He He has to stay now. >> Board meeting Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Like stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Madam cler, please computers. Just making sure it's working. >> We're saying people. >> No, I'm not. I didn't want this to go down. >> Chairman John Eron Hoover >> here. >> Vice Chairman Chris Mayer >> here.
>> Member Robert Huard >> here. >> Member Lisa Burke >> here. >> Member Christine Sullivan >> here. >> City Attorney Nancy Meyer >> here. >> City Manager Don King >> here. >> Thank you. Okay. First up, uh, we have comments from the I'm sorry, we got a
set of board minutes for April 28, 2026. I need a motion to approve those board minutes. >> So moved. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Next up is
comments from the general public. I do not have anyone signed up, but show hands. Anyone like to speak? Okay, same amount of closed uh comment. Come back to the council. um up to comments from the city manager. Pass it over to Mr. King for his comments. >> Um the only comments that I have on this
uh mayor is um we did do the adjustment do the finalized uh signature document on this. I know we've got we're looking at an adjustment today. Uh the only thing that I don't have from uh Derek before he departed was the actual
documentation that he had of the extended version of the C CRA. If we went beyond the sunset um timeline, the only difference would be is that we'd no longer be getting uh county dollars. And basically what we'd look be looking at
doing is subsidizing our dollars or or the percentage that we wanted to do if we wanted to invest beyond the sunset period of this investment for investors that are looking to invest into Port Richie. >> Did was that I can't remember what how much detail was in the packet. Was it in
the packet when we discussed that? Maybe. Um, it wasn't in the packet because he put it all on his big little PowerPoint picture thing that he put out there, which was a frustrating point for me because there a lot of that a lot of that those diagrams I gave him and when I gave them to him, he ran with them and
I didn't >> have them in receipt. >> So, they still on his PC laptop, I guess. >> Uh, we tried to get those. Uh, we're unable to get them at this point. >> Okay. >> Because I did ask George to get them. >> Okay. And do we still have contact with him? >> We do have contact with him. We have
reached out to him. Uh, and the only thing is he hasn't responded at this point yet. >> Okay. >> But we will get back with him to make sure. Um, I'm I'm familiar with it because I'm the one that kind of directed him to build it based on >> the model. So, if there's conversation, I can have the conversation with you.
The only area that I would advise is that as as you as you and the council or the the chair look at this um think about what you want that incentive to be what that what that amount would need to be because that impacts you know the
general fund as far as what our tax revenue return is on that on those properties. Okay. >> Anything else? >> No sir. >> Okay. Okay. Next up board business item number two redevelopment incentive program Cadillac projects. Um, I guess I need to pass it to you introduction, but I'll I'll take take the lead here.
Obviously, last meeting I wanted to get us all together after we we put together the the redevelopment senate program. Um, I did some research and and and some thought around it and um and kind of compared it. I I engaged AI to to
compare um you know to evaluate how's our program based on other like Newport, Richie, Pasco and other communities our size. Um and so what I what I found was is that it was it was pretty pretty safe actually uber safe um incentive package
right um but what we were a couple things that we we didn't have in there which are important from a to make the the incentive financable um is to make it assignable. Um so I think when you look at making it assignable, what that
means is instead of us um rebating directly to uh a developer that's invoked in that is the bank would then that you take out the developer middleman, you would basically repay the bank directly. So the signal to the bank and it allows the that uh same cost um
to the city. It's just instead of changing hands um it goes directly to the the the financer. Um, so I think that's something that's will help score higher for development teams to um, utilize that. So I think that's something we need to add in there. Um,
that was one thing that was pointed out. Um, and then the other thing was again catalytic projects. There was really there was there was nothing in there to incentivize catalytic projects, which are projects that are really going to, you know, at the forefront. They're going to they're going to they're going to breathe life into an area.
um you know everybody's kind of across the board same. So, I think we need to look at adding a Cadillac project provision that again council would vote on to approve this is a Cadillac project and it' be some criteria. Um, some example criteria uh would be like
projects above 20 $25 million. Um, projects that are in a a targeted area be at the waterfront. Um I I give you some um examples but uh you you basically define some criteria what what a catalytic project would be and then
council would have the ability to um agree that a certain project is asking if that is a catalytic project and then if you're catalytic project um there would be some additional incentive or additional u ability uh to recoup
incentive. Um, obviously our big biggest issue is that our CRA currently has a a very short lifespan. Um, so anybody that comes forward to utilize that best case can probably get four years and probably more realist realistically three years
of incentive out of it. Um, which was the which was the big um downfall is really almost unusable at this point because of that short runway. Um, and so I've I've got some um some ideas on how we can um make that work for us. Um, I
will say that I passed along information to Don, an individual who works on extending CRAAS. Um, I think you've had some conversation. Why don't you go update us on >> Yeah, Kevin Crowder. uh we uh spoke about potential extension with uh the
county uh because unlike Penllis County, I guess there's no uh limitation on on the actual uh terms of CRA. So, what he told me is he's got a few contacts that he's going to get uh in touch with to see if there's any if he can find any provisions to find a way to extend our
current CRA. Um he he thinks it may be possible. Um but he said he get in contact with me next couple of days. So, I figure before the end of the week, I'll have something when I get it out, I'll CC out all the council members kind of what that what that looks like and what that means to us, especially as we
look at uh CRA in general and then as we look at CRA as far as an incentive plan. Okay. So, hopefully we'll be able to get some extension out of that. Um, and that that would that would make a huge difference. Um but given given that we don't have that solidified again I think
we need to look at at this catalytic project provision. So I'll kind of walk through um some of the feedback I I I got um big picture. So our current program as is our fiscal risk to the city it's low. Okay which is good. The
competitiveness versus other CRAAS moderate maybe slightly weak. Um and the risk not generous enough to move truly difficult projects. Okay. Um it's uh where it talks about being uh conservative and possibly too much. The
5% cap is tight for shortlive CRA. And that's that's the the main issue is the that 5% cap. Remember that was started at 12 and we we took it down to five. And the and the reason at least in my
thinking is that 5% um kept it it was it was you were going to receive the maximum amount you could whereas if you took to 10 with our shortlived CRA and not going past the CRA it just it never paid. So it was kind of silly to have that. >> Did we take it to seven on our last
draft? >> No, it's five what we approved. So we're at five now. >> Okay. Um, and so again, I think it's it's very very very conservative, but again, given there's there's no time, no runway to actually get that back. You're not even collecting on it. Um, so the 5% you get close. Um, but you know, 10% you
don't get close. So, um, so that's that's one thing and I'll talk about that in a minute. Go ahead. >> The policy before you made the changes to it at the last meeting was it was a stronger policy. It just left a residual at the end that we couldn't recapture.
>> That's correct. And so we we scaled it back, >> right? >> Um so this would be >> make it more realistic for the time frame, man, >> right? Just so that it didn't have that tail end portion that fell off after the CRA ended. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So what you're talking about here
is for a catalytic project or catalytic projects only. But I'm wondering why we would want to limit it to just catalytic projects. why we wouldn't want to include areas without a certain a low or a high threshold dollar amount just to
develop areas that are less desirable for development. So instead of just being catalytic on a monetary standpoint >> well not so it's not monetary necessarily. I mean you so the list and I I'll read you a few things in there.
What normally you do is here's what makes a Cadillac project. >> If you get two of those, you qualify as a Catholic project. So, okay. >> It's not always 25. >> Not. Yeah. So, it could be >> it could be targeted area. It could low income housing. There's there's there's a couple things in there and we could we
could kind of tailor what those criteria are and you wouldn't have to have them all. You could have a couple of them. So, if you are a high dollar development and you're a targeted area, maybe that's enough. Um or maybe you're in a targeted area but you're providing workforce affordable housing. Um that's enough. Perfect. So yeah. So it's not just it's
not necessarily monetarily driven of the size of project. >> Thank you. >> Um the and it talks about that 5% says the biggest this is the biggest issue. You're not offering an upfront grant. So we're not you know not providing any
money upfront. um gap financing, land write downs and our CRA sunsets in around five years. Um so that means developer may only collect three to five years of payments and a total realized benefit could be very very small. Okay. Um
uh it did talk about our affordable housing incentive percentage is is somewhat weak. Um uh but I think we went through those and I you know I feel like we you know we could we could look at you know tweaking those differently but I think at least I
feel that percentage we got for all those things kind of drives what we're looking for in the city. U but again it it thought that um and it talked about somewhere we might be too generous. Shared reduced parking was was pulled out. Obviously we need
parking so that's why we incentivize that more. Um but it thought that was a little generous but that's by design. So again some of these things it it uh commented on. Um but the the so the bottom line of the question is it too generous? No, not even close.
5% calf plus tiff structure keeps it firmly controlled. Uh is it gener generous enough for easy projects? Yes. Uh for hard catalytic projects probably not. Um and then um and then I ask it to stress test it
against Newport Richie and Pasco County. Um and it says uh our program 30% base plus up to 20% bonus with a 50% maximum rebate hard cap 5%. Um it's backloaded cap performance base low risk to city
and the city Newport Richie they have up to 20% of total project costs up to 100,000 grant is paid as reimbursement after completion translates to upfront style reimbursement real cash not tied to tax increments. So they're they're more generous from a give money up front to help those things as opposed to back
in tax. Their CRA window is till >> so significantly much longer than >> but the style I guess they what >> so they have more available >> funding right they got bigger balance in theirs too so >> a question >> no I was we can't compare it over the budget they have
>> well no I just what the purpose of this is to kind of see from our incentive package not necessarily look at this as as equals but just kind of compare um if I'm the developer I'm looking to develop in Newport Richie Pasco in general or Port Richie and here's these
different incentive packages. This is how they kind of operate. Um >> well, they have percentages off of taxes. >> Well, right. >> Right. Everybody's a little different on how they do that. Um Pasco County EDC county programs. They give you 2,000 to 5,000 per job created. It's paid over
four years around four years. It's stackable with state incentives. Uh so direct cash tied to jobs and wages, not necessarily property value. Ours is is heavily involved in the property value increase, right? um what a developer actually sees um our program they see a max and this is based on a $2 million
project with a $ 1.5 million value increase the max incentive they're going to see is $75,000 from us paid over maybe three to six years limited by 2032 uh annual around 10k um developer perception will be a nice bonus but not deal changing new richie up to 100,000
grant paid immediately after completion uh developer perception there is this directly reduces my capital stack and in Pasco county example 20 jobs created times 3,000 or 60,000 paid over four years develop perception of that this offsets operating costs right and so this is the brutally honest ranking from
a developer point of view um the immediate immediate financial impact the winner is Newport Richie cat why because cash reimbursement um total potential value again Newport Richie percent of project cost ease of understanding Pasco County because it's simple per job formula fiscal safety cityside that's
where we win in our current things Richie tight caps plus tiff catalytic power, Newport Richie wins there um because it actually closes gaps and long-term sustainability. We actually win there because it's self-funded. Okay, so that's kind of the where we're at now. And it talks about
um where our program falls behind. You know, you don't compete on real money. Um CRA Sunset being a major disadvantage because it's it's um shortlived. We don't offer any gap financing, but where we actually win, we avoid bad deals because there's no upfront cash, no
incomplete project risk, fully uh performance-based. Uh many CRAs get burned. Ours won't, which that's that's positive. Uh you incentivize better outcomes. Uh and we have strong guard rails and the strategic difference is Newport Richie strategy pay developers to do projects now. Our strategy reward
developers after they succeed. And I think that's that's good. Well, do you have factored in that our milit rates are lower anyway? Yeah, >> keep in mind this is not okay. This is not a direct comparison. We'll get there. >> This is just program. If you're looking at um I don't know how I can draw a
parallel, but um you know, if you're looking at a car, right? Um what kind of towing capacity, all these different things or whatever. Um the cost is different and the people buying it have different incomes. But
again, it's it's it's that particular tool, right? What how's the tool compete? That make sense? >> Well, if you're buying a car, you you're you're looking at the dealership that you may get a $200 incentive from one dealership, but they got a $1,500 dealer fee where you go another dealership may
not have any incentive. Exactly. But the $400 dealer fees, well, that's where I'm going to go buy the car. Right. That's what I'm saying. >> So, you get Exactly. So, those different uh parameters may sway you one way or another. Um, of course it says neither's wrong, but they produce very different
outcomes. And so for small improvements, it's a tie. Um, medium redevelopment, Newport Richie is a likely winner. Transformational projects, Newport Richie is a likely winner. Low-risk fiscal management, Port Richie wins. Okay. So, what we're looking for is
transformational projects. Um and uh and and so our our particular uh program doesn't lend itself to that. You know, Newport Richie has a little bit better edge on that. So, and and I've also had conversations with
folks with with real numbers and all that. I'm going to share kind of what my thought is. Um so if we if we change that, we add the the add the um assignability, we add catalytic project um capability and what and and a couple
things that Cadillac projects do and we'll talk about that in a minute, but uh one it lives past the CRA. Um and then I think we could do some other things as well to to to make things work if we were to do that that uh let's see
that basically it puts us as one of like the top uh programs available. Uh see if I get to it here but one of the things I wanted to share was the actual catalytic project example.
Is there a cost to that? Puts us in the at the top. What is the cost? >> Just changing how we So there's still in in what I'm going to propose, there's still no upfront money. There's still all money that's generated from the project. >> Um, but it takes in consideration our
short window. It also takes consideration if there were to be an extension. Um, and it it allows it doesn't make it generally available. It has to be a catalytic project in order to unlock additional benefit. And so here's some examples of of what counts
as a catalytic project. Um, a project must meet at least two of the following and the ones they list here is greater than or equal to 20 million total investment. And of course that's variable. You put whatever number you want in there. Located in a priority corridor US19/waterfront district. Uh, includes mixed use or destination
component. Uh, provides public infrastructure or waterfront access. Includes housing component. Workforce or affordable. Demonstrates a financing gap. Documented. And so, um, one of the things that you could have in there is they need to demonstrate that they actually have something they're asking
for free money. It says they actually have a financing gap that they need something in order to make it happen. So, if they can demonstrate that, that would be one. And you, again, this is pick two. You could say pick three. Uh, but you wouldn't just do just one. And again, these can be tailored. But those are some examples of what would count as
a catalytic project. Um, there's a couple ways you can do it. um as far as a vote so that it's not abused. You could require supermajority of council to to approve it as Catholic project. So it'll be a 4 to1 suppose a 3-2 um or you
could or you could leave it to 32 simple majority but you have like you said you have to demonstrate financing gap and there's there's there's some other things you can do to to make sure it's just depending on your council that's in place at the time. Um it's just not easy to become a Catholic project.
Um, what else can I say about this? Any questions so far? >> Well, we're going to let uh Don and staff work on these things that you're suggesting. >> Yes. >> So, what what would have to happen here,
if I'm wrong, is we come to agreement of what we would like to see, how how the policies should be updated. staff would take it back, update it based on those things, and obviously they would kind of vet it from a a staff perspective, make sure it's fiscally viable and and
whatnot. Um, and then Nancy would have to or somebody would have to draft that resolution or whatever resolution, I guess, and it would come back for a vote. >> Have you had a chance to look through this yet? Have any ideas? No, this is this is
>> you're learning about it the same as us. >> But you would be able to look at that and then recommend to us what you're >> Yes. My my my only concern as I sit here and I listen to this is where's the money coming from and how is
the money being utilized acquired for these Cadillac well catalytic uh projects because everything that we've looked at here in the past all was based
on tax revenue based projects. Now, I I think we're entering into another another realm of of of possible, you know, incentiveness. I just need to know, you know, as because hopefully
you'll send me some of the hard work that you've done there because that'll be very helpful. >> Yeah. um the the kind of where you see or where that vision of that money is coming from because my because as as I as I stand on my pocketbook and I look I I know what I know what my expectations
and possibilities are and I just want to make sure that I'm I'm meeting the intent of what it is that you're asking for for these incentives. >> Yeah. And I'm gonna I'm gonna line out the detailed data here very very quickly. Okay. Um so so without talking into those details
I said so make the incentives assignable and for catalytic projects will allow the incentive to live past CRA and the additional percentage at the additional percentage level uh compare that to new poor riching and pass code. So what I what I did was okay say take our existing program
make an assignment no big deal there but let it live longer than the CRA but not at the 50% max we're at now but at 20%. So basically we we'd be getting 80% of the of our billage rate and 20% would be service at now that goes a long time and
that's a that's a bonus percentage so if they only got 10% then it would live past the rate at 10%. But this but this comes adjusted off of county money leaving at >> this at the CRA. It's just city money. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> And the purpose of us having this
discussion on that level like at 20%. It is there a reason to have that discussion now? Wouldn't that be coming from Don developing those types of numbers? >> We might come back and say we could technically afford to go 50%. But my thought process behind this was is it's
an incentive and there's there's no guarantee of it. You if you live past a CRA in your Kelly project, you're getting some additional incentive past that out of city tax money because you've actually done some things that we laid out parking that that additional
bonus percentage. So we aren't giving anything past the bonus percentage. >> Not giving anything up front. >> I'm talking about the particulars in general. Right now, you're asking for a consensus to for staff to move forward with looking into this for us, right? And coming back with something that we
could make a motion to approve. >> Correct. >> Well, no. What I'm what I'm asking is is is hear out my proposal >> and if you if you think that's and and we can we can tweak that however we think, but then then put in staff's hands to evaluate that against how that
plays out in the real world. see how I could possibly hear out your proposal when I talking about it. Don't look at it. I can't hear. >> Well, I'm going to show you I'm going show you D. This is keep it. This is conceptual, right? It's um uh >> so let's think.
>> Okay, >> let me go through and and ask questions along the way. So, >> the way our current program is is you get 30% on the rebate side. But I don't have a pen or paper or anything. I kept like I left my pen and paper. I have to
write >> I'm just regurgitate what we talked about last time. >> Okay. Right. But you're going to make some suggestions for catalytic projects. >> Yeah. And >> forget Cali P right now. So right now what we do, >> okay, >> is our max incentive is the difference
of prevalue and post value, >> right? >> 5%. That's our cap. >> That's the first thing. >> Um Second thing is is by default if you're in the center program you get 30% rebated to you year after year. >> Okay?
>> Then if you go through you check those boxes you can get up to another 20%. >> Right? >> For a max of 50%. So it the way our current program is is we're not ever going to rebate anything past 50% of the taxes we get. So if we get $2 of taxes from them, $1 goes to them, $1 goes to
us. Right. >> Okay. in a CRA in the context CRA. Um, so what I'm saying is if from a Catholic uh project perspective that I think we we we bump the uh the 5% cap to 10%.
That's my first uh thing and I'm I'm going show you real numbers how this works out. So we double that. Okay, actually before we go there, let me finish what I was saying. So before we make any of those adjustments, we just keep our program. So the only
two adjustments we make is we don't we don't change the cap. Um we just allow it to live past C. That's the only change. The assignability and live past CRA at our current numbers. If we do that, this is this is what the program then changes. Okay? And that and
living past that is living past at the bonus percentage. So if you get the full 20, that's what you're getting past the CRA out of city money. So we're always going to have 80% of our money until it's until it's serviced. >> Well, mayor, here's one thing that I've
got and it is I think through these discussions myself and D as we develop businesses CRA. We run CRA till it goes dry. And then if we want the cattle and we want to go beyond, then let's have a separate
program when that sun sets that's tied to it that now is a separate program that we now have that's operating that that that additional funding stream that's being returned to them because what I don't want to do is I don't want to mash all this together and then all
of a sudden convolute you know the process in which we're going through. So when it sunsets, it's dead. But the death of it brings on >> the city's version of what we would have for a long-term investment in. >> Yeah. And I get that. And we may not even at that point. I'm not talking
about projects that come five years from now. I'm talking about projects that come now. >> Yes. >> And that matters that that additional time frame to recoup that money matters in a financing instrument. Right. Because >> understood. >> They're seeing that hey, you're going to get two years or three years of this and get nothing.
>> Right. So you're really not getting X million dollars, you're getting >> half of that. >> And that's why we built the 10 and 15 year model, right? CRA, >> right? So >> So just by just if we just were to make a simple change as assignability and
allow it to live past the CRA at a lower percentage plus we can't we can't afford to give away um half half the money on development for ever, right? So, and and some of that you saw >> the recommendation you said is 20%.
>> Gage is strictly on the bonus percentage because that's that's the developer doing things that we're incentivizing. It's not a it's not a 30% just off the >> by by by default. It's whatever that bonus. So, if they was they achieve 10% in their thing, they know they get they
would get to 30 plus a 10. So, they get 40 life CRA, but then going forward they would only get 10. >> Oh, okay. Oh, well. or five or up to 20. >> What are they trying what what dollar amount is it that they're trying to achieve that we're trying to accomplish?
>> Well, until it's serviced. So, it would be so whatever let's say they achieve the the full 20% bonus percentage, >> right? >> And again, this is in the now we declared a Calake project. We're basically saying since we declared a Catholic project, we're going to allow
it to live past CRA. We know it's ending. Mhm. >> Now, if it gets extended in there, that that change they stay under the old method or whatever until it goes past, but they will get their full incentive. Um, but when it drops down without county money, we're only servicing at a
max of 20%. That's >> as long as funds are available. >> Well, the if the funds would be available because they're creating that, >> it comes from the difference. >> It's strictly instead of us getting the full tax value, we're getting 80% of it,
>> right? until they until they get their recovered cost. >> Until they get their recovered cost. >> So no timeline tied to it. Just the recovered cost is what we're looking at. >> You is and depending on the amount that could take a long time, 20% depending on the project size, right? So it could go out 30 years or whatever. Um you could
put a cap on a on a year. Um but again, that that changes the the total incentive from a financing perspective. Um >> at the end of the day, projects that don't get financed don't happen. So if you don't cure the financing gap, um they don't happen. And so then whatever
the money is coming, you're not getting any money. >> Sure. >> Right. >> So if you just made those changes, just making those changes, this is the updated scorecard. Um poor rise program. What it does? Well, it's bankable. It's predictable. No sunset cliff. Scales
with project size. Huge advantage on big deals. Fully performance-based, low public risk. U still no upfront cash, no direct gap financing, long payout tail. That's because 20% takes a long time to service the rest of it, but it keeps us um fiscally responsible and we can
service things. So just, you know, but there's still there's some benefit there. Um actually I'm going to jump down to the actual scoring. So just so total incentive power for large projects that puts Port Richie as the number one rank compared to Newport Richie and Pasco
scales to a million. Uh Newport Richie second capped at 100 grand and then Pasco is job based only. So total percent of power that just those changes put us uh at the top in a ranking bankability again Port Richie wins there it's assignable it's predictable cash
flow new richie second cash is simple but small and then Pasco limited job creation and then upfront impact uh Newport Richie wins there because they get immediate reimbursement because there's upfront cash poor Richie a second still backloed uh and then Pascal's a third delayed and conditional um number four Cadillac project
competitiveness we win there now it's finance and scale ailable Newport second too small for big deals. Pasco not designed for that. All right. And then uh fiscal and this is where we just leaprogged them is what the comment was. So in in number five, fiscal safety city
perspective, Port Richie wins fully performance-based. Pasco's the second job based payouts. Newport Richie third upfront grant exposure. Okay. Um and so our final scoring on a simple 1 to 10 scale incentive size large deals were nine out of 10. Bankability were at 8
and a half out of 10. Upfront impact five out of 10. Catalytic capability nine out of 10. Fiscal safety 10 out of 10. So just making those changes really improves the the program. Okay. Um and then Newport Richie numbers in
five six range. Pascal's in four four five and seven range. >> How long do they have to apply for this? Do they have to apply before? It's simultaneous with their apply for they would apply as a Catholic project and it would have to be approved as such or if >> there's no end to that application date
that could go on well into the future. >> Well, so this is in the this is in the context of our current CRA, >> right? That's and it dies. This program dies with our current CRA. >> So after the CRA is exhausted, there would be no unless we did something else
there there is no application. >> So that would take another action. Yeah, that's that's >> since I would take another action then that's >> well if this is successful then we could renew it maybe make adjustments. >> Yeah. Um and then overall ranking Port Richie
best for mid to large Cadillac development. Newport Richie best for small to mid projects and quick wins. Pasco County best is stacking instead of only. So just those changes. Um, so then I I presented that and talked real numbers to see what we need to do to get
uh a development off the ground. And so as I had this conversation, that's what I'm going to share here. I'm going to pull up the original spreadsheet I shared with you so we can see the real numbers here. Any questions besides offer quiet? >> Oh, okay. >> Good for you.
All right. because it's much easier to see something than to hear thrown in the air which >> and I could I could have had that up there. I probably should have done that. >> The air really don't mean >> Yeah. All right. So, okay. If I get this all in one screen,
Can you see that good enough? >> Yes. Okay. Okay. So, this is our current program. And so, uh I spoke with the Krueger group uh and what their their latest numbers were. They're assuming a pre-construction
value of that 619 644. Their post construction value at 31 million. Now this again this is just on the phase one um 19 property. These are their their speculative numbers which gives a difference of 30 million 380 and
our current 5% max that puts them at 1519. And then um if you look so our city tax of that would be uh 191,000 per year. the county tax 224,942. Um from a CRA perspective,
$395,000 will go in our CRA. 9,554 would be in our general fund. So, um again, CRA only takes 95%. So, we do get that 5% from whatever happens that goes that we can do whatever we want with this, whatever we want with u CRA money isn't
covered by the CRA and follow CRA rules. Um, so if you if you think of the CRA, um, that money is limited on what we can do with it. And so, um, some of the stuff I'm going to talk about may seem
um, excessive, but keep in mind that without this development or any other development happening, there would be zero dollars coming in there. if it does happen um and taking our short window in, um we
can we can utilize the CRA money it's generating to to help with the incentive. Okay. Um I'll come back to that. So this max incentive here is 1.5 million. That's not going to get that's not development done. Okay. Their
numbers of right around 3 million is is what they're looking for an incentive to be able to to to make things happen. Okay. So obviously that's not there. So the one way to to get there is to double this. So if you take that cap percentage for a catalytic project, if
we if we deem it's a catalytic project, we double the max cap. That puts it at 3 million. Okay. So that that solves the the dollar figure that's needed. Um, but as you can see at our current
structure at 50% till the CRA ends, if they were able to utilize five years of it, which they won't, they'll probably get four, probably three, maybe four if it's if if they get done quicker, but let's just
assume they get five just for the the numbers here. um they'll have gotten at the 50% they'll have collected $988,000 leaving $2 million and at the 20% going forward it take 54 years to >> I thought we did the math on that at the last meeting and came up with three
million by revising all of the >> chang so the um I was using $150 million >> overall development >> as opposed to the just the phase one um and so that's that's the difference are
coming based on what they need. >> Right? So the the original I asked for when when before they went to the town home concept and they had the the larger apartment u type building structure or whatever. Um they were I think it was at
50 52 million or whatever and they had a 4.7 that was a $4.7 million um shortfall on that. So they've they've reduced down um their cost to this 31 million and that obviously this is what they
anticipate the valuation tax will be. They're going to have well over 40 close to $50 million in making this thing happen. Um but it's you know everything's driven on the valuation and that's the way it's a shake out. So it's going to be valued less than what they've got in it. Um and so but that's
numbers we're using. So, but they had at that other thing they had 4.7 million. So, now at this one they're at three million >> to to make this particular one happen. >> Um, and so if we if we double that for if we deem us Catholic project, we double it,
that gets the max incentive there. But as you can see, this is a problem. Okay. And so in in my conversations and and I and I thought about it because our CRA is so short and the idea behind when our CRA ends it should be
broke, right? When our CRA ends, it should be a zero balance. Yeah. >> You know, so we're going to be spending some money in there. We've got five million or some some change or whatever. Again, none of that >> has anything to do with this, >> okay? That's all we're going to do with other stuff, right? because we're not
doing any upfront stuff. This is all tax increment financing. So whatever they're bringing to the table, we're just giving a portion of that back. And so that being said, because of the short runway, I think it would behoove us to double the cap
and to double the base and to double the additional. And so best case scenario, and this is where it's going to sound scary, but again, I'm going to hear me out on this. So your base would then double to 60%. And your additional if you got the full 20, it's still based on
the metrics would be at 40%. So that's 100% of the CRA money. But if you look what that does, it gets them um almost two million by the end of CRA
and there' be another million to service and it would service at the the 20% not doubled going forward and at that it would take 28 years to complete. >> Okay. So it sounds like we just had a numbers issue last time and we're clearing up the numbers so we get them what they need.
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. And and again keep in mind this applies across the board. Um, and so there was there was another thing in there if we able to get the CRA extended. Okay.
Um, my thinking is this this um this structure here, if the CRA doesn't get extended, this will get the job done. Um, and they'll be able to uh move forward very
very quickly. Um if not um and if we are able to extend a CRA um what I don't want to do is have us on the hook for giving away 100% of it. >> Right.
>> Right. Um for the first couple three years, you know, it really uh it's it makes sense because there's such a short runway. You want to try to and again you're using money that isn't really here now. um and it's a very short turnaround. If
we are able to extend a CRA, let's just say 10 years, we take this to 41. Okay? Then all of a sudden things change because it's so much given away for uh
you know 15 years. So what I what I say we we would consider is is we're going to we're going to double this just for the time frame that our CRA currently exists. If we do get extent extension, then it, you know, we still
keep the cap for Cadillac project, but they only get 50% or less depending on their bonus. >> Mhm. >> Going into the extension and that that also satisfies >> and that >> that also protects us. >> That bring it down to rather than another million that it was.
>> Yeah. That would cut that back to about 500,000. Yeah. And I I don't I don't have the the the math in here to to show you that. Um but if you um I can
kind of show you if I actually let's do this. And this this this is all hot off the press. I had conversations today to before this meeting to see but I didn't want to have to keep revisiting this. We need to get it right and move forward so
we can move on other things. But um if we do extend 10 and we go back to the the base not doubled >> you can see just the extension of CRA at 50% almost gets that paid off. It just
leaves two years left. So extending the CRA if we can get that done >> for even five years 10 years is a huge advantage. >> Right. That gets us the numbers that we in intended to do last time. Yeah, >> that we approved this and then with the
safeguard of nobody being able to apply without another um you know another action by council after the CRA ends that would require another action then it's basically what we hoped what we intended to do last
time. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. And so if the exter the main point to remember is CLI projects current runway CRA no extension we would rebate up to 100% of the CRA coming in. So basically we're
not getting anything for it other than the 5%. We still get that in this case we still get the almost 10 grand from that. But from a CRA perspective we're not growing it. And we shouldn't be we should be giving it all back anyway because at the end of that three four years it should be zero. we're spending what we have in there for other things or whatever and whatever they're
bringing in is going right back to them and we after that happens then we have that development going forward. So if you got three, four or five projects coming at the same time, it's a wash. >> Uh if another again, it's only catalytic projects. If >> Well, that's fine. They got three or four catal. >> Okay. So we we actually get three or
four catalytic projects going down there wherever maybe on Grand Boulevard. We whatever we decide what catalytic projects are. Um then yeah, for that three or four um years again, they'd have to come in now in order to probably
get four years. And like I said, realistically, we only have three. So for the say let's say we all we get three or four right now at the same time and we approve them they go forward um worst case scenario that's three years that those those properties generate um
tax revenue and county revenue it's going right back to them to fund that development or to fund that gap and not everybody's gap's going to be the same too it might be a less of a gap just depends and again I think we need to make sure it's a demonstrable gap that you need to show us hey show us that you need this not just you just want free
money. Prove to us that you have finance. >> Can I ask an odd question? >> Mhm. >> What if we gave them back 100% first year, 75% second year, 75% third year? What would their what would their revenue stream be? Where would they be
at in their numbers >> with the with the CR being so short >> and I'm talking with their tax revenue return and where would we be with their numbers? because I I worked at a place where we gave 100% back first year all their all their taxes after you know 75
years 75% the second 75 third fourth year they were mine because one I gave them back enough to be incentivized and then now they're fully invested they've committed they've fully facilitated their structures now they've got an open business operating and running now I'm taxing them
>> the and I just don't know would those numbers work the same >> uh I know that the scenario that I just gave, they feel pretty comfortable that that would that would work. The bank would it everything would would work. >> We need to make sure it works for us too.
>> Yeah, >> you have to run the numbers both ways probably and see how it comes out >> and then we can see. >> Aren't the initial >> But keep in mind, >> keep in mind we're just talking about CRA money. So, you know, the more I got to thinking about this is again, if
we're if our CRA ends in 2032, what are we keeping at 25 or 50% or whatever? We're keeping we got to deploy it. >> So, we should go broke in 2032. >> Yes. >> So, and again, you're talking three maybe four years of incentive. Um, we
need to we need to pump that money out just as fast as we get it in. >> As fast as possible to Yes. Because otherwise, we're going to be stuck with a balance. Well, we got stuff we need to do with that money, too. We got part, >> right? >> The only money we have now, it's freely
ours. We're not giving them anything of that. This is just whatever they create. >> Only their portion what they create. >> It's not anything else that's coming in >> and we're still we're still getting money. 5% of that is still coming to us.
So we're giving all the county money and our money as well within the context of the CRA which doesn't exist now. So it's not taking anything out of our balance. This is new balance coming in. It's just a shuffle game. We get a development development is going to be there three years before
our CRA would benefit from it. But the CRA is going broke in 2032. So, and that's that's our major problem because because that uh CRA is going to end this this program should have been in
place 10 years ago. >> The goal tonight, it sounds like that your idea would work. And what I'm what I'm wondering is the goal for tonight, do we have to approve those specific? We'll just buy consensus if >> if you guys go to changes
>> Don maybe look at >> have him go back with with those with those assumptions. >> Yeah. >> And take a look at it from a staff perspective >> or come up with a few other options as well. >> So when when will this when will this come back to us? You think Don
weeks? >> Couple weeks. >> Turn it around tomorrow. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. Can you put it on the agenda? >> Well, what I would Let me take Can I take a look at it first before I give a response? And I' I'd really like to take a look at it as I dive into it because I don't
I I don't see it as being too complex. I just want to make sure that I'm giving you the right answer. >> Yeah. >> Because And the right answer is important. >> Okay. >> And I want to make sure because it makes sense to me. I want to make sure that we get this thing legs and starts to run, >> you know, because right now we're all
>> until until this is solidified, it's usable, nothing's happening. >> That's my whole point, right? So this is Yeah. This is like >> we're all looking at. So, >> we got to be careful. >> Thank you. Yeah, that's what what done to make sure. >> Eric, thank you for putting this together and what a what a great job you've done there. >> Thanks.
>> And I think it'll help our city manager too get started what he needs to do to make it work. >> And and what I'll do too is I so I pump that data in to revise this and I ask it for some stuff. Um >> if you can just capture it all and just
throw it at me. >> Yeah, I can give you I can give you a link at this prompt too so you can see the stuff. But uh and I I see a spreadsheet and like I said we can have a meeting I can if you need more detail but really and if you want if you want to jot down the changes I can I can make it very succinct for you. >> Well if you just give me that I can run
the >> key and then I come back I think I heard you say is that you spoke to the group we're talking about. >> Yeah I spoke with I spoke with Kurt >> and and they're like hey that will work for us. >> They're they're ready to go. they got
they got to solve this $3 million financing gap and it's if if it's solved through this thing then they're good to go. Um I use that not because it's being tailored for them but it's all I mean it's a real world example. It's real numbers and so as we're build this
program I'm using that but I mean don't get hung up on that particular project. This is across the board. Um >> but um you know might not be them. maybe somebody comes in and and takes it, but it's available um for other things as well. Um the key problem is is that the
runway's too short um that you can you can't really get any transformational projects out of it. And that's our main goal is to have this transformational development to happen. Um so when I when I pumped all those things I just talked about the doubling, so double the max percentage, double the base, double the bonus, um it doesn't live past the CRA,
but at the maximum of 20%. Um but if CR extended it um it goes to 50%. I guess I think if we already CRA we're not going to continue to give them 100%. >> Sure. >> Then it goes back to a regular 50%. And that's good too. >> Um
>> so by consensus do we all I do. >> Yeah I do. >> Okay. Any objections to to that? Okay. >> No. >> And so by doing that it tells us you know what you just did right you finally solved the why would developer choose Port Richie problem. Okay. And that's what we want. We want we want to say hey
poor rich it's where we want to develop stuff right. Um the temporary enhancement concept is brilliant. Um doubly only exists through the currency and fiscally ed elegant uh because you're effectively saying we need acceleration now before the sunset and that's exactly what this helps do. It's
if it's a catalytic project it gets it done and it makes things happen. Um the post continuation at non- double bonus percent is extremely well balanced. Uh assignability was the correct move. Um, and then it says where I think you're now too potentially too aggressive is
100% rebate. And so as it went down through that I informed it about um it's really a CRA money. Um it really should be broke by the time it's done and all that. And then then it uh it understood and think the logic is
fundamentally sound. So, um, I had it give me a a new snapshot and here's the executive summary if you all could read that based on our changes. Is it Port Richie small project 7 out of 10, mid projects 9 out of 10? Large Catholic projects 10 out of
10, bankability 9, five out of 10, fiscal safety 8 and a half out of 10, best overall with those changes. Um, so I feel pretty confident that um, it's a good plan. It was a good plan before. it just was lacking the ability to really move the needle on some of those transformational large catalytic
projects and by making those adjustments giving the the short run whatever now it becomes the best program in the area. >> We're all behind you. >> All right. So, any questions? >> Okay, Don. >> Not yet.
>> Okay. Very good. All right. That's all I had. So, >> um >> we just need a consensus. >> Yeah. So there's no objections to move forward on those assumptions, right? No, sir. >> Okay. >> Um get back to my agenda here.
>> Okay. Moving on to old business. Any old business, CRA business? >> No. >> Can I pipe in? >> Yeah. >> Um currently working on properties for getting the cost estimates to them. Um, we've been working um both the water
plant. We've been working the bait shop. Still haven't completed our final signing documentation for getting the water uh water treatment plant paperwork done, getting towards the finalization of that. Still working with them. Um hopefully by the end of the week we will
have the final estimate for the bait shop property for those that are interested in as we start looking because I think when you start looking at Cadillac Cadillac projects you start looking at everything else. You want a Cadillac, don't you? >> I know how to build cars. So when you want to talk about Cadillac converters,
I'm there. I can get in there. >> Just saying. >> I can get in there and work it. But um but but but it it it it helps with um it I I think it'll also help with a lot of the the development stuff that we're doing because I think I think what we're doing is great. I just I I just I I'm
trying to see it in a bigger vision. So as we do those projects and we look at these other things and we make these other investments, you know, what does that look like strategically as we move forward? because that's great, but it's also one of the few things that are on that larger plate that I'm trying to make sure that we that we that we're
captured. >> But that's all I got. Okay. Anything else? Sure. Okay. Member. >> Well, I'm curious about the parks and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Committee. I guess we're still waiting
for them again. No, we are currently under contract with a a a company that's working our our our ration park. Uh I don't think they've come back to us with any information at this point yet. >> Um I'll let pop in that.
>> City attorney is reviewing an environmental site called >> Okay. Once once they've review once she's reviewed that and we're good to move forward on that, then we move forward on on doing the environmental stud. that will allow us to determine what improvements we can make to that
park per it being 2026 and we haven't done any improvements on there since, you know, the early 80s. So, but a lot of regulations have changed since then. And since we're going to be putting new structures into that park, we have to have this study done.
>> But I think the environmental study, well, it all depends on when like I said, once city attorneys reviewed the proposal given to us. Um, I mean I I would say hopefully between four to six months, but I'd have to check with the engineer to be sure.
>> It's looking like we won't break ground on Brasher Park. Possibly this year. >> Probably not this year. >> Well, you know, not this fiscal year, but we but we've come up with a better process in which to do our parks. before we were we were kind of leading our way
through different you know we're going to go through Tampa Bay this we're going to do this we're going to that we actually found a way that hey we actually have an organization that will sit down work with us help us develop the entire thing work through the whole process we have some environmental challenges that we have to get through
as we work through them because there state approved state I I don't want to say piggyback but state programs that are already pre-approved with subcontractor programs within them that allow us to move a lot faster than than what we than what we intentionally planned. So, we found a
better solution to move faster with the projects that we want. We just have a few gaps that need to be fixed and environmental is one of them. And then we're finding that's being that's going to be one of our biggest challenges with the different type of parks that we have here. Especially, you know, not so much Nick Park, but uh waterfront's going to be one of those where we're going to
have some challenges. Also, >> look at FDC too. Are they working with them? >> Yes. And that's what we will be working with. >> And that' be cheaper than waiting on Tampa Bay Regional. >> Yes. I don't I don't want to work with them anymore. I don't have to. >> Good. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you. Right. >> Sorry. I Nothing against them. I just I
just think uh we can move faster and more efficient for you guys uh if you let us. >> We're a small city. >> I just want to be by >> Are we still on track to get um our medians started by your end and also the
golf cart crossing? >> Uh FDOT has the plans. Um there's a couple of other things that the um few scopes of work that the engineer has to provide at DOT, but they've already started begin to review our plans. >> Now on DOT side,
>> no for the stairs. >> Oh, you said golf cart crossing. So both >> the medians and I'm asking are we on track to get those started? >> Well, you got you got this wave wavefinder too. >> Yeah, wavefinder.
seems like they should the FDOT needs a anticipated project schedule and letters of no conflict from all the utilities within the project limits and the project cost estimate. Um so that's the the engineer is working on
those things for FDOT now. So okay, >> we should have that out out to them soon. But they've already begun reviewing the initial median plans themselves. >> Great. >> And the um as far as the median as far as the crossing project, uh they
I received an email from the engineer on that is that they have approved the drainage plan >> approved. >> Yep. Okay. So, I have to approve the drainage connection permit and then um the other two associated permit applications which is the construction
agreement and access is going to be processed. So hopefully we'll have answers from FD on those two soon. >> So once those >> once those are done we can once the permit is secured we can go out to construction. >> Sound like we're closer. >> Yeah. >> And it should hit appropriations but
timing would be impeccable. Are we are we and this is not I'm just cuz we've been like this like it's like groundhog day. It's like oh we're getting ready. Is there two more things we need and they've got those in their hands right now. We're just waiting on them. >> Yes.
>> The the good news is is this delay uh because we got this $250,000 appropriation >> gets paid for by us. >> It's really great timing because we're'll be finished right on time. We get to go out to bid. We get the bids back. We can actually deploy resources in July. >> Yes.
>> We would have to wait >> as when they want to plant too. Anyways, they want to plant in the summer. >> Yeah. >> Well, that was the we're talking about the cross and you're talking about the medals, right? >> Yes. >> We want to plan the crossing, too. >> So, it's all one big picture.
>> Well, at Grand Boulevard with that, there's probably some planting being done at that. >> Yes. >> Be done before the crossing. I mean, that's unfortunate. >> You you finished, right? Remember Hubard? >> She done. Okay. Anything else? >> Okay. Member Burke.
No, Vice Chair. >> I think I'm done. I think I'm good. >> Okay. Um the only thing I've got is going back to the time frame on the this process.
Can we can we work in tandem um as far as you preparing what you need to do based on the consensus we have and that way if it change you can just make some minor tweaks or whatever so that gets so we don't we don't wait until um we say
yeah we're good with this and we got to have you do that. So if you can if you can do that that is that that possible and then based on those numbers could we possibly come back at the the next council meeting after for a CR meeting to solidify that?
>> I will do my best. >> Okay. And >> well that's what I was wondering. I want them to run a couple different ways and take them. I don't know that we'll be able to well I'm quite certain we won't be able to approve the policy >> in two weeks
>> dialogue >> for >> I guess the goal would be is is if you could have that ready in two weeks um so I guess it's two weeks from now right? Yep. Okay. Um that we could say we're good. You've looked at it. You're good with it. Whatever. She's got it ready. Then it's a matter of just the very next
two weeks we're approving a policy. So within four weeks we have it done. If that's best case scenario. >> Best case scenario. >> Okay. >> Can't rush a good thing. >> No. But I think we're close. All right. That's all I have.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. uh passing.