA sunsets it with the option to extend it past that life. >> We got to be careful with options. I think it should be some contract because council could change and they're like screw you. We're not giving you nothing anymore when we promised them that.

161
00:43:44.319 --> 00:43:59.040
>> And we did say it's not >> a contract. >> Okay. >> We did say it's not likely that after the sunset that that will ever come back. >> At least give you the option to to you're going to have a lot of stuff to discuss when the CRA does sunset and all

162
00:43:59.040 --> 00:44:17.040
that transfers to the city. So there'll be a lot more than just this to talk about, but this will be one of them where you can pick it up. the city can pick it up or the city can let it go. >> Would it be best to have just a separate city incentive plan at that point? >> Or or we or we just initiate based on

163
00:44:17.040 --> 00:44:31.839
investor opportunity. >> Well, that be the option, right? Because then at that point, you're no longer incentivizing the the county portion of your tax bill, just the city portion, right? So, you've already kind of are doing that. you can adjust and at that time if you want to review the program maybe adjust the percentages or or you

164
00:44:31.839 --> 00:44:48.480
know chop it up a little bit so it's more palatable for the city at that point in time. So we put in the program saying this incentive will uh be in effect until that the last fiscal year of the CRA so that the developer

165
00:44:48.480 --> 00:45:04.880
understands. Now, we originally how it's written is is that we wrote it to say the city may or may not continue this incentive. I can just say it's done and then the city could create its own program, but I would, you know, I'd

166
00:45:04.880 --> 00:45:20.720
assume so then, you know, I'm not sure if that particular developer would be able to continue with that because that's a different agreement, right? And and the purpose of that was to recruit, not not necessarily retain. Uh so maybe there's a retaining incentive that city wants to do or something like that right

167
00:45:20.720 --> 00:45:36.160
at that point >> because the overall goal of this is to incentivize not to get not to bring bring it in not to pay for what's being already here >> right. Yeah. Like get it off the ground. >> Yeah. So, so I'm hearing uh pusher

168
00:45:36.160 --> 00:45:58.079
option one and u since we're starting with I'm on Ashley just so you know I'm green green go Ashley we have the perfect dynamic right now to get this thing off the ground so you can take what we're talking about right here and you can apply it to the new

169
00:45:58.079 --> 00:46:13.760
situation we got going on the waterfront right now okay and create that as our starting point >> yeah I mean it's if once we get this approved, they can technically apply, >> right? And then uh because because it's not a it's not necessarily going to be a a budget minute thing, right? Because we're rebating what they're giving. So

170
00:46:13.760 --> 00:46:30.960
it's not it should be a line item, >> a a a debt line item, right? So that's something that we'll track and really by the time the way it's written, by the time that we actually start paying, it's going to be a couple years anyway because they'll take that long to build the project. >> Well, the from a budget perspective, we don't have to budget anything,

171
00:46:30.960 --> 00:46:46.079
>> right? because you're not getting anything until the new money comes in. So, what would you do the new budget? Hey, we've got a million more in tax revenue coming in. However, this has to go out. >> Divert, right? Yeah. Divert on that tax that you're getting from that property. You say, "Oh, we got the agreement. We're going to divert some of that back into >> Yeah, there'll be there'll be a line

172
00:46:46.079 --> 00:47:02.079
item for >> reinvestment money going back out. >> How how soon can this thing get legs and run? >> It's a it's an adoption tonight. So if we put I mean we can adopt it as is but I think we need to tweak some of the numbers but uh after we get the numbers

173
00:47:02.079 --> 00:47:18.560
we want we make a motion to approve that second vote if it's done then it's it's in place meeting correct way thing it's less policy I guess you could do you could adopt a resolution saying you're adopting this or you can >> just adopt this plan

174
00:47:18.560 --> 00:47:34.480
so I need total simple country boy clarity here. Okay. How do we put feet on this thing to run so we can go right to uh Mr. Burke and his crew and say, "Look, we've got an incentive program. Here it is. It's worth $4.5 million. Is what you wanted." Boom. Drop it on him.

175
00:47:34.480 --> 00:47:50.319
Now the ball's in your court. >> So, how soon can we do that? >> We We do tonight. >> Okay. So, what do I need to do it tonight? >> Well, so I think we need to >> I think he needs numbers, right? >> We need numbers. >> I Yeah. So, I need to clarify that we're going with option one, which is going to be just the CRA part. When you do option

176
00:47:50.319 --> 00:48:06.400
one, the 12% cap doesn't count anymore, right? because we're only looking at the percentage that they use of their tax bill of as a rebate. That's what we're looking at plus the uh impact fee. >> So, so there is no cap. >> So, so for options one through three, there is no cap because we know that

177
00:48:06.400 --> 00:48:24.400
that 12% cap we would never get to within the three years of CRA, right? That would never >> Why don't we why don't we have a maybe we don't need a cap, but with without a cath if it ends at the CRA, um we're they're only going to get 1.6 money anyway. get one 1.6 backish, right?

178
00:48:24.400 --> 00:48:40.559
Based on, you know, round of numbers, they get between 1.6 1.7 back in their taxes over the lifetime of what's left of this year if >> the reversion starts on uh 2028. >> So, keep in mind too that every year the those tax numbers could fluctuate,

179
00:48:40.559 --> 00:48:56.800
>> right? So, there's a built into this program is a requirement for reertification. So, what we're going to do is we're going to look at base year, which is the year before the improvement. Then we're going to look at the current year, could be year one, two of the agreement and say, where's your difference? You know, oh, you went up this much. Okay, what percentage did you

180
00:48:56.800 --> 00:49:12.559
get awarded? 30, 50%. Cool. So, we're going to see the increment, the difference between the two. We're going to apply that percentage to the increment and that's what they'll get back and it's going to adjust every year. So, it's a annual reertification. >> Oh, so you keep it the same basically by >> the percentage would stay the same,

181
00:49:12.559 --> 00:49:28.720
right? the the number the actual payment would adjust based on >> their taxes that they're actually paying >> appraisal value. >> So tax it wouldn't be appraisal value necessarily. They're getting more back because >> that's the value you just said. >> It's so they're getting they're getting

182
00:49:28.720 --> 00:49:43.119
what's going to stick is the percentage of their taxes that they're getting back each year. What is your taxes each year? Well, that's a guess, right? So we're going to certify that every year and say, okay, this is what you pay this year. Add your percentage. This is what you get.

183
00:49:43.119 --> 00:49:59.760
goes up goes down just right >> the 30% goes up and down with it. >> So is there any I mean >> just because it's it it gives you a a finite number. I kind of like the cat percentage in there. Um just this is the

184
00:49:59.760 --> 00:50:16.240
value. Now time time does not allow you to get to there, right? >> But at least it it it I struggle with this too, right? Cuz because at 12% it was it was $10 million, right? Like in this case, if we make it 5%, you're talking about a total of seven and a half

185
00:50:16.240 --> 00:50:31.280
>> million, right? >> Mhm. >> And there's there's no way the CRA be afford be able to afford that over the the years, >> right? That's okay. At the end of that five years, you you would have that would drop off. >> And at that point, really, that's just that's just a metric then really uh

186
00:50:31.280 --> 00:50:47.359
because you're never going to get there. It's just a metric to show, >> you know, what happens. >> Well, it's not a metric if you extend it past it. >> And that's the thing. Yeah. But but as I'm going to play it is it's it's done in 2032. >> Right. Well, in your in your in your analogy though, if you if you expand it

187
00:50:47.359 --> 00:51:03.040
and you don't have a camp, it can go on perpetuity. >> And that was my struggle too, right? It protects in case the city decides to take >> but but your initial agreement is between the CRA and the developer, not the city and the developer, right? So that would probably have to be addressed

188
00:51:03.040 --> 00:51:19.200
at the point where the CRA goes away if we're if we're making the program for just the CRA >> because we start eating the risk in the >> re between a CRA and the developer and then the CRA is going to be gone and then

189
00:51:19.200 --> 00:51:35.200
>> but then you could shift that if you wanted to you don't have to but you could shift that but I'm assuming a new fight to be made because the agreement would be with a entity that's no longer around >> and the city's not a party that I agree with. >> Can't we just give them what they want >> and build the house around?

190
00:51:35.200 --> 00:51:51.839
>> No, we got a policy. >> It's got to be >> have a policy that applies to everybody equally in the same way. >> But during this during the next three years, it'll be it'll just >> we can't give you the percentage. I mean, the percentage they're going to they have the they have the max and they

191
00:51:51.839 --> 00:52:08.240
can add to it if they you know do the canopies or whatever. You know, you have four you have five years and that's it. it is whatever it's in five years you I mean I think the idea of of saying um you don't know >> there'll be two million left but you know you're never going to get it. How does that >> Well, here here's here's here's here's

192
00:52:08.240 --> 00:52:23.760
here's what makes it easy. If you have that you kind of see a number you're going to see what you're going to get as you as you as you amortize that out, right? In order to see what's my incentive I get this if you don't have that cap in there. It's like I got to go through the entire amortization process add all those up to see what exactly I'm

193
00:52:23.760 --> 00:52:41.119
getting. I say too if you're looking at the cap though and then trying to fit that cap into the amount of years that the CR has left, right? Because that cap is gonna the amount would be afford uh to divvy up that amount

194
00:52:41.119 --> 00:52:56.800
annually with what time we have left, right? So the cap the caps it's going to show but then it really means nothing because it's gone. It it it it means nothing if you can't achieve it over those >> three years. >> Three year the term and and I it does

195
00:52:56.800 --> 00:53:11.599
mean something from a from a just a quick what what possible could I get out of this incentive wise >> well for for ending the incentive at the CRA would not possible totally understand the the the the implementation of it. Um let me let me make this easier. Let's say that we get

196
00:53:11.599 --> 00:53:27.920
a fiveyear extension of CRA then it could live past that right. Um I I feel like it's I think there's a benefit there to control the actual dollar amount that we're on the hook for. If we have to ride off or they have to ride off because they can't they don't have the time to get there. That's

197
00:53:27.920 --> 00:53:45.040
just a benefit to the city. But I want to see up front what's my impact. Okay. So yeah. So so you're you're almost like a six option, right? CRA extension, right? That's a six option, right? So that the cap would protect the CRA at that point. If this gets extended,

198
00:53:45.040 --> 00:54:00.079
you're still at the cap. The cap is still written down in the agreement, right? In the event that the CRA does get extended, they're still held to the cap. So, we can write them in there. >> So, we can do a finding of necessity to see if we can extend,

199
00:54:00.079 --> 00:54:16.160
>> right? We we were looking at the new rules of finding necessity and the the things that you used the last time with don't apply like nearly at all. And and and the other issue is that we haven't used our money how we were supposed to.

200
00:54:16.160 --> 00:54:32.559
We have not been using our money annually. So, that's going to make it difficult as well. >> But, do we have new things, especially like after the hurricanes? >> I can't I can't touch a fire station. I can't touch a city hall. Those don't count. I can't touch housing. I can touch roads, but we've we've addressing

201
00:54:32.559 --> 00:54:48.160
housing. We've been addressing our roads. I really, what else can we use in necessity finding? I' we'd have to actually probably get a consultant to look at our values of all our housing within the CRA. And I'll tell you, a lot of these houses shouldn't be in the CRA

202
00:54:48.160 --> 00:55:05.040
because their value is way high. I'm giving $5,000 grants to $800,000 houses. And I have to, right, because it's in CRA and those rules, but they should not be in there. So really when you start looking at your necessity, you're really going to shrink the boundaries of your CRA to maybe like your uh your your

203
00:55:05.040 --> 00:55:21.280
Berlin area, your Papaya area, and maybe waterfront over right because the condition is in once you look at the value of the housing and and the the industrial value and all that, it really is going to show that they really don't meet the car. >> But just because it's a limited area

204
00:55:21.280 --> 00:55:36.720
doesn't mean it doesn't matter, though. >> It has to. >> It might be smaller, but it it should still matter, >> right? and but then your your funds are only going to be able to use those areas and as you do that necessity of finding it's probably going to find that you need to reduce your CRA boundaries and they and then you're going to be just

205
00:55:36.720 --> 00:55:56.799
stuck with surfacing those neighborhoods and you're going to have a great reduction in what the CRA is getting in uh on its revenue side too. You can spend the money to have a consultant, you know, of course for us, you know, do this. But generally, like, you know, those other cities around

206
00:55:56.799 --> 00:56:12.240
here, Newport, pay the consultant to do it. I think it's tens of thousands of dollars for them to do it. That's what the state's going to want to look for. They want real numbers behind these things, not just, you know, oh, we need this or that. They're going to look, they're going to look at your AMI. They're going to look at your housing value. So bottom line is it just changed

207
00:56:12.240 --> 00:56:29.240
so much that the chances >> like your your original uh sur in 2022 your necessity finding called for new bunker gear and issues of fire station that stuff is not allowed anymore, right? >> Yeah.

208
00:56:32.319 --> 00:56:48.480
>> I I'll go ahead. We can we can add the language about you know in the event we'll we'll capture cap, right? We'll capture if you want 12% we'll capture that. >> No, just like 5%. >> So 5%. Okay. So we'll capture uh the 5% maximum on the value and then uh just to

209
00:56:48.480 --> 00:57:05.520
have that as a as a stop gap in the event that Sarah does so you're not overextending yourself. >> I want to look at two person. Why did you go back to >> Councilwoman Burke wants to know why you went back to five after we're at three.

210
00:57:05.520 --> 00:57:21.920
>> Huh? >> Why went to what? Why'd you go back to five when we were at three? Three hit the number. >> Well, like I said, do you want to do you want to keep that? >> Well, I I like nice round numbers. >> Yeah, but three was about right for the number. Three hit the number that was

211
00:57:21.920 --> 00:57:40.640
right for everybody >> on a Well, on a on a smaller project, it >> okay limits the incentive. >> So, you're trying to and you're trying to incentivize the smaller people, too. >> Yeah. I don't want to get too small. I'll just 150 project great wisdom. I think that's good.

212
00:57:40.640 --> 00:57:57.040
>> Um >> the um the other thing I want to ask you about Derek is so you you the plan is figured on 100% of that. So again it's only 95%'s going in. So >> well so we're we're only doing the

213
00:57:57.040 --> 00:58:12.559
increment too. So the 95% is your total tax bill, right? So I so so >> the CRA the CRA which is where this money will be dispersed from >> is only getting 95% of the combined millage >> currently right forever. Well, yeah.

214
00:58:12.559 --> 00:58:29.760
Right. But the I'm looking at the change in in the tax, right? So, right now, these people are paying the tax, right? The current tax bill. I don't the way this program is written, I don't care about that. I care about the increase in in tax based on the increase in their

215
00:58:29.760 --> 00:58:44.880
value. I don't care about before. So, actually, the CRA is going to retain more because we're not going that the incentive is not going to touch the tax rate that they're already paying. They're going to tax. It's it's almost a increment of the increment. Right here, look at look at my numbers and you'll

216
00:58:44.880 --> 00:59:03.680
see why I'm going there. You see that? That's so we whatever we take in we we get half of it. So the other way, the 100% we're not getting we're paying out more than we're getting. So if you if you if you

217
00:59:03.680 --> 00:59:20.799
use 95% which is what actually going in, but you probably I I get the 95% right of what they're what they're paying >> because that's what what's going in. 5% of it staying in our general fund. 5% stay in the county general fund. >> But there's a percentage of that they've already been paying, right? Before they

218
00:59:20.799 --> 00:59:35.520
developed that the numbers, right? Like if let's say their tax bill is $100,000 before they started redeveloping, right? That's their tax bill. >> I don't care about none of that. Go to general. I'm talking about the the increments. This all about the increments.

219
00:59:35.520 --> 00:59:51.839
>> Yeah. So, so a a a project comes in right now and says, "I want to do this program." Right now, they're paying $100,000 to the CRA. Let's say that. Okay. Now, they're after the project, they're going to be paying

220
00:59:51.839 --> 01:00:08.000
$900,000 to the CRA. So, if you look at that, I only care about the $800,000, not the $900,000. So the CRA is still going to retain whatever that $100,000 that the sit program is only caring about that that $800.

221
01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:24.880
>> No, the CRA is getting $800,000. >> The CR So the CRA originally got $100,000 before the development, right? >> So So let's say there so there's there's obviously some other tax prec that's going in general fund. So right >> there's $100,000 >> from 2002 that they're paying in CRA.

222
01:00:24.880 --> 01:00:40.720
Okay. Right. Yeah. Right. Because you saw their base, right? But I'm creating a new base year, right? And that new base year is for the incentive. I'm not looking back at the 2002 base year. I'm looking at the new base year when they were just before the improvement. So in that in

223
01:00:40.720 --> 01:00:56.799
that case, I'm not looking at the $900,000 tax bill. I'm only looking at the $800,000. Yeah. So >> incentivizing the increment of increment. >> I'm taking the whole increment. You're saying there's some existing increment, >> right? There may or may not be anyway, >> which which this the CRA won't be

224
01:00:56.799 --> 01:01:12.720
reimbursing, >> right? Because we we what we care about is the improvement, not what was there before, >> but but even so, it so I'm I'm good with that. Like if if 100% makes it easier. I just >> Yeah, >> you could do 95% and it would just that new increment, you're you're only

225
01:01:12.720 --> 01:01:29.200
dispersing half of that new increment as opposed to >> Yeah. >> a little more of it, right? So is it is it difficult to write it as 95% as opposed 100%. >> Well, what's what's nice is that we're we're actually going to be taking that

226
01:01:29.200 --> 01:01:46.480
property what they are actually putting in as what they're paying on that tax difference. So I guess this benefits the city by making it 95% because we're paying out less. That makes sense. We're paying we're paying out less. Well, so so when when the CRA gets its

227
01:01:46.480 --> 01:02:03.200
money, it's already at 95%. Right. >> Right. And we're just counting, >> right? I'm talking about the rebate. >> So So So yeah, >> if we base it on 95%, we rebate less. >> Yeah. 50% to 95%. Right. >> Not much. But >> there's difference. >> You're Yeah.

228
01:02:03.200 --> 01:02:19.839
>> It's from my perspective, I don't want to give any I don't want to give any more than half of what we get. >> Oh, yeah. Because you're already at a 95% reduction anyway. Plus, we're we're not looking at the pre taxes, right? Because you're you're you're not rebating any of that pre-

229
01:02:19.839 --> 01:02:36.240
pre-development tax, right? >> What you're doing, how does that affect a much smaller developer coming in like somebody developing? >> It doesn't really affect any any different. It's just it's it's a >> it just instead of us paying out, you

230
01:02:36.240 --> 01:02:51.920
know, 51% or whatever, we're paying 50%. So we so at the end of the day, whatever the increment is that we we get, we keep half, we rebate half, and we you can make that whatever you want, but if you if you if you don't if you don't account for the 95% coming in, you're giving

231
01:02:51.920 --> 01:03:17.599
100%. You're getting 100% of 95%. You're giving more than we're taking in. >> Well, you run a $10 million Sure. >> spreadsheet. So total in that >> so their total max incentive is uh >> oh wait a minute that's assuming a big

232
01:03:17.599 --> 01:03:32.000
change. Let's look at the top one. Let's say they have it was a million dollars and now it's 10 million. Um the max incentive is 444. It's almost a half a billion dollars, right? Um we pay out uh 57,000

233
01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:49.000
every year. They'll get a little over a quarter million dollars and I have 155 left on book >> 2032. >> Yeah. Right. >> More than that anyway. >> Yeah. It just it just prevents us from ever giving more than half were taken in.

234
01:03:49.119 --> 01:04:03.119
>> And is that what developers of a $10 million development are looking for? Is that kind of >> better? Nothing. I mean, is that is that standard in the industry to get that

235
01:04:03.119 --> 01:04:23.200
>> number for a $10 million development? >> And would it incentivize them to come to Port Richie versus Newport Richie? >> Well, I mean, Newport's got a much more robust. They actually give um it's a cost of doing business. They actually will pay for their permit fees

236
01:04:23.200 --> 01:04:38.880
>> and building fees ahead of time. uh that that's going to become that but that's a a budget issue that I don't know if we so the only way that you can solve for that is to have tier development groups you know >> do something different from the next

237
01:04:38.880 --> 01:04:55.920
step was you don't have that kind of budget because then you have to give it to the next guy and then we just don't have the revenue >> that's going to be a snowball effect too because again we have to assign every every penny right and so you're going to have to re you're have to pull from somewhere whenever you do any type of new budget item um you're going have to

238
01:04:55.920 --> 01:05:12.559
pull from somewhere else because we've already are required to assign that out for years. >> We don't have that kind of revenue, >> right? >> So, what do you think about the >> I mean the CRA ending it makes sense in

239
01:05:12.559 --> 01:05:28.079
in a lot of different ways, but it also doesn't you know, again, it makes sense because you're going to have to have the conversation when the CRA goes, you know, right, of what you're going to be wanting to shift over the city anyway. So that would probably be a good opportunity to re-evaluate the program,

240
01:05:28.079 --> 01:05:43.359
right? It's like a natural stop. Say, "Okay, it's over. Now, how do we want an economic development incentive?" Because it won't be in a CRA anymore. It be like an economic at that point you might have an economic development department or a person, right? And so, uh, you know, you

241
01:05:43.359 --> 01:05:58.799
could probably morph it into something like that, right? But I think that's a good natur forces you to whatever council's here to review the project at that point, too. And I think it's pretty clear. I It's a clear guidance for a developer too, right? This is my timeline. Maybe it

242
01:05:58.799 --> 01:06:14.960
might even incentivize them to get moving faster. Right. >> Faster. That's what I want. I want >> Yeah. Because they know because you know it won't start until you get the certificate. >> Yeah. The framework is you can apply that going forward. Um,

243
01:06:14.960 --> 01:06:32.240
again, the only difference is is instead of having double your money because you're getting county money in there, you're using just city portion. And at that point, maybe you maybe you only get back 25%. Because you you got to maintain that, right? You don't have a CRA to subsidize it. So, until the CRA

244
01:06:32.240 --> 01:06:49.440
ends, we're not what's beauty of this is when the CRA ends, >> we're not rebating any of the city money. >> It's all county money that's subsidizing us, which is what CRA is all about. using their money to help redevelop your your area, right? And then at the end of that, if we want to do economic incentives past CRA, obviously we

245
01:06:49.440 --> 01:07:05.359
probably don't want to do 50%. We cut it back to 25% payback and they'd have longer terms. So clear that we won't have a a CRA plan, right? And so you have more flexibility maybe >> or we leave it just completely separate. Our incentive plan remains separate from

246
01:07:05.359 --> 01:07:22.079
this al together. So, as we move forward and we do that other portion, let's make sure we keep a good delineation because what I don't want to do is I don't want to I don't want to package something and then it somebody assumes that there's a long-term payback when that sunsets that sunsets. But here here's another program now that we've sunseted that one that we

247
01:07:22.079 --> 01:07:36.480
as a city can manage and support for economic development. >> So, so we've got we've got a timeline cap and we got a P annual reimbursement percentage cap. So 5% cap >> 5% uh total project cap a time cap of

248
01:07:36.480 --> 01:08:00.960
>> CRA and then a cap of annual reimbursement of 50% cap on the reimbursement part >> right and using 95% instead of 100% and if I go back to this I just want to show you that that number one more time There's the original four and a half

249
01:08:00.960 --> 01:08:16.960
million and that's what they if that's what they need. >> Yeah. Now the problem is they they're not going to be able to get to that because it's filming starting today. >> Right. So it's probably going to be about three and a half >> today. Right. Yeah. And really we it's

250
01:08:16.960 --> 01:08:32.640
you know real quick. Um but we were assuming just you know two years two and a half years to get >> it's also that incentive to get it started today because your investment is now >> the quicker you get it done the more money you get back. pictures next week, shovels and grass >> because I'm all about moving

251
01:08:32.640 --> 01:08:48.159
>> and we get to, you know, if if this approved, you know, we're going to be staff's be working through the motion too, right? This is a new program. So, we we get if we have a developer to work, you know, alongside us as we go, we'll both be going through the process, whoever it may be, that'd be good as well, too. And that will give us plenty

252
01:08:48.159 --> 01:09:02.799
of time to get, you know, figure out, you know, how we go through the process on our end. >> So, one more thing. So, I'm gonna go back to since I want to wrap this whole thing up so we can all get on to the next thing. How soon can you put legs on this so we can make this thing?

253
01:09:02.799 --> 01:09:19.120
>> Uh, when I get a 3-2 from y'all. >> So, is it what what I think there's one more thing we need to address and that's the the the percentages on the um the different categories. >> Yeah. >> So, the the total framework I think we've

254
01:09:19.120 --> 01:09:38.880
>> Are we all good with that? >> By consensus. Yeah. >> Okay. Um so, now let's let's look at the slides. >> Uh, hold that. I shouldn't do >> I'll stop sharing. >> I thought increasing the low impact development to maybe

255
01:09:38.880 --> 01:09:53.839
six >> or something. >> The what? >> I think it's at three. >> Okay, here's the community one. U again, so this one is capped at 8% total.

256
01:09:53.839 --> 01:10:09.040
as you delivery. >> I saw it at >> I think historic preservation >> impact affordable housing. >> I thought that too. Yeah, there's not >> there's not much >> we could pull it out or reduce the percentage. >> I mean I think

257
01:10:09.040 --> 01:10:25.040
>> I think waterfront improvement >> development is 4%. in the incentive summary table. >> You're talking about that's uh no no sewer, water, I guess, or very low as far as infrastructure.

258
01:10:25.040 --> 01:10:39.840
>> I found it in here somewhere. Here it is. Um >> low impact 8.2 under environmental incentives, green infrastructure improvements such as pvious pavers, bio swells, rain garden. >> We want to go to that section. I can move the slide.

259
01:10:39.840 --> 01:10:57.120
>> You want to go to um page I just have my presentation. I have it separated here. >> Was it this one? >> Does this part be done tonight or can it be something we could go over? >> Well, no, we want to adopt this plan tonight so we can Otherwise, we're going

260
01:10:57.120 --> 01:11:14.719
to delay that. >> Um, sorry. >> So, in the >> we start we'll start from the first one, right? Uh, actually, we'll start even before that. So, here's the maxes. We're good with the 30. We're okay with the the 50% max of of 20,000 for the

261
01:11:14.719 --> 01:11:34.960
permit and the impact fees. That was a like a standard thing I found as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now the the add-ons. So these are your maximums to get you to the 20. >> Okay. So there here economic devel I like the fact that the shared reduced

262
01:11:34.960 --> 01:11:51.320
parking is is is high. >> Um everything else really seems okay to me. on that one. The CPS financing is you get uh extra basically it has to do with energy efficiency, resiliency, construction and stuff like that.

263
01:11:51.440 --> 01:12:07.120
>> What is CP? >> That's what you're saying. So it's like a financing where you get better terms if you uh incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability, resilient construction, stuff like that. Can we instead switch

264
01:12:07.120 --> 01:12:22.640
over to the agenda where we have all of these things out because on the agenda is starting at page >> it's a little easier to follow >> 17. Yeah, starting at page 17 on the CRA agenda starts at 7.1

265
01:12:22.640 --> 01:12:38.960
non-conforming use elimination is plus one%. >> You on page 17, sir? >> Uhhuh. 17 of the 35. >> Okay, we're there. Economic development center. So it starts at 7.1 and if and it kind of spells out what they are.

266
01:12:38.960 --> 01:12:54.560
>> So if we could do it from there versus this I think it would be easier. >> Agreed. Yeah. >> Okay. So >> but this says 12% tax increment. Captain just talked about 5%. >> No wrong page. 17 >> 17. >> And some of this >> the square box 17. >> Okay. Got some 10 on the

267
01:12:54.560 --> 01:13:09.520
>> Yeah. Gotcha. >> Some of this on there you know is going to change obviously just from the little conversation we had. So it's not going to be accurate. >> So what decision do we need to make on this? you good with these percentages? >> I was except for I would like to see an increase in the low impact development

268
01:13:09.520 --> 01:13:25.840
at plus four. So if we have to take from somewhere else, it's 8. >> I don't see a low impact development. >> Eight 8.2. It's on page >> 8. 17. We're on 17 first. You're on a different category. >> I thought you were saying are we good with >> are we are we go with economic development which is seven. >> Okay.

269
01:13:25.840 --> 01:13:42.080
>> Yes. So >> I didn't say anything that really needs tweaked. I like the fact that shared roots parking is 5%. Microbility. That's the only one I would say is that worth 3% maybe. So >> we were on 17. >> So now let's go to eight which is environmental incentives and this is another 6% total. Right.

270
01:13:42.080 --> 01:13:55.600
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um you said low impact development you thought make it high. >> This is important. Um if we could increase the 4%

271
01:13:55.600 --> 01:14:12.640
to maybe five or six% and >> so this is yeah that's the so you got to be careful here if you if you make one of them too heavy >> they can get all of it in one and you don't so you this way like for inance the way it is 4%. If they want to get

272
01:14:12.640 --> 01:14:28.159
more, they'd have to do flood mitigation, get them up to two u infrastructure extension. >> So if you if you make that closer, >> I think four is pretty strong. >> I'd like to do 10% on shared parking, but then you'll use all the other stuff. >> You can't use six of them. So

273
01:14:28.159 --> 01:14:44.400
>> it's just >> four is like right up there at the top of what they're giving for anything. >> That's the high of everything. And it's interesting too, this infrastructure extension. >> Um, that's really them just doing our work for us. >> Yeah. >> So, it's I've seen agreements where

274
01:14:44.400 --> 01:14:59.440
actually they'll do work for you and then you use that and then you reimburse them for it, the actual dollar amount. That's kind of a wash. That's not an incentive really, right? Because they're paying for stuff that we would normally pay for and they're just getting it back like we bought it. >> But, but opportunities where we can get

275
01:14:59.440 --> 01:15:15.520
infrastructure extension as part of a project will greatly help us. >> Oh, sure. and in and what we're trying to do as far as our our larger strength. >> No, all day long. That should be a high number because I >> five is very strong. I think five is is good here because now you have to pick five plus you have to pick five plus something

276
01:15:15.520 --> 01:15:30.880
>> and why might as well make it a good investment. >> Um on the IBHS fortified that's uh they're going above and beyond the standard >> above beyond. Yeah. >> And that only applies to remodel, right?

277
01:15:30.880 --> 01:15:48.159
No, wait. You're not old yet. >> So, we good with that numbers? >> So, if we Oh, there's another eight points. Brownfields 2% at the bottom. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I'm good with that. >> And then nine. So,

278
01:15:48.159 --> 01:16:04.840
>> I think historic preservation is too hard. So, we don't >> we don't have a lot. >> We don't have a lot here. >> Drop drop it to what? Two. >> Three. >> Three. >> Okay. three is >> uh drop historic >> price three

279
01:16:05.679 --> 01:16:20.719
and keep this category only goes to eight right 8%. >> Uh in social Yeah. Okay. >> And the only other question I have is for affordable housing. Do you want affordable housing to be eight or do you want to make that at six or five?

280
01:16:20.719 --> 01:16:37.679
>> I would say five. >> Four. Five or five. Four would be okay, too. >> Three. >> Yeah. You say four or five is which one you're out. >> I'm good with four. >> I'm good with four. >> Four. >> We got three fours for you.

281
01:16:37.679 --> 01:16:52.640
>> That's three to two. >> My only concern is it's high on one thing. They just may have to go after one thing and depending on >> correct or you know strategic goals with I think workforce housing is on there too.

282
01:16:52.640 --> 01:17:08.000
>> Yeah. And keep in mind requirements is 20% minimum affordable unit. So they build this thing and they're only giving us really 20% of that, but they're getting a huge percentage. We don't want that. It's out of balance. >> The difference between affordable housing and workforce housing, which are probably relatively the same. Uh what's

283
01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:26.880
the see housing for the AMI? >> The workforce goes a little up to 120% AMI, right? >> Yeah. >> So should that stay at five or drop? >> I'm okay with work force housing. >> Yeah. Um that's 20%.

284
01:17:30.080 --> 01:17:46.320
What is the what is the 9.2? What exactly is that >> with the police? >> It's crime prevention through environmental design. So, you know, it's making sure that the cops can have clear sight lines into your development. You're developing a way that doesn't uh

285
01:17:46.320 --> 01:18:02.159
create a security risk and stuff like that. park, >> but you know, lighted parking lot like stuff that will development that naturally would reduce crime just the way that it's built. >> Maybe that would at least three. That's important.

286
01:18:02.159 --> 01:18:19.199
>> I'm cool with three. That's fine. >> Um what on 9394 we we settled on affordable housing at four? >> Yeah. >> What what if we did three there and did four on workforce housing? >> Go with that, too. >> And then 9.2 She would go to a three.

287
01:18:19.199 --> 01:18:35.679
>> Yeah, deal. I want you to go three. Yeah. So, yeah. Three, three, and four. >> Okay. So, historic prize three, or goal three, workforce four, and then crime prevention three. >> Um, we changed historic preservation too, remember?

288
01:18:35.679 --> 01:18:50.320
>> Yeah. Yeah. Historic presence three, affordable housing three, workforce housing four, and then crime prevention was three or >> Yeah. And it's public art installation. I don't even somebody please break that down for me so I understand it's public art installation.

289
01:18:50.320 --> 01:19:06.960
>> So if someone puts basically builds a mural or creates a mural or creates like a an art structure on the property something that's going to improve the overall piece in the open area. >> Exactly. Yeah. Like in an open area or anything like that. >> I like the idea of that. >> Yeah. Before >> I mean they're going to have to build

290
01:19:06.960 --> 01:19:23.520
something pretty. I mean what are they project number do you want at this point here? I'm say minimum investment. >> They got a bunch of other incentives. >> Yeah. If you're going to get half of that category just by putting a piece of art out.

291
01:19:23.520 --> 01:19:39.520
>> Remember them parking garages, >> beautiful parking garages, old signs on them and all this stuff. Remember that stuff? >> That kind of stuff. >> Yeah. 4%. I mean, >> yeah. I think you want this place to go. >> Well, I I No, I do. But again, what I

292
01:19:39.520 --> 01:19:54.320
want to do is I want to I want to I want to get more public access like take waterfront development. I want I want people to be those big numbers. I want to focus on public spaces, riverw walk, viewing platforms, those kind of things. >> That's what that is. >> That's what that is.

293
01:19:54.320 --> 01:20:10.880
>> Art No, no. Art is art can be anything. It's not just one thing on the wall. >> Built in. >> I get that. >> Could be a fountain. >> Yeah. >> I'm not against >> I want to make this place go >> smoke.

294
01:20:10.880 --> 01:20:26.719
But no, I get it. I just water. It seems high to me. >> Well, large part of your strategic plan for for for you push forward what we're trying to do now. >> So, flip them. Flip those. >> I would flip those. Yes, that's what I was going to recommend. >> I'm okay flipping them. >> Flip them. Okay. >> Well, I I thought I flip my go I'd take

295
01:20:26.719 --> 01:20:42.000
waterfront and improve it to five. >> I would too. >> I would that's our biggest focus. We want that to We want that to be >> Yeah, if anything else >> five and three, I'm good with it. Should be five. Got >> that. That's >> so three for public art, five. It may

296
01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:58.239
not be a big investment to get that five though. I mean, a dollar is not expensive compared to a parking drive. >> Well, we could put we could put large project minimums, small scale project minimums >> like like in the public art installation. We have to come up with

297
01:20:58.239 --> 01:21:13.920
what that is, but we could put minimums in there. >> That is kind of a loose >> Yeah. >> It is. I mean, they put in they put in a small couple docks. They spend 10,000 a couple docks. They get 5%. >> Yeah. Is that how easy it is? There's still the review process, right? Staff review like if they're going to put like

298
01:21:13.920 --> 01:21:29.280
five foot piece of boardwalk, maybe not. And then eventually we'll make >> Don't you have to have some kind of >> You want parameters? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, is that what So, after we approve this, the parameters would come next. I guess >> it' be the regular review process like we could tell them that's not going to

299
01:21:29.280 --> 01:21:44.960
apply if you want that for put me a folder doc in here. I get five. That's not the idea. >> Yeah, we that could be part of the staff review process, right? We'll have to tell them, hey, we want those percentages. This is what we're looking for. And of course, then at the board, how it's

300
01:21:44.960 --> 01:22:00.320
>> how do we build clarity for the investor? Because that's now me sitting as an investor. I'm looking at that and now you're you're I'm I'm having I'm having a challenge on what I'm >> going to be sight specific too, right? Uh are there any site constraints? Can can we

301
01:22:00.320 --> 01:22:15.920
>> only deal with we have to look at it per project, which is a lot of times what we do with the current grants, right? We're always looking at per project and if it it applies it can apply. >> These are all approved by council too, right? Something we have to >> everything. >> So then we don't have to approve it.

302
01:22:15.920 --> 01:22:31.440
>> I mean the minimum that that would be for the developers sake so that when they're looking at this they can plan accordingly. But on our end when it gets to us we can be like you're not putting a $10,000 dock in and 5% in even they

303
01:22:31.440 --> 01:22:46.960
put $100,000 worth of docs in. they get the same incentive as someone put in a $50 million parking garage. >> Yeah. Keeping keep in mind too that um the large scale projects especially at our waterfront if they have the five acres or more coming to us for additional density and all those things

304
01:22:46.960 --> 01:23:02.880
we have control over those project we can say you know we want more than this we want >> right >> because we control the density as well which is the which is the big incentive outside of this is how much density we're going to give is what you're going to give us in public space. So, so I

305
01:23:02.880 --> 01:23:19.040
think there's there's plenty of checks and balances. We we probably do need to tighten that up a little bit so we we aren't just giving away 5% for anything. It needs to be a little more rigid. >> Yeah, I think that'll come back to when the board makes that approves that agreement. >> And the Bradington thing had on there

306
01:23:19.040 --> 01:23:34.320
had on some of the incentives said one to 4%. So, it wasn't like concrete. There was incentives, but it was variable depending on what council decided they could award. This uh these percentages are based off that Bradington.

307
01:23:34.320 --> 01:23:49.360
>> Well, I I don't know what it's based on, but I'm just saying I saw something that was a variable. It was like one% to move on. >> Yeah, we're good. So, we get we had three to five in there, right? >> Beat the source to death. >> Three to five. >> Okay,

308
01:23:49.360 --> 01:24:05.280
>> good. All right. So, I think that covers everything we need. So, if I have a motion to approve the package as amended. Motion to approve the package as amended. >> Chris >> motion to approve package as amended. >> Second. >> Second.

309
01:24:05.280 --> 01:24:21.560
>> Have a motion second. Any further discussion? >> Any public comment? >> No. You guys like all that? >> All right. >> Bring back for a vote. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries unanimously.

310
01:24:29.920 --> 01:24:46.159
I need to bang the gamble. What's going on here? Okay, so next up is old business. Item number three, discussion of old business. Is there any old business? >> Let me switch. >> Uh, I have question. I know we ordered those appraisals. Did we get the appraisals back?

311
01:24:46.159 --> 01:25:02.639
>> Not yet. Not yet. No. >> Any ETA? Um, I could follow up with them, but they they are they are in process. We're talking about the when you say appraisals, >> the middle property, the >> Kus property, whatever. >> Yeah, that would >> the two we ordered. >> So, they're ordered. They just haven't

312
01:25:02.639 --> 01:25:18.239
gotten to it yet. >> We It's ordered and it's in process. So, okay. >> Um, should be done. >> Have they been out to do anything? >> They have not told me, but I I'll follow up with them and look into that, but it has been ordered and moving along. >> You're dancing. Anything new on Grand

313
01:25:18.239 --> 01:25:33.440
19? >> On Grand 19 for the Yuki project, um they've received the water drain measurements from the engineering company. Uh they've been sent to FDOT. FDOT is doing their assessment. Um we're just waiting for any comments to be provided back. If everything comes back

314
01:25:33.440 --> 01:25:47.840
good, then the project will move forward. If there's any adjustments based on their comments, we'll get with the engineering firm, tweak that, and then hopefully get it submitted and approved by FDOT and then move forward. How long has it been since DOT has had >> they they've got it last week? Um and we

315
01:25:47.840 --> 01:26:04.639
and we got we sent out some information to get some updated information. We just hadn't received it yet from from the engineering. >> They emailed me uh about six, seven days ago. >> I emailed them again for the engineer for a followup to see if we received any comments yet. We have not gotten any I

316
01:26:04.639 --> 01:26:20.880
haven't gotten back any feedback from either engineer or FD, but they submitted everything last week. >> Yep. So engineering took a lot longer than expected on that. >> Well, they wanted to make sure all the drainage calculations were were complete and done before putting them in the portal. So okay, we just we just don't

317
01:26:20.880 --> 01:26:37.520
want to bring this back to the drawing board again. >> Chris, >> we purchased the property uh for the water treatment plan >> that is under contract. Contract not finished yet. >> Uh it's in the title the title company is preparing the to to contract and get us to closing. Okay. And just the only

318
01:26:37.520 --> 01:26:52.800
adjustments we have is with the property. You know that we had that second property that we were looking at. Can't purchase that with CRA dollars. We spoke with the engineering firm. The engineering firm is going to reassess their plans and they looked at what they said what we would need on that second

319
01:26:52.800 --> 01:27:07.520
property. They can put on the this property that we're working with now. Just a few tweaks so that we don't have to buy an additional property for $285,000. >> Yeah. The the um the secondary property on Springer on Springer Drive. We were going to put another another well on a

320
01:27:07.520 --> 01:27:24.320
pot of a well uh for the construction of the plant. And as the city manager said, we're going to we're going to red do the redesign so we don't have to pay for that additional piece of property. >> Put it on our property. >> We're going to we're going to put it somewhere on the plant property. We're going to try and work that out. It's going to be tight because we've already got some wells already put in there and

321
01:27:24.320 --> 01:27:39.360
you can only have you have to have so many feet between each well. So, but they they are confident that we have enough room um to do that. Um the only property that we're still looking into is for the deep well deep well injection. Yeah. >> Is on Coons Row.

322
01:27:39.360 --> 01:27:54.960
>> So we're getting an appraisal done on the on a on a piece of property that that meets the size for the deep well and the engineer said it was okay to to put it there. So we're getting an appraisal on on a property on Coons Road. Okay.

323
01:27:54.960 --> 01:28:10.639
>> Thank you. >> Can I get an update on the neighboring property to Olener Park? was somebody was going to reach out to Pasco and find out if that property qualified for >> the way that the property frost rem

324
01:28:10.639 --> 01:28:26.159
was because it it I think that we're trying to go the similar route, >> right? It was through the flood mitigation assistance and so Pasco paid for the house to be removed. So it was no longer required to have uh flood insurance. Well, the the house next door to there

325
01:28:26.159 --> 01:28:43.199
there's no flood policy or anything. So the FAA is not going to work for that. So that had to be a private transaction between the owner and whoever they pick. the pass would come in if there was a structure on there, let's say, and the owner wanted to to sell under FMA kind

326
01:28:43.199 --> 01:29:00.080
of use those funds to do that with stipulations, but the the purpose of that program is to get a structure out of the flood hazard area and have one less flood policy. >> So, that's where we've stopped with this process because it doesn't meet that requirement because it would have to be a private purchase from us for roughly

327
01:29:00.080 --> 01:29:15.760
$400 or $500,000. So right now we we've stopped that process until we get further guidance from you and and the concern there is based on what you saw on the park plans that we are providing you with you know we haven't even addressed park for that expansion piece

328
01:29:15.760 --> 01:29:32.719
yet is if you are interested in that because we haven't even like I said you haven't even seen the the um the diagrams that we got back from the Tampa regional planning uh commission on what that would look like and what I'd like you to do is see that before you make a decision. Well, I was only interested in it if

329
01:29:32.719 --> 01:29:54.159
>> Pasco was provid >> any other business. >> Uh question if you had any results from uh the people you're working on with Charlie Kirk Street. >> You were knew you knew somebody that was interested in >> Oh, no. Um the uh

330
01:29:54.159 --> 01:30:11.360
um over on Berlin, he had reached out and was going to I told him I said put a survey together. I have her back. So check >> I was thinking River Golf Drive if if that falls through because there's only a couple addresses on there and it would be nice if our first responders address

331
01:30:11.360 --> 01:30:26.560
was on Charlie Kirk way. I just >> I love River Golf Drive name >> some kind of partial. I walk it every day and actually want to adopt it. So yes,

332
01:30:26.560 --> 01:30:42.960
>> if you have obviously if if the majority of the street comes in, they want to name their street, >> right? >> That'd be the the best route to that outside of that force on somebody. Probably not the greatest idea. >> Check on that. See what they say. >> Anything else? Old business.

333
01:30:42.960 --> 01:30:58.719
Okay. So moving on comments and board. I start my right. Member Hover. >> Member Sullivan. >> No. >> Vice Chair. Mayor, member Burke. Nope. I nothing as well. Um look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All first signify saying

334
01:30:58.719 --> 01:31:01.600
I. I.