board meeting Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. Please 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. >> Mr. Clerk, that role, please. >> Chairman John Eric 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, we have no board minutes to approve. So, moving on to comments from the general public. We also have no general public here. Nobody online. So, I will bring it back to uh comments from the city manager. Pass it over to Mr. King for his comments.
>> Thank you, mayor. Um comments tonight. Uh what I'm going to do is I'm going to address some uh talking points as we go through the finalized portion of the CRA and redevelopment incentive uh program. I just want to make sure that I've captured all of the adjustments and changes that have been made to the final
product that um is being presented tonight for our final review and approval. Uh I just want to make sure that everybody has all the work that's been done up to date. Mr. Chairman, uh, board members, the revised and sent before you tonight, uh, is because the
program was released and advertised was was was released and advertised as right now. We're bringing it back just to make sure that we're good with the final portion of the catalytic projects that may continue beyond the CRA sunset with city council approval. The agenda item
asks the board provide direction on the final version or approve the program with the selected reimbursement option. Fiscal impact remains the same. In concept, any approved rebate would be budgeted as decreased in future based on CRA or city revenues under the
individual agreement. The core program structure remains intact. The revised version still keeps the original framework. Post competition reimbursement, annual appropriation, executed incentive agreement, CRA, board and city council approvement and compliance and monitoring and economic
are all the same. environmental, social incentives and all those incentive categories remain the same. Uh the major new policy changes in addition to the Cadillac project, the revised policy adds Cadillac I won't say Cadillac
Cad [laughter] projects uh as a project designation not as a separate incentive category under the under the revised rules. A project may be designed may be designated the catalog by simply a majority vote by the
CRA board and city council if it meets at least two threshold criteria including major investment level location of uh location and priority corridor mixed use or destination elements mixed infrastructure or waterfront access housing or a
documented financial gap. The policy now also allows assignable incentive payments. The revised rules uh add assignment incentive meaning approved payments may be assigned in whole or in part to the lender or
financial or financial entity uh subject to CRA board and city approval to support project financing that is intended to make the incentive more uh financable for larger redevelopment deals. The Catholic system materially
changes the economics overall. The original program capped total tax increment uh incentive at 5% of increased value and annual reimbursement at 50% of annual increment made up of 30% of base plus 20%
additional uh incentive earned. Uh the revised uh Cadillac Cad Cadelic structure doubles the cap to 10%. Raises the reimbursement to 60% and allows the earned additional percentage to rise to a maximum of 40 during the
current CRA term. The board should understand what that means in practice. Under the revised Cadillac formula, the approved CALC project can reach up to 100% 95% >> 100% of the 95. >> Yeah. 100% 95. Make sure everybody
understood that [snorts] uh annual CRA tax increment during the CRA current term uh that is significant that is a significant policy change from the original program which always retained at least part of the increment
inside the CRA. The revised policy changes uh the current CRA sunset rule the original program said unpaid incentives terminate when the CRA is dissolved. The revised CALIC language creates an exception. If a CALIC project
is not exhausted uh has not exhausted its maximum incentive by the end of the current CRA term, the reimbursement may be continued after CRA dissolution at the project's earned additional percentage only, not doubled and only if
funded legally and available from city funds and annually appropriated. The revised policy also address uh further CRA extensions if the CRA is extended. Don't have any further information at this point. Still trying
and pushing on that. The CAC benefit uh do not automatically continue as doubled levels. Uh the revised structure contemplates that once any extension term begins, reimbursement would revert to the regular doubled structure with a maximum of 50% unless the catalytic
provisions are separately reauthorized. Calc authority is limited to the current CRA term unless reauthorized. The revised rules make it clear that the CALIC treatment applies to only the current CRA term unless a CALIC board well the CRA board and city council
choose to reauthorize its extension for an extended period. Uh that gives the board future discretion to revisit whether the city's needs after 2023 justify the same incentive approach. The board should focus on the policy
trade-off. The advantage of the revised program is that it creates a stronger tool for truly Catholic projects that may be otherwise not that may be otherwise not pencileled out, especially mixeduse waterfront corridor, housing or
infrastructure heavy projects. Trade off. The trade-off is that the city may be giving up a larger share of current increment for a Cal project. uh may be creating a city funded reimbursement tail beyond the life of the CRA. So we may take this longer if if we use this
site. Um recommendations to the board. I would recommend that the board treat the uh designation as an exception as an exceptional redevelopment uh tool not a not a routine incentive. The board wishes to move forward. The
most important discussion points are whether the Cadillac criteria meet whether the Cadillac criteria are tight enough, whether the board is comfortable with the reimbursement structure that that reach 100% of the annual increment
during the CRA term, whether the postc continuation should remain subject to annual city appropriation only, and whether any additional project level physical safeguards or project or per project caps should be added before
final approval. Just for you know suggested statement here tonight staff is seeking direction from the board on what it wants to what it wants to do in regards to uh keep the Cadillac uh concept as directed uh narrow if
required add fiscal guard rails or return with the final revised agreement and future Cadillac projects before adoption. So I now leave it up to you, >> Mr. Chairman on the direction of this and to the committee for final review and approval of this program.
>> Okay. Any other comments? >> No, I'm sorry out. [laughter] >> So obviously bled into board business. So let so close comments and obviously we're next item board business item number one the redevelopment incentive program. Um obviously Don spoke to that. So um I think what we ought to do is
probably step through. We obviously seen the the incentive package uh prec catalytic projects. So if we could pull it up, I'll kind of walk you through um what's changed in the policy that we basically what we talked about last meeting. So if you go to page three of
your packet, sorry, page four, that's the first sheet. Page five, you'll see that there's a 5.6 now uh talking about the cataly projects and we'll get to that in a minute. And under funding meth methodology you'll see there's 11.2.1 2.1 that gives you the project maximum
total ascent formula. 1131 is the annual reimbursement formula. 115 this is obviously 11 is the the majority of this catalytic stuff is the ascent duration. Uh 116 uh if it's if a C rate extensions are granted uh you have the example
calculations and uh some of [clears throat] that stuff. So if we step down through that um the catalytic project qualifying redevelopment project designed on page six now at the bottom uh designated by a simple majority vote of the CRA board upon a finding that the project meets at
least two of criteria set fourth and 56 when we get down there you'll see that um there's a there's a prerequisite and then there's there's items within there that they need to have two of those before we could uh ordain that as a cal project. Uh going to page seven um
you'll see that any um earned additional percentage um uh is set before any catalytic project multiplier. Again those double uh if it's a catalytic project. Moving on to page eight.
Um it talks about middle of the page that approved Cal projects may continue after Siri disillusion and it's going to talk about that in 11516. Uh moving on to page nine. Um in the key polic policies area about mid- page you'll see on post series funding for
approved Kelly projects. Any post continuation of proof Kelly project reimbursement shall be funded solely from legally available city funds subject to annual appropriation and shall not constitute obligation of CR trust fund after CR dissolution. Uh on to page 10 at the top.
Uh the Cadillac project exception approved Calc projects may continue after CR dissolution only is expressed provided in sections 11 level five level six and that explains how that's u laid out on page 11 uh under incentive caps um for approved
Kelly projects during the current CR term only the category caps and total additional incentive allocation shall be doubled as follows and so basically just takes the same policy and it doubles those six 6 and 8 to 12 and 16. um you still have to have um Kelly project still must qualify for incentive at
least two of those categories to receive more than the 16%. So it makes the same structure just in a double uh format. And then uh finally on that section during a C extension term if the CRA board reauthorizes catalytic project provisions and that's talking about if
we do extend a CRA and we decide because it current structure is once the CRA expires there is no catalytic provisions going forward into a CRA extension. Now approved catalytic projects that were already approved during this uh initial
CRA those continue to live on but any new catalytic projects there would be no no provision and what this says basically is we need to at that point if we do get a s extension term if we still want to have a provision for catalytic projects we could use the same structure
or we could uh refine it into different percentages whatever we want to do but going forward after a NA extension term there is no catalytic provision for new projects Okay. And so that's what that states there. [clears throat] Uh in 56 under Cataly projects, um this
lays out the the prerequisites. You have to have a demonstrated financing gap that's documented before you can even come as a Cadillac project. So this could prevent somebody coming in that just got buu money. They just want free government money. This this provision, you have to show that you have a
financing gap. And if you can't solve that, you your project won't move forward. So if that happens then and only then do we look at the the the bottom five things and there is a a small typo there in and the third bullet um includes mixed use or destinate component that provides public
infrastructure or waterfront access should be a separate bullet >> that's on page 11 of the packet >> that should be a separate bullet. >> Yeah. So that's those are two different things. >> So there's going to be five. You got to have two of those. So greater than or equal to a $20 million total
investment is one option located in a priority corridor and we added as determined by the CRA board. So we didn't want to just restrict it in here. So basically we could at any time say here's you know we want to focus on for example and that would be a priority
corridor that we would uh adopt and that would be available for a cataly project in that area. Um right now we just use an example here is US19 waterfront district but um we would need to basically set what our priority corridors are within the city that would
qualify. Um and so if it's if there's a project within one of those qualifying areas that would be one uh includes mixed use or destination component that's another provides public infrastructure waterfront access another. And then finally includes affordable housing component as described in section 93 and our
workforce housing as described in 94. So gap and you have two of those five then we can say yes this is a catalytic project and it would qualify for these additional incentives. Um cataly project designation is discretionary and shall require
execution of an incentive agreement approved by the CRA board. Catalytic project provisions apply only to the current CRA term and shall not apply in any CRA extension term unless reauthorized by the CRA board. And if any catalytic project provisions are reauthorized for any CRA extension term, the potential benefits extended to
catalytic projects within extension time frame shall be revisited to determine whether changes are appropriate based on the season's needs of time. That's just basically reiterating that hey this Catholic projects only go through the current CRA period and if we get an extension hopefully we will that those
terminate for new projects existing projects live on as you we'll talk about in a minute but uh if we want to continue to have that catalytic pro project we need to um revisit this at the time to put that in there and we can leave it the same or change it maybe we
don't do a a full doubling maybe we we we leave it the same but just all depends on the extension time frame and and whatnot. Uh page 12, nothing there different. These are all the same as we've seen before. Um there was a
typo. I think I got >> there there's a corrected version out there. For some reason, it did not get uploaded. >> Okay. >> Because I I corrected it all Friday morning. Yes. >> A2 we'll we'll make sure that everybody gets but there there was a corrected version that was sent out. Unfortunately, we didn't mean that's the
only difference we're talking about there. We're good. We just need >> Yeah, just a little >> It's all corrected. >> We got to get those corrected. >> We'll get copies later this week then. >> Yeah, I mean the version's been corrected. >> Okay. >> It just for some reason did the format
didn't get loaded up for some reason. >> There's a few spacing and and bullet spacing things. Not >> I apologize that it didn't get >> So we can approve as is. >> Nothing substantial. >> Nothing substantial. >> That's right. Right. [laughter] >> Um >> spacings allow. So, >> if you give me a second, I'll get my
cell phone and I can load. >> Good. Good. >> And I can send it to you all right now. >> Yeah, you're good. >> S might have a copy on his in his email. >> Um, going down to page 18. Um, talks about Cadillac projects are not a separate incentive category. Uh, their
project designation. Um, so it's just an add-on, if you will. Um, and then under the funding methodology, here's where we get to the meat and potatoes, right? So, for approved Kelly projects, this is page 18. Um the payment shall be governed by sections 1121 1131 115 116 during
current CR term the cat league project maximum total of cap shall be 10% so it doubles from 5 to 10 um of the increased property value and the base percent reimburse percentage goes from 30 to 60 and the earned additional percentage shall be uh doubled to a maximum of 40.
So if they if they get additional 10 it gets doubled to 20. If they get the full 20 it goes to 40. And then as you look at the 112 um well 11 sorry 1121 is a catalytic version. You basically take the post construction value minus pre-construction value take it times 10%
that's the maximum possible incentive amount for catalytics. Um 113 goes back to the regular 1131 is catalytic version and shows that um same calculation except it goes to maximum of 100% during the CRA term. Uh again
that's only during the current CR term which we got four or five years left. with the base percentage of 60 and then whatever they earn can go up to maximum 40. So potential 400 and then if you look at the example calculation down at the
uh yeah this page is just a regular one. We're getting ready to go to catalyst now. 115 at the bottom. It basically states that uh if if their maximum total extend is not exhausted by the end of the current CRA term that the reimbursement may continue after the de
dissolution at the project's earned percentage only. So they're they're hopping along. They're getting 100% the CRA ends. At that point you lose the entire base which was 60%. And you also lose the doubling on the additional you earned. And so if you earn 10% going
forward postCRA, you would only get 10% of the the tax rebated 90% would save the city. If you do achieve the full 20, which was 40 during the CRA term, doubled, that 20 is the only thing that lives on. And you'll see an example um
calculation below. Uh on page 20 uh this basically states that 116 again talks about um they only apply the current term and if it's granted prior
they'll they'll they'll retain the doubling but going forward um in an extension that would drop to the 50% maximum like we had before. Okay. So it's only you're only doing the doubling through the current CRA the four or five years we have if we do get
a an extension that existing project would continue on but it would drop to the regular 50% max um and then once that extension or this or is no extension it would just basically go to the earned percentage.
Any questions on that language? Okay. So follow along the bottom 20, you have the actual uh sample where they use a $2 million post construction value. So it's a $ 1.5 million different at the 10% that leaves them $150,000 in max incentive. And you'll look at the uh the
payment how it goes in. It basically takes the county and the city combined. 95% of that goes into the CRA. of that 95% um they're going to get 60% base 40% additional which would be a total of
19,514 which is the exact 95% of this money coming in we would have 5% still but the total CRA contribution from both city and county would be rebated uh back for those uh remaining years of our current CRA and
then 11721 shows if if we get a CRX extension how it would drop down to the 50%. So that 19 that we were providing would be now 9757 and 9757 would be retained in the CRA during extension and then 11722
um talks about post CRA or any extension would drop down and it would only get the 20% additional max which would be in this particular case the taxes coming in in total would be 9,435 um rebate would be 1,887. So we would
retain the additional that until it was exhausted and that's pretty much the entire policy with the catalytic stuff in there. All that's pretty much what we talked about. Um no differences. That's just how it's laid out in there. Um I think
at this point unless we have any changes I think it's ready. >> I have comments before >> and go ahead if you want. >> The lawyer has to come in talk about words. Words have Yeah, words have meaning. So, I wanted to just point out a couple things and ask for >> to make sure it's clear. Um, I'm I'm in section 5.6 on page 11 where you have
the um different options of how the the project may be considered a catalytic project. Um, you're asking for it to be a documented financial gap. You may want to say either what you mean by documented, what that looks like um or
that that is um you know document documentation requested by or required by >> lender bank you need. Yeah, you need because you might get a letter from my mom. Look, she really she really needs this. >> We really want to make 10 million on it instead of eight. >> So it might it might do you good to to
say what you mean by documented? What what's that? What's what what's a document that you're looking for? Is that something >> institution documentation? >> Yeah. Well, from the from the policy perspective here, there's a lot of things that are not solidified, but in that >> the agreement the agreement will be, you know, the agreement between you and the
actual individual that will really um nail everything down, but this you want it to be, and I think you'll see with my next few comments, you want the person looking at it, like the the um metric is, would a reasonable person look at this and know what you're looking for? So, they look at this and go, "Oh,
documentation." Almost the same thing. my mom wrote me a letter. Okay. Well, you didn't tell me I needed something from a bank. So, you just want to give them that clarity. They know they they know they may qualify or not before they ever come walk through the door. >> So, if we if we to fix that, would it be sufficient to say demonstrates a
financing gap documented from the lender? >> If you [snorts] want if that's the only thing you want to accept [clears throat] if there's I don't I don't I don't have big money. I don't do big investments. I would say from a qualified lender because they could just say, "Hey, I talked to my buddy the real estate guy and this is not going to work."
>> Only one at a time, guys. >> So, so if whatever again, since I don't live in that world, I don't know. A qualified lender makes sense to me, but there may be other documentation that would give you that information that gives you that comfort level. I don't know what that would be. Um,
>> you could put qualified lender or something else, a city request and [snorts] you can you can give it give it some a little language to give it some >> qualified lender is going to be somebody they've applied to and they've come back and said, "Hey, we can do it. >> We're going to underwrite the deal, but we need >> the deal, but here's the criteria." And
then we get a letter from that person saying, "Hey, we'll we'll pick up this deal, but here's the shortfall we have in this deal." Does that make sense? >> Yeah. I think it's probably >> We're inviting people that are financially strapped for this. Is that what we're up to? No, that's not true at all. No, >> that's what it says. You got you got you
have a financial problem and that's why you can >> Well, we're not going to we're not going to entertain as a catalytic project. Now, if you if you take Catalytic off, anybody get the incentive, >> but if we're going to give you enhanced benefits because it's a catalytic project. >> Well, you because you need to demonstrate that you're not just wanting
free money. You got to show us that you you have that's why I say why you have to offer free money. That's kind of my point that why do that? because they don't have enough uh if if when you go buy enough for that they choose >> when you go to borrow money for
something okay you say okay we're going to put 30% down okay and they're like oh the value of the real estate is here they're like hey we're not comfortable enough there's a a methodology they use to find out what the value of that real estate is if they're not comfortable enough they want an additional incentive there somewhere and if they don't have
any more than 30% down it's going to have to come from somewhere so that's where they're coming d >> they're biting up more than they shoot that's what I said yeah exactly but >> many listen there's not I I know people that don't use bank money to build stuff. They're all every every time you drive past the site says financing provided by
>> Yeah, but but the bank loans money to people physically responsible. >> I don't know if I understand, Bob. I'm sorry. >> You you loan money to the people that have car. They got to have a down payment or trade or they responsible to get that car. >> And sometimes we tell them they need a co-signer. In this case here, the city
is going to incentivize them and and sweeten the deal a little bit to make the bank feel more comfortable on putting the hundred million. >> I I I think to answer your question is um let's just use a $3 million shortfall. Okay. they could bring on another $3 million investor that has the
cash or whatever to make that deal work, but at the end of day, it's all getting wrapped up into a financing package because obviously they're not they're not sitting on $31 million to make the whole project work, right? Or I think it's going to be almost 50 million is what they need to to do this in this
case, right? And so a bank is loaning that to make it happen. Just like when you buy a house, you know, you get your down payments and all that, which is what the additional investors are doing. Um the reason it's a documented financing gap in the catalytic projects is just that is anybody can can get the
regular 5% max. Um but if it's a if it's a project that the city has a big stake in um as far as you know it's going to be in a priority corridor uh it's going to provide something that we want infrastructure whatever we have all those things. We just don't want to be
on the hook unless we're just we're gonna pony up and help a little bit more if they need it, not if they don't need it. Does that make sense? >> No. [clears throat] >> If if you >> No, because first of all, that was it's a city project, too. It's something that
we are going to benefit from. No, Nancy. >> No, it's you're going to benefit from it being in your city. You're not going to own it. >> Anybody develop, >> right? Yeah. You're not going to be a owner or have ownership in it. But we benefit from everybody in this the hills of the city. And we've got developers, actually new developers coming in right
now, a couple of them. [clears throat] And we've had all these other developers. They've never asked for anything from us. >> Well, it's policy. They could ask for that, right? And if they if whatever their project is, hypothetically, if they show a gap that's over 5% that
they can't make it work because 5% doesn't get it done where the 10% would, they could show that and they can access that during this current term. It's it's just a it's a really protection from the city. >> Everybody's probably not going to use it. >> The reality is is
>> I'm not sure if I want the people that can't use it in here. Okay, that's my point. I mean at this point here Bob I think we want to incentivize somebody to get something going. >> We offer that's the whole thing and and Cadillac programs basically are designed for cities that are desperate.
They don't have you know on water and then they're populated area. They don't have anything that people really want. They're looking for like an Amazon or somebody to come in there and they're putting together a catalog program to to really welcome them in to to develop something to say to create jobs and
stuff like that. I don't think we're desperate, but I'm not against the Cadillac program and I've brought up the incentive program before. The numbers are are off as far as I can see. I mean, it's just I don't see I don't understand why we're doing bending over giving up
all this money when we don't need to. I've been here 10 years or 11 years and I've been here for 40 >> and I appreciate that but I'm just talking about what I see from right over here. I haven't seen anybody rolling out there and dumping all kinds of money elsewhere. Okay, we've been talking about this forever right now and we've got somebody on the hook right now who's
ready to move forward and we've got a plan here that they believe >> Well, we're talking about down the people who own the 8 point some acres down here. >> The what >> the the the property where Gildogs used to be and the property where the town houses are, >> right? two years. They They bought that
two years ago. >> Yeah. >> And they came into the city here and they promised us all kinds of stuff. They owned the property. >> They didn't. >> They own it. >> I I know he bought the property. >> Yeah. >> And two years ago, he came in here and he promised us all kinds of different things he was going to do. He was going to put boardwalk involved property on
the waterfront. Remember all the stuff he promised? He put it in there. I don't know why he put in the newspaper. A lady got fired, by the way. I don't know why he did that. But he promised all these things. I've been waiting two years to see something and I haven't hardly seen anything. And what incentive do we have
in play when you bought the property? >> No. >> Exactly. Like anybody else bought property in here. We're looking for new people that have decades of successful experience to build something in here. And I'm like
this is might help us get some of the things we need. But why do we have to give up on this particular product maybe six7 million dollars when we're going to be losing tax revenues if it's not physically responsible to do this? I'm willing to do lesser numbers. I think it
would be and I think the bank we can roll this into making it permanent. So it's not just a short short term, it's a long term. I think the bank would probably appreciate that even more. So again, this this is uh this is open to everybody has it has
it has little to do with the current climate out there other than the fact that there's a case study that we were able to use some real life numbers on. >> What what's that? What case study >> the Burke property but again this policy is not this is not the Burke incentive policy. This is incentive policy for
everybody. So you have some new developers right there. They have access to this too. And if they and if they can come to us and they want to develop in a waterfront area or wherever else, maybe Grand Boulevard or what, again, I don't I'm speculating >> and I just got this a couple days ago
and I haven't had a whole lot of time to review a lot of it. >> Well, this is all this is is is uh is the same policy that you were at the meeting when we we talked about these things and and we gave staff direction to add those things in here. So, bring back >> and now they're added in here and now I see it. That's why I'm
>> Okay. Yeah. thing is I like to show a few more people this because frankly some people look at this and they as far as a developer they're looking for a city that's fiscally fiscally responsible. >> They this is this like I said people
look invest in in the city. Now this the Cadillac program is not a bad program but we have a lot to offer. We don't need to give up millions of dollars >> to bring developers in in here to build. We just don't need to do it. It's it's
it's you and you want to up it. If it's not working right, it might be years. We can make it permanent and maybe add five or 10% later, maybe in a certain area. >> Again, a question. >> Oh, yeah. So, how well how does this compare
the catalytic with other cities? Has there been a comparison done piece? He's saying it's way too much, but So, our situation's unique because our CRA is is our millage rates are very low and we've got award-winning fire
department, award-winning police department with the fastest response times around anywhere and purified water coming in. We got a lot to offer, more than other cities do. >> Yeah. Don, can you weigh in on this for us as a city manager and
looking at this and the future long-term effects of this, short-term effects? >> My my I'm not I'm not a committee member. I' I've put no effort into this.
Just from a city manager funding perspective, from from my position, all I'm looking at is generating funds for the city for the services that we provide. What I where where I'm
always cautious is where I assume risk with certain projects that may cost me services or funding in the future that I may not have available to me to execute the mission for the for for for the council
for the city and for the residents. the and that would be my only fear is that if if if we give away too much money as we grow I won't have the funding to support the growth that I have but we
just went through the annexation policy and we saw that annexation here um for those that did attend annexation it looks good strategy I think is solid I think the I think the phases and the policy will work but it's going to take us time to get there in order to offset
maybe some of the catalytic investments depending on when they sunset because with I think with annexation it'll take 5 to 10 years to actually see some real growth in in funding with it whereas I've got to I I just caution us on how
deep we we we we we reach into our pockets to bring somebody on board just so that we and I say we can maintain what we owe to the residents of the city of of rich and I just want to be careful that we don't put anything at risk. That's just where I sit because to me
everything's about weighing risk over reward and right now I just want to make sure that the reward is worth the risk that we're willing to assume at this in this in this in this agreement with this policy. That's all. And and I'm very
agnostic to this. I just as a city manager, I'm always worried about the budget for the council for the city. >> You can what you would recommend as far as the percentages as a city manager looking forward.
That's the hard because because right now I would say without the policy in place I may not have a project for revenue. So that's that's one side of the coin. But then then again on the other side of the coin is you know when do I actually
start benefiting from the revenue that I do receive. So, it's kind of a it's one hand and the other hand. So what what we're doing is we're all betting that this project gets going hopefully soon so that we're able to so that
everybody's able to capitalize on it to include us which is you know we get a return on the investment [clears throat] they get a return on the incentive and in turn you know we're able to move forward because there's where I don't get a lot of risk in is services over in that direction because why it's already
contained I already got enough fire police everything that cont that can support that I've got enough water resources and everything that gets pushed out to that area. The only areas of risk that I that I assume from services is that I'm going to need a lift station in the process of the
development. And maybe this will help in the process of them being able to purchase and and have it added to the project. And those are the things I think about strategically as I look at this. But like I said, I'm not tied one way or the other. I just want to make sure that we've got a good project move
forward that the council all agrees upon so that I can exeute because I can only execute what you guys agree upon because I am your weapon to move forward and achieve success. >> I know there's some developers be happy if this was the numbers a half of what we have. They'd be delighted and it does
look like we're more fiscally responsible. >> Where are they doing that? It's like 15% instead of 30. >> Where are they? What properties being purchased? >> Let's be real with you. discreet. They're professionals. They're not going to just come right out. >> But they're >> they are they going to buy property? They not because until they buy
property, they can't do anything. I mean, >> have they bought property is my question. >> Huh. >> Is there anybody besides the Burks and his Krueger that's bought property down a waterfront? >> They're buying it. They're in the process right now buying it. >> I believe that they could be. I mean,
they were right. Last time I I heard it, they were getting ready to >> What? Phil, >> why? It's actually relevant. >> It's very relevant. >> Why is it relevant? >> Because because >> first of all, there's people that were willing to buy property down here.
>> Where are they? >> Well, they're out there. >> Well, they need to buy property. So, >> well, first of all, we need when this is for new developers, the whole package. >> You're exactly right. >> The zoning, the codes, >> but you know, the pre finish, please. >> By all means, >> the police department, the fire
department, our location. We have prime real estate. Mhm. >> the best real estate pack to a county, one of the best on West Coast of Florida. We have that to offer. Now, we're showing we're willing to do business with people and we have to finish the package. Like I said, the zoning, the codes, this is just part of it
>> and once they see all that, they're looking out and they're interested >> and they [clears throat] will buy property down here and they will develop and they're have decades of success, but they're not just going to come and jump on something until they see see something. Now, there are people right now that are buying property
and they got a a condo project going right next to Avalon Bay. So, they didn't come in and ask for anything, but they're they've submitted all the paperwork, you know, so they're buying property also, and they didn't ask for any incentives. So, that's why I'm saying that you don't need to do all
this. Um, as far as I mean, we're bending over. We're giving up. I remember you slamming your hand and yelling at me, telling them, "We're getting $87,000 a year from this project. We raise our our milit." Now you're getting half of more than
half of it up. I don't understand why. >> Okay. Finished. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, I will explain it to you very very detailed. Okay. There there's eight and a half acres down there. And I just talk about this project because that's that's reality.
It's purchased, right? So it's not it's not a pipe dream. It's actually they got they've sub city PUB uh to get the PUD approved. Um this ongoing process. So you haven't seen anything and delivered on any promises yet is because it's all part of the process that they've got to
go through. And part of that process is be able to finance the entire project. Um and they and they've showed us uh that there's a demonstrated finan financial gap. Okay. maybe not uh more than a spreadsheet or whatever, but again in the catalytic version of that, you will see that that uh is going to
need from a lender or whatever to show that and they can show that. That being said, this particular project at $31 million is phase one of that entire project. Okay, just that $31 million generates at our current mill rate 1949.
So 95,000 a year in tax revenue. Okay. Postc that's that's our money. Okay. Um if it if we were to again this would be a vote to to deem that project a catalytic project. Maybe we put this in there and that isn't a catalytic
project. But if it is deemed a catalytic project. The reason we want to do that is because if that project doesn't get done that phase one that's much more than that. If that phase one doesn't get done, that's $195,000 a year in tax revenue that we would not get.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Or somebody else would come in and build something else there. Right. But they own it. They would have to sell the property to somebody else. >> Right. >> Okay. And so a Catholic project would have up to instead of 5% 10%. So on $31
million, it's $3 million, right? So, a 10% investment of $3 million at $195,000 a year in tax revenue that pays off that investment in 15 years, that property is going to produce and that's that's without any inflation. You know, it's going to go up in price every
year, right? So, you're going to get more than just that. But I'm saying everything the same. You're getting a constant 200 grand a year revenue. Um, that's your initial investment, which again, you're not putting anything down, right? All you're doing is giving them a portion of the tax back. And the reason
for the 100%. Okay? And again, we've all talked about this and I explained it is our [snorts] CRA is coming to an end. It does no good for us to continue to pump money into the CRA and close it down because it should be a zero balance when we close it down. In five years, it
needs to go broke. Okay? And so that's all we're trying to do is use the CRA that we have left and we have very little runway and propel a project to completion. And I would venture to say that everybody's waiting and they've been waiting
probably for the hundred years of existence we hear. We do have a great piece of property here on the water and for whatever reason it's not developed and it's not changed hands and there's been property for sale down there for eons. This particular property was purchased. They're moving forward and I would venture to say that if it starts
and shovels go in the ground, I think you're going to see more opportunity come in. But again, we've got a very short window of CRA left. So, we need a project that's going to jumpstart that economy down there. Okay? And if it's the Burks, great. If it's not the Burks,
somebody. But I don't care who it is. I want something happening down there. And only way that's going to happen is if the city is willing to partner with whoever it is and get only way it'll happen. >> Huh? >> This is the only way you can get anything to be created down there on the waterfront.
>> Yeah. If somebody wants to come in and >> Well, there's people actually there's developers that already got a performer. They've got they spent tens of thousand dollars already on architectural design on what they're going to be doing down there. Uh they got I mean they got
just about everything laid out. So they're pretty serious about >> if they if they don't need any city >> ask for this. But they're excited about this. >> Yeah. But they don't I mean and the Cadillac Pro is like a big bonus and it might help us get what we want but the numbers are are a little ridiculous. That's all.
>> Okay. It if you if you was to leave it to 50%. You're going to get very little uh incentive back is is that that's the reason for the catalytic is to again we want to go broke in five years on CRA because once fear ends you can't you
can't do any projects. Matter of fact, even before the the CRA ends, the legislature next year could say no new projects. They tried that already. It didn't go through, but it's it's on the the plate every year. So, they could shut down any new projects at any time.
And then it's just a matter of we got to spend down what we got in there. So again, if we've got a project that's actually going to be, >> can't we let let this and the state state needs to look at it anyway? But it' be be nice if we had some
professional at the county look at this. >> No, >> I mean it's our program. We can we can stall and all kind of people look at it. >> Isn't that why we got attorney? >> Yeah. Well, Nancy, you you you're completely satisfied with this. >> I don't make policy decisions. I do not
do numbers. >> I thought I asked you. Are you completely >> You can legally do this. Yes. >> Huh? >> You can legally do this. That's my job here. My personal thoughts and preferences about >> But are you completely satisfied with the program? >> From a legal perspective, I would like some more clarification. We kind of got
off track doing. Other than that, if this is what the council wants to do as a policy, >> Yeah. >> I'm just I'm just It's just from what I I've looked at and some of the people that I've showed this are very few is fiscally irresponsible to do it.
>> Well, I'd like to could you explain that a little bit more? Why is it >> Well, it's you're you're first you say it's a $3 million gap. What What is the project total cost >> first? 31 million. >> The total cost. Uh, I think I don't have numbers in front of me, but I want to
say the that's what it's going to be the uh the projected value for tax purposes. Uh, I think it's I think they're looking almost $50 million to develop that town home development that they're looking at. So, they're going to have to they got to get financed for, you know,
>> is it is he selling condos or is he renting them out or what's he doing with it? >> They're town homes is the last I heard. Again, I've not seen any I've not seen anything submitted to city. >> Well, that's Yeah, kind of important. So is he is he selling >> that doesn't matter selling them >> remember this this I know that's a real
life situation but the policy is bigger than that >> the policy is supposed to be for anyone that qualifies >> I understand that >> so so what what they are or are not doing really is not even relevant to this conversation um because this is supposed to be about the policy that you all want or the majority of you want not
what one developer may or may not benefit from >> I'm also afraid that you know this if he's if he's had a gap. This isn't going to help him either. But >> so it might help them, but it's not going to solve all his problems when you do it that way.
>> What What problems do they have? I mean, again, >> well, developers have a 10 15% overrun when they go when they go to build something. I mean, by the time they get done, it could be like the $100 million project could cost $135 million. I don't
know. But this I just don't see why we need to bend over and and give up all this money. >> The original policy was 12%. That we came from where this come from? Brington or >> the the first um version was >> Brington
program. >> Well, but they out the gate. So it was 12% was the max, right? And so and what they did is they went on until it exhausted and you're talking about depending on size of the project they could go out for 50 plus years and so
their sunset much further. >> Yeah. And so we have a unique case because our CRA only has a few years left of it, right? And so we're trying and this should have been in place years before. >> Okay. And if it wasn't before, maybe we'd have something built down there already. I don't know.
>> Maybe. But that's that's another thing. We're we're putting this together and a lot of developers don't need to see these kind of numbers, but >> what explain to me what the developers care >> how much money the city is going to help them with. Why is that a bad thing from a developer standpoint?
>> It's a it's a fiscally responsibility thing. It's looks like we're desperate as all. >> We're not desperate. We're not desperate. All we're trying to do is provide a a structure to where we can leverage our CRA to the max um with with a little bit of runway we got left so
that hopefully something does happen before it expires because if it expires then our ability to give anything becomes uh our ability is significantly reduced if the CRA expires and nothing happens.
So, so the bank wants to see uh us help them with the $3 million gap and they they feel this is what'll do it. But this will give them this more like a $7 million, isn't it? I mean, over five years or four years. >> Well, there's you have you have the
value now and you have the the future value. Yes. Again, it's the the financing gap takes on consideration. Um, but from this particular instance, uh, the the the gap on the the example here, which is a $1.5 million project,
um, I don't know what that is because it's that the data is not here, but it just shows you how that plays out in a real life scenario. If you use the real life example I have, they have $31 million um, valuations expected. It's about 5049 $50 million of uh, total
project cost. Um I think their their their gap is right at about three million. So it's commensurate with with >> Yeah. Well, like I said, you got overruns could be five, six, seven, eight million, you know. So 3 million. That's first that's why I'm saying 3 million is a big project is not a big deal.
>> It's it's my understanding that >> and again he promised us all this thing when he started and there was no incentive program. He didn't ask for one that now that two years later we still not sure what he's doing. >> Okay. >> And now we [laughter] have to do this one. If you got a problem with the
current uh uh property owner down there and you don't like the project or whatever, you're going to have a vote on that forward. You're going to have a vote whether it's a Cadillac project or not. Again, this policy does not pertain to them >> specifically. But I can tell you once it's adopted, they will be applying for
it because that's, you know, this is anybody. If you have developers that you know are coming in >> and they buy property, which they're going to have to do first, by the way, you can't just come develop project if you don't own anything. You can give us a couple weeks to let other people look at this and get more professional opinions on this.
>> I mean, can we do that? Can we just table it for another CR? >> Listen, dragging our feet on this thing forever. We got something. Yes, we have. >> Just got it three days ago. >> You just told me. Can we not get Can we Are you like you and the developers or is it like you What's the deal? I'm
trying to figure you out with what the deal is with you and these other people because we have we have a we have a burden hand right now. We have a burden hand. >> There's an accountant. >> The burden hand, you're supposed to grab it and take it home. We got a burden hand down there that owns property down here right now. And you've been talking about these other developers and bringing people in here. We don't have
anybody who stepped up to play with the check. We got somebody else who did. And we today we got a plan here. They said they can make this work if we approve this. We're supposed to do this. We're as we're responsible. >> We ask for when when we first started >> because what do you think's happened over the past three or four years? The
dollar has dove down what by 50%. We've watched it. Okay. A lot of things have changed over the last couple years. >> Other people have built things, >> but we have we have a committed developer right now who's ready to move forward. Says, "Hey, I need a little bit of help and here's the help they need."
We are supposed to make that happen. We're not supposed to say, "Hey, let's just kick it down the road a little bit more." We're not supposed to do that. They've been doing it up here forever. We need to make this happen now. >> This is to welcome, like I said, new developers. And he's been here two years. is not a new developer. >> He's absolutely a new developer.
>> Huh? >> He is a new What do you mean a new >> He's had a property for two years. >> How long do you think it takes to develop property, Bob? >> Uh, not too long. It depends on the developer. >> Years to get through this process. That's where we are right now. We're at the We're at the end of the runway right
now. >> I've seen condos out in Wesley Chapel go up >> in months. Bob, they purchased that property years before that and they've been working on those plans for years. Trust me. the I I want to hear the concerns about the fiscal irresponsibility because I
don't see that. >> Well, that's why I want more people to look at this. >> What are you talking about? Two weeks do that. We can't wait two weeks. We can do this tonight. >> Are you not confident to make a decision based on these numbers? You >> No, I'm not confident. >> We met two weeks ago on this and you
didn't raise any concerns. I did raise some concerns, but I wasn't sure about it and I haven't talked to >> Well, so what you So now you saw it, right? You've seen it >> and now you have a concern. Is it because >> 100% sounds like everything? I guess is
that >> because it's a lot. Yes. >> Yeah. And and to explain that, it's only for millions of dollars. It's only for in reality probably three years because we've got 2032 is a drop dead
and that's January one, right? And so by the time because it this doesn't you don't rebate anything until there's a certificate of occupancy issued. And so let's say they get this built and done and ready to >> go in a year. >> You're probably talking about three
years of that uh increased incentive. And if you wait any longer, it'll be even less than that. what, two weeks? >> I can tell if you send this out to expert, they're going to they're going to look under this and they're going to they're going to say, "Well, it's really up to you." Um, and they're going to
they're going to take under circumstances, you're really not giving away anything because you're not getting anything. If something gets developed and and keep in mind, that's CRA money. What can you use it for? It's a restricted fund. It ain't like we can
pay our police or pay our fire. >> No, but we can do a lot with our parks. We have dogs. We need a lot of things. >> Right. Okay. >> Right. >> And so if they don't develop that project down there, you're not getting anything. If you develop a project,
we're going to get >> if you're going to get you're going to get a lifetime of whatever tax revenue that brings in. But in order to make that happen, you need to incentivize it. >> Like I said, we have projects. We have developers right now building condos right next to Avala. And we got Abala
and we've got Abigail Fort and the Keys. We've got all these developments that never asked for anything. We're getting revenue from them now [clears throat] >> and we'll get revenue anyway. >> There wasn't anything to ask, right? >> Well, there was no there was no >> which is why we haven't built or been
doing much of anything here and we've been >> Well, it's changed a lot because the city was different several years ago. You know, council was not council was not development friendly. >> Right. But but Right. But what do they >> just just having five people up here that's development friendly doesn't do
jack squat unless you actually enact policy. That's what I'm saying. >> That encourages that and that's what we've done over the past two years, >> right? What what changed? What 8 and 12 acres? Why did it sell all this if we're doing >> that 8 and a2 acres? Why did it sell? It was because we were development friendly. It was because they made a
request. We had big public engagement. >> It's a good question. >> But because when he bought it, he came in told us all this other stuff he was going to do, which obviously now we know is a lie. It's impossible. >> Why do you say that? because he can't he didn't do anything. He didn't buy all
this property. He didn't he can't do all the stuff he said he was going to do. All he's going to do is is I what I understand he said it's it's rental HUD housing. >> He's working with HUD. He filed with >> No, there there was a time they were looking at HUD. Uh >> they're not looking at HUD no more. >> Not doing HUD at all.
>> Okay. So, he was looking at rentals. >> They are rental. >> Wanted to make it worker friendly, the low cost rentals for some people if he could. I'm not sure what it is. But it's not everything he said it was going to be. So it was two years. So he
said when he bought the property that was like he was going to put a magic land down there, something for his kids and family could enjoy and the citizens could enjoy and all this other. Now it's going to be private property and it's not going to be what he said it's going to be. Not that I'm not against it and not that I don't want to be successful.
>> I'm not sure what he's doing and what he was thinking of when he bought the property. >> Going to remind him we're not here to talk about that development today. And >> I again I know there there's a lot of >> Well, that's not why we're doing this. >> That's not what we're doing. >> We're doing this to incentivize
development in our community, not just for one team, but for anybody who wants to come down the pike, >> including I think they've done a great job here, Bob. I really do. I think they've done a good job putting this together. I think this is a there's a difference between catalytic, okay, and an incentive program. A catalytic
consent program is meant to start a fire and get something going. And that's what we're trying to do right now because that starts just like in s you know when when six of them are sold and there's what I said earlier people start buying >> Cadillac programs are for a lot cities
that are in dire need for development. >> Bob if you and I get in the car and drive around right now I can show you some of the most blighted areas within just a mile and a half here. We need some We need some >> I saw a lot today all over the place. >> Yeah it >> but that's not our fault.
>> Let me ask you this. That was from previous administrations. >> We are responsible now and we have an opportunity right now. >> I know we do and that's why I'm trying to be responsible. >> I I think we are being responsible. >> If you could put anything you wanted down there in waterfront right in the center of it just hypothetical what
would it be? Just give me something that that that you would get behind 200%. Margaritavville hotel just something that would be bad. What would you put in >> hotel and clubs and things like that? >> Okay. Let's say that you got a developer right now that owns that property,
right? And they are looking to do all those things and they they demonstrate that they've got a shortfall that equals 10%. 5% gets them half of that, but 10% would make all that happen. Okay?
Hypothetically, that's what this would allow is for them to come and get that additional max, which again is still 2% less than it was when it came from the experts that put it together. I mean, I was the one advocate to drop it down to five because I'm trying to be
fiscally responsible. >> So, the experts, you mean Don? But >> no, this could you explain where this original policy came from? >> The initial policy that Darren looked at, I'm not I'm sure he went out and found other policies. The first one I gave him when this whole conversation
started was from Bradon. So if you want to look at the Bradenton CRA policy, that's where these incentives come. >> And tell them about Bradon, the folks that were behind putting this together and how much time was spent. >> I don't know that. I just they have they have a they have a a separate CRA um director and manager and it's a big
program. I can't tell exactly what went into it. I just know they have a long history of doing it and the director came from other municipalities where he put similar programs together. >> This is based off of catalog program. They do not have catalytic. >> Okay. Well, >> they're your initial version.
>> I know. And that's what we had here. >> So, we stripped that original poly to the bone. >> But Bob, if if we don't have this in place and these developers don't build this, then we won't have that money to put into the parks either. It won't
their tax dollars won't be going into the CRA anyway to go towards the parks. If this if we don't get these things done, there's nothing for the parks. >> And you're you're completely satisfied with this. >> I I've been following this the entire time. I've been asking questions. I've
been researching the heck out of it. And I think yes, I'm very much satisfied with it because of the short time that we have left in the CRA and what can be done with the CRA money. What limitations are on that CRA money? >> Yeah, that's the big >> we can't we can't do general funding
type stuff with this money. So, >> okay. everything that >> but I got some people I'd like to show it to I just don't have time to do it and I wish I did that's all >> the um postc it's a very anemic so for at max because
the cataly project lives on past CRA all right so the percentages the 100%'s only for a very short window three to four years max if the CRA extended it's at 50 which I think we all agree fair post CRA we're operating at 80 cents on
the dollar as opposed to hundred, you know, dollar on the dollar. So, we're going to give back and that goes out for a long time to to exhaust whatever is out there, right? So, but we're getting 80% of it. 80% of something we would never have. So, it's a uh from my humble
opinion, it's a very uh for the city, it's a very uh good program. it was stripped down to the bone and it um the catalytic portion we have in here um fixes that shortfall. It still
accomplishes transformational development in the city, but it keeps us very fiscally responsible. Um and again, it's a very short runway and we may not even have a catalytic uh option after 2032 if we choose at that point. Maybe we don't need it or maybe we maybe we
find out we do. Um concerns about this development can be addressed at another time. Um because we'll have to determine whether he's a catalytic. >> Well, we'll have people look at it
anyway. And you guys already made up your mind pretty much. So, >> well, we've been working on this for a long time, you know, and we've been asking questions. >> We've been working on the incentive program while we haven't worked on the catalytic program. I'm not concerned about the the tax incentives, the bonuses. We That's I'm not have no
problem. And I really don't have a problem with the catalytic program. >> Okay. >> I don't understand why we're doubling it. I know it's short term. You got to double it because it's short term. >> Yeah. >> So if you didn't double it, it's still short term and you're still you're going to get more money. >> The the doubling is is and I agree.
>> I'll be first to tell you 50%. I didn't want to give away any more. But as I thought about it >> with only a two or three years, >> you're really not there's nothing there's no time to give. So, and again taking that aspect that we really want
to be at zero in the CRA when it ends. Um, so even if we pile money in there, we can't spend it really. Um, so why not incentivize it if it's catalytic, double it for that very short window just to get them as much back as possible and
then they then they go very anemic afterwards. um and the project happens because we we really we really can't put a good incentive package together with three or four years left on Siri. That's really the reality. >> That's the problem. >> That's the problem. That's the only and because I'm with you 100% is ridiculous
>> if you think at it in [snorts] just that tunnel vision >> still four or five years. It's it's >> money that >> it won't be it won't be four or five years though because the project has to be built and evaluated, right? >> Has to be done and we got Yeah. Okay. >> It's got to be and let's just say the
project finishes >> uh >> so if it's not July in three years then if it's or it's done in three years they only get two years then >> correct >> so that's the problem it's such a short window >> efficiently after this year >> we're not going to have anybody take
advantage because you be the end >> yeah unless you are getting in this now it's really a waste of time right so but obviously going forward you know if we get a CRA extension then we're back at 50%. So >> any developer wanting to take advantage
of this will need to get busy really fast. So if you're thinking that you're not seeing the progress that you were promised, >> you will >> you will because the end goal is the ending of the project and the valuation
of the project is when they when they start seeing their benefits. And if they drag that out too long, then three years turns to two years. two years turns to one year and suddenly there's nothing left >> and then they're shipping themselves in things right now.
>> They have incentive to get >> okay so when the CRA is finished in five years we'll roll this over at half of what we have or maybe even less >> if if it's a catalytic project >> if it's a cataly then they will continue
into the extension but at 50%. the doubling stocks, >> but it's only and you have in there um that one incentive is for people that have shortfalls where they have gap >> in order to get in order to have a catalytic designation on your project.
You have to show us that you just aren't seeking, you know, four years of 100% reimbursement and extra temp. You need to show us that you can't get it done unless they're deemed calic. >> So that is that a whole bunch of developers are fiscally responsible.
They don't qualify for this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, not a not a catalytic. They still would >> That's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about just catalytic all if they don't need any money. Um, one they don't need an incentive for
them, is it? >> But they can still access the incentive. they just can't be a catalytic project. So they would just basically get the 50%. And it would terminate at the end of CRA. >> Yes. And so >> you got that new version emailed to me. You said up
>> everybody's got a copy of the the current version. Just the current version. >> Hopefully it printed out for some reason. For me it's one long scrolling document. So hopefully it came out as individual word documents for for for the team here. but it's the completed uh uh finalized version of of what
>> of unfortunately you didn't have on your computer >> and so obviously time time kills deals and like I said the whole reason we're trying to do this is to maximize the amount of CRA runway left so that something can happen whoever it is right so I would I would
uh urge a motion to approve this uh as written with this formatting in your whatever else you want to put >> yep I have few other things I can't I can't define it. I need you guys to kind of give me directions. There's a couple more I want to talk about when you're ready. >> I think Well, I'm ready to make a motion. So, you tell me what you want.
>> Let me let me go back to 5.6 real quick just to get some clarification. What is that? >> Um page 11. >> Um I think then the second one I was going to talk about I think uh mayor you clarified this. It says located in a priority corridor. That needs to be people know what that is. Yeah. So it it
can be separate from this policy but there needs to be something that you guys say this is what that means. So people know what that is and it can't be changed willy-nilly >> when certain people ask for it. Right. So that just needs to be something that that's that's what you indicate was going to happen. >> Um next you have >> Nancy, what was that? What was that one?
>> The um the priority corridor. What that >> I mean what was that annotated as? Five paragraph. What? >> Oh it's 5.6 is the third bullet. >> Okay. Priority corridor is determined by CRA board. >> Let me ask you something too on that.
Um, >> don't we need to designate that to do that? >> That's what I'm saying. >> Does that have to be something that would be like a resolution type thing or policies? You could you know what that is right now? You could put it in here and of course be subject to change if you guys want to change it.
>> Yeah. Well, and I I would suggest we do that. Um >> well that would be you want to say like from Grand to the bridge you know anything west of 19 or like you got uh anything from Grand south on the east side of the bridge
>> and immediate properties on Grand if you want to do something like that. Yeah, I think our Grand Boulevard corridor and I think the waterfront overlay district area slash >> and that would be Grand South to the bridge and then you'd have grand south
to the bridge on on both sides 19 actually I guess. >> Yeah, I think at first definitely that now maybe and we can always reconvene and add to that later. The three zones are defined in the future land use >> one and two.
>> We have there's three three zones. >> One, two, and three. >> Right. So, do we activate all three zones? >> So, we could activate all >> Well, but it doesn't have to mimic those same zones either. It can be targeted areas, right? So, >> I mean it that's
>> right. Those are too broad. I'm saying you have the you have 19 corridor, you have the waterfront, and then you have the other waterfront. I think is a three z. >> If we're putting a package together where we're going to be zoning and putting in codes, it should be the same as those properties as well. I would so
not as confusing. >> I mean, I would for >> you would never see the catalytic project happen on those because they would have to buy all those properties and go. >> So, I think you put all three in there. It doesn't matter >> the whole city.
>> No, it's the three zones in the future land zone in the future land use. Um >> well, we have to pay attention if we want >> Well, the whole city has a future land use. >> No, there are three defined zones. There's the >> talking about the river landing stuff 19
district and then there's >> yeah you had the 19 corridor you had the waterfront one and two if you want to exclude but then you have some areas and three that are you know shoot if somebody wanted to come along and do
something with some of those areas I don't see why not >> well right but they still >> it's unlikely >> the incentive thing is for citywide it's only catalytic projects >> right that's what I'm talking about catalytic projects. >> Well, you could make a citywide. Somebody might want to build something on sunglow >> and somebody wanted to
>> and they could be financially stripped and we could help them with that if that's the case, >> right? What does that matter? >> Yeah. What does it matter? >> It matters because you're going to give more incentive to make that happen. It >> Well, you said >> let's say somebody wants to build a car
wash. It's not a catalytic project. >> I know it's not. So, why why matter? [laughter] What difference is that? Well, because this is open to any project and any project could then say, "Well, I'm I'm demonstrating a shortfall and then you have to beat these things." But you could make it citywide. But again, >> no, I'm not talking about citywide.
There are three defined zones. >> If there are three defined zones and it doesn't include the entire city. >> Yeah. Can we see those zones talking about I think I know >> was was Grand Boulevard in there. Cody River Landing, then all the area by
Crabshack, and then north of that up to the point there at like Washington and uh Washington and 19, >> right? >> Back to Grand and then Grand or um >> it's it's where those homes are and the
businesses are on the left hand side. >> Um all all of that, the 19 stretch, the waterfront stretch, and everything over at James Clark and Bailey. There's pretty much all the 19 in the waterfronts, >> the Ba Bailey, >> right? Could even be uh I do believe it
would be the uh where Grand comes around where Weber [snorts] is the water in between and then that that's all but zone three that goes over to Bailey and uh James Clark lot where they saw
fireworks. >> Yeah. 19 of Washington. >> I'm pretty sure it is. >> There south. >> Yeah. Let me see if I can pull that up. It should be >> I think I'm good with all those areas. >> Future land. Yeah. Future land. >> Yeah. Future land use is an entire city
has future land use. But >> there are three zones. I'm saying one, two, three that are named. You're you're talking specifically about that exercise we had with uh the planner >> that didn't include the whole city. >> No, no, no, no, no. They're just the
three zones that I'm talking about. >> You're talking with waterfront one, waterfront two, river landing, and the >> in the 19 corridor person. Okay. Yep. I'm tracking all all four. >> Yeah, >> I think those would be your priority corridors, >> right?
>> But I would say I would say Yeah, >> I've got it here. >> Yep. Those that's it right there. Um, I'm not sure. [clears throat] >> Anybody want water? >> Yes, please.
>> Anybody else? [clears throat] Water busy over here. >> Okay. And that's the same one I use, man. Yeah, definitely one and and see that clear river landing is the whole yellow which it's kind of the merge of two
zones the waterfront too you know I don't you know do we want all that included in there >> that's what I'm thinking No, but >> I'm thinking one, two, and one, two, and
four. Uh waterfront and >> there's a four. >> One, two, and Code River Landing. >> One and three. >> That's our investment. >> The basically yellow shaded area and two >> two. >> Yeah, that's the part by CJ.
>> Yeah, three could be important too because I mean that's all 19. >> You don't think the 19 corridor >> fits? Oh. we could put in some together. >> The again the incentive is available across the board even outside these
areas. >> This if whatever you deem as targeted areas I mean >> that's a good chunk of the city that you're going to make catalytic. >> Nobody's going to jump >> three years left. We could see some
growth just take off if they wanted to jump in now. It's unlikely. It's highly unlikely. But if it did happen, I can't see a negative. >> I agree, Christine. I think it should be all three. >> Yeah, >> we we want to do something with all three of those zones. If they wanted to jump on some
>> Yeah, it's our main area that we want to do something with. Anyway, >> I mean, should something take off and run, then we got some to deal with, you know, then we're sitting here saying, "Hey, let's scramble." >> We still have to determine >> if it's catalytic. >> That would open up Chick-fil-A for catalytic project.
>> I think that's right. That's not >> That's like five million maybe. >> Yeah. I mean, it has to fit the five specifications catalytic north of Bridge >> in that. >> Yeah, it is. But
>> no, you're not even close there. >> Oh, it's Yeah, see it's Yeah, you're right. >> It doesn't qualify. Anyway, >> that that triangle on the upper left hand or upper right hand side is where they sell the fireworks. Straight across from the the chamber.
>> Is this is that Oh, that's that little corner. Okay, I see what you're saying. >> That's where Yeah, that's straight in front of the chamber. >> Yeah, that's fine. That's not very far up. >> Nancy, for clarification, if we give you those three Yeah, I'll talk to Don. He's he's he's
the scribe over there. The all the words. >> So, express your concern now about the rest of three here. Just >> No, no, no, no. I >> You think it's bigger than it was, too? Is that >> No. I just think I think keeping it like you said, open because you don't know who you're going to get. You don't know
what they're going to bring in. You could you could you could have a a major um investor come in probably more east because you're looking for more land and less waterfront for let's say a Dave Busters or let's say a bass pro shop. I don't
know. because what I went to this weekend >> should have asked for a show >> because that's where that's where I went this weekend. But but but it would be a big investment but you wouldn't want to exclude them. But our priority areas what is going to be where are we where are we making our biggest investment to
increase our community value and it's it's that it's that what you're looking at. [clears throat] >> Yeah. And >> that's a priority area in my mind. >> Yeah. And I like I said that that three doesn't encompass a whole extra. It wouldn't be bad to have that, >> right? >> Because the only other place you could do something like this anyway is this
stuff. Okay. >> Really a lot of work and time and money went in determining those three. They are in need. >> And those three zones right there are going to be part of your of your formbased zoning project once we get
that up and lifted off the ground and we start looking at what's getting developed there. So what so what in my mind's eye as I strategically look at this as I move forward with your formbbased coding and design those are the areas that we have decided that that and that's been decided previous events
ago that that's what it needs to be so I think our investment is altered >> yeah I'm in agree with that one two and three I think yeah some I think it was much bigger than it was but it's just >> Mr. We're all in agreement. >> One, two, and three. >> So, my next >> You can make your motion. >> So, that that clarifies a one.
>> I'm going to my next one. So, the next bullet um it says includes a mixed use includes mixed use or destination component. I know mixed use refined. >> What do we mean by destination component? There's no definition within your definitions. It's not defined anywhere else. I think you need to provide some kind of clarity to what
that means. the the intent here again these were kind of these kind of came organically it wasn't anything a real thought went behind it um I thought there was a good mix of things but the uh destination was you know people want
to go and gather there so it's a mixeduse component so you got people living there and I think obviously mixed use we know what that is lower level shops retail whatever people are gathering there and so it's it's it creates a destination how do you define ation means you want to get on your golf
cart and go over there and drop some money. >> It's place you >> people want to go and gather >> public area >> restaurants right I mean it's place of gather >> okay that should get done and I what you need um then we have um provide the next
bullet >> public infrastructure waterfront >> provides public infrastructure or or waterfront access and your 8.4 before you define what you are looking for for a public infrastructure incentive. I don't know if you want to
tie that to the same metric and a 9.6 you talk about the incentive for waterfront access. I don't know and I don't know if you want to tie that this request for waterfront access to the same metric, but you need to somehow what do you mean by public infrastructure? Can I give you one slab of sidewalk and you're good? Do you
expect more than a slab of sidewalk? like you kind of need to give those those parameters. Um you know that you can see affordable housing and workforce housing. Um I recommended to Don to attach those to the section 9.3 and 9.4 so people knew what that meant in the numbers you're looking at or the range
you're looking at. So you want to do something like that. Um my caution is also if you if you connect these criteria to the same definition as your incentives they're kind of getting two for the price of one. So they give you they're going to get the extra incentive
um percentages for the same reason. >> Yeah. Well, from a waterfront perspective, that that's that's very true because you're you're incentivizing that and you're going to because if they if they aren't decided to do a public riverwalk along there, >> then we're not only give them 5%, we're going to double that for them and we're going to
>> So So if you're fine with just saying provide public infrastructure per section 80 8.4 um or waterfront access per section 9.6, I think that if you're good with those definitions, I think that would clarify that. >> If you want to define it differently, then
>> so it's 9.6. What was the other one? >> Public infrastructure is 8.4. >> I mean, I think that makes sense for time of that. [clears throat] Man, I have to be with you. I'm I'm on the slow bus right now for some reason. >> I got the I got my notes.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, I think. >> Okay. make sense. >> Trying to make the adjustments on the fly here. >> Let me see. >> And then one more note that you may have already adjusted on page 16,
section 9.5 talks about public art installation. Um I I looked for this. I may have missed it. Do we have something in the code now that talks about public art? The first First bullet says public art exceeding code minimums. >> I didn't see anything in the code.
>> Maybe carryover from where that came from. >> Down towards the bottom you're talking about they could have instead of doing on-site installation, they could do a contribution to a public art fund. I don't know that we have that. So that's a slight issue. >> So if if if there's no code minimums, I
mean, would that be just an erased bullet? because then we would just have public art installation and then just investments not worrying about the code requirement because if there's no code then I don't really have a requirement and then we could just vote on what gets posted or developed. >> Well, let me ask you this. I'm sorry.
Didn't we talk about public art being like if there was going to be a parking garage and doing some kind of real cool mural on the side or something like that? We weren't talking about like an art gallery. We were talking about like making our buildings. >> Yeah. Yeah. That was part of what we wanted to do as a part of the [clears throat] percentage on our
percentages that you know as far as development and and refacing. >> Right. So they get an extra 3% if >> Yes. If they do they spend some money to make something like I we saw in a parking garage it looked phenomenal. I mean they really dressed it up. It didn't look like a parking garage. It looked like a piece of art.
>> No. And I'm I'm not that's exactly what you guys talked about. I'm just looking at the specific wording in 9.5. Your first bullet is connecting that art to your city code. There's nothing that I have found in the code that discuss art. So there's no connection. So we can't connect it to something that doesn't exist.
>> You can just put a line through it. >> Yeah. Eliminate code. [laughter] >> And then >> okay, >> five four bullets down. It talk says applicants may satisfy this incentive through on-site installation or in l contribution to a CRA public art fund. >> I don't believe you have a CRA public
art fund. So that in lie of needs to go away until you have one. Yeah, >> you still have the the idea and the extra incentive to have the the art. Um, you just don't have >> you just you're gonna have and I'm sure it says it's in here that you just need some some kind of approval of what kind
of art goes up because you know >> make sure you're >> Yeah. So, you got to scratch that and bull it all together, right? And then take out code. >> Yep. So, Don and I will work on that. That is all of the complaining I have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nan, for your complaining. [laughter] They're welcome.
>> So before Chris makes his motion, um, >> he can as approved her vote >> with those. >> I was actually give the good words. I I've got them all memorized now. I'm ready to roll. You pride me. >> Can't wait to hear. >> All right. Well, hold on. Let me get to the right page. Make sure you you're concerned, right? >> Yes. Yes. I'm done.
So, I'd like to make a motion that we move forward with the uh redevelopment incentive program as presented with the changes that have been talked about that Nancy is going to change and she's going to confer and give those to Don. So, we're going to have two people that are going to say, "Yeah, we both agree on
this." Um, and that's my motion. >> Okay. Second. >> We put Can I put some legs on this? >> So, that means this thing's going to be active when? >> No. >> Okay. >> As soon as they publish, >> we'll finalize it. Um I would like to bring back um a resolution. It could be
effective now if the votes here, but we'll have a resolution says it was adopted today and that way there's there's a >> but it will be effective now. We're running gone. >> That's my only request is having something written and signed. >> Yes. >> Validating this. >> That's my motion. >> So that'll be here next week. >> Okay. >> Two weeks. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion second. Any first discussion? >> Public comment. Put a vote on favor signify by saying I. I >> I oppose. >> Motion. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Bob, did you n
>> I thought you passed it anyway. >> No, but did you say I didn't? Um, >> she said I real loud. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh, next up is old business. Any old business? >> C. >> Can we get there? Give me one second.
Let's get >> the inter the grand intersection. That's still under this. Right. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> S knows that usually. >> Did we update on grand? >> Still
[laughter] ask. >> No, no update since the last last update. >> Still waiting. >> Still waiting on DT. >> Yeah. >> So, um >> well, the engineer did send us a construction agreement um to get back to
DOT. So, I'm in the process of filling that out and getting that back to them, but that is just a formality. Um, but I have not gotten confirmation that the permit has the the rest of the permits have been approved. The uh the drainage connection permit has, but not the other
the the construction permit or the um other one. So, I'm still waiting for that them to reply. So, >> yeah. And and of those items, the only other items that I would have of of whole B is also the uh water treatment plant since that is part of our CRA
development. Uh we've been pushing through a lot of our engagements. We're soon to reach our 90% um build and so we'll hopefully be presenting that to you shortly so that you guys get to see that. So, we'll bring them in the team in to uh present that so you guys can see what the final project looks like
because there's been some significant adjustments and changes since we're no longer purchasing the property across and we're actually going to build on the uh water site. Uh but we've also got some additional um structures that we've decided that we want to adjust because there's some structuring uh that they
need to take some land and occupy where we currently have buildings. So what we've done is we've just planned and then we've moved and and we're going to reerect other facilities that that that we torn down in support of actually not only the water plant but we had it written up as in support of water plant
but it's to it's part of our total package for the for the facility. Um, on top of that, we did look at, if we were looking at CRA dollars and looking at other purchasing for property, um, just so that everybody's tracking, we did look at the bait shop. The bait shop
came in and placed at $1.1 million. So, actually point4 less than what's being requested. Just so that everybody knows that at least for the bait shop, we did get that final um, uh, cost on that. >> One estimate done or two required to get
two estimates? just just one for this one because we because we weren't going into the purchase process. If we go into the purchase process, we have to request two. But based on the fact that we just figure out what >> we just wanted to know what the value of was. So when we we went in, we use the same one that it's been doing all of our other properties. So um 1.1's where it
came out just so that everybody's informed and aware of what that is right now. >> And he had offered it for what now? It's been a while. >> They went down to 15. >> Okay. >> Was the last one that we had, but that's where we currently stand. Let me ask you with the water treatment plan that we're
looking at >> is the are we are we thinking60 some million dollars is what it's going to cost. >> We we are in a lot of discussions with that >> ballpark. I'm not >> ballpark between 45 and $59 million and there's there's a lot of reasons for that. One it's all got to be USA
everything when they build that thing. One price of steel is going to go through the roof. Um the prices of of just cost of resources because of everything that's been going on right now have gone up. So our estimate is worst case $59 million because even they've assessed yeah it's going to go
up 49 the 45 that we initially quoted it's not accurate. So they they owe us to physically go back and get what they think the projected cost is going to be at time of completion. But I gave them those parameters because I need those parameters because when they when they finally finalize this product, we want
to be able to go into the brick with at least a budget of what this thing's going to cost us. So, we've estimated approximately $59 million based on what those adjusted costs would be. And that's talking with the engineers and the team that are building it so that we don't underestimate so we don't screw ourselves in the process as we finalize
this project and we get it to brick you know for funding because what we don't want to do is short ourselves on a project that we are >> you're already looking into grants potential grants. >> Yes. Yes. Brick brick is brick is one of those one of those instruments that we
we're looking at using. uh we are working with the uh construction engineering team also for other methods of of looking for grants and and funding for this. So not only we looking for them internally through other uh agencies. I've got Pam looking but we're
also looking through brick and other agencies that may be able to support this because here's what here's my intent is that I get this fully funded through grants. If I can't get it fully funded through grants, then I'm going to have to bring it back to you guys and it has to be an appropriations, you know, project that we look at for next year
because once this thing's so ready, we don't want to let this go. We want to make sure that we're chasing the good in this and and what what we can get with brick and all those other costs. Maybe we're short5 10 million. Maybe we get through appropriations if we're not able to fully fund it. >> That was my point. What I want to make
sure we do is we're going to do all those things you're talking about. Let's get all those done now. We are >> because when we go to appropriations, we don't want to be like holding our tail and then have to wait till the next year and then all sudden we're behind we're paying $74 million. >> And that's what we're doing right now is we want to make sure and you and I have had this discussion is that hey once
this thing's done we want to execute. So in order to do that as soon as it's show ready I've got Pam right now already got us she's already putting together packets already got all the information. We're just trying to get the numbers right. So once this thing hits dirt boom and it's ready to roll. We've already got our application in and we're ready
to roll. Okay. >> So, we are moving forward with the gran business. But that's all I have as far as city man. >> Okay. For motion motion. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. Comments from board.
>> Well, you might see our end. We had it at the beginning. So, [clears throat] member H. Sorry. No member >> vice chair mayor member Burke eyes have nothing for a motion [laughter]
>> motion to adjourn second motion second all in favor say by saying I I take five we'll come