Bookmark1
Start Position
Start Position
Bookmark2
Chair Fullmer opened the meeting at41 PM.          CLOSED SESSION
Chair Fullmer opened the meeting at41 PM.          CLOSED SESSION
Bookmark3
Motion: BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES MOVED TO GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY IN THE CITY OFFICE’S CONFERENCE ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL. BOARDMEMBER FLAKE SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Motion: BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES MOVED TO GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY IN THE CITY OFFICE’S CONFERENCE ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL. BOARDMEMBER FLAKE SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.   The meeting resumed at04 PM.         BUSINESS ITEMS3.1  DISCUSSION AND ACTION – Appointment of an RDA Director (Resolution U2023-12) (This item was continued from the December,23 RDA Board Meeting.) Chair Fullmer will present a recommendation for the appointment of an RDA Director. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution.
Bookmark4
The meeting resumed at         BUSINESS ITEMS3.1  DISCUSSION AND ACTION – Appointment of an RDA Director (Resolution U2023-12) (This item was continued from the December,23 RDA Board Meeting.) Chair Fullmer will present a recommendation for the appointment of an RDA Director. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution.
Chair Fullmer presented the appointment of Josh Daniels as the RDA Director.
Bookmark5
Josh Daniels
Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO ADOPT RDA RESOLUTION U2023-12AUTHORIZING THE BOARD CHAIR TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH JOSH DANIELS FOR THE POSITION OF VINEYARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.2  DISCUSSION AND ACTION – The Forge Tax Increment Participation Agreement (Resolution U2023-11) (This item was continued from the December,23 RDA Board Meeting.) Dakota Pacific is requesting approval of a Tax Increment Participation Agreement. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution.
Bookmark6
Motion: Boardmember Welsh moved… BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  2  DISCUSSION AND ACTION –The Forge Tax Increment Participation Agreement (Resolution U2023-11) (This item was continued from the December,23 RDA Board Meeting.) Dakota Pacific is requesting approval of a Tax Increment Participation Agreement. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution. This is done by Resolution and requires a roll call vote.
Chair Fullmer turned the time over to Steve Borup with Dakota Pacific.
Bookmark7
Chair Fullmer turned the time over to Steve Borup with Dakota Pacific.
Mr. Borup gave a brief background on The Forge development and reviewed the changes to the tax increment agreement since the last board meeting.
Bookmark8
Mr. Borup reviewed the changes the development and changes to the agreement.
Chair Fullmer asked about timeline for development. Mr. Borup replied that there was a timeline in the development agreement.
Bookmark9
Boardmember Sifuentes asked about the projected tax revenues and the percentages requested in the tax increment participation agreement. Mr. Borup reviewed the projections. A discussion ensued.
Bookmark10
Time line discussion
Chair Fullmer asked about in the agreement. Mr. Borup explained that they would have to submit a request for reimbursement and prove that the request was for qualified expenses. Chair Fullmer asked if they could tie the qualified expenses to an anchor in phasing through the tax increment agreement. There was a discussion about repayment conditions and phasing.
Bookmark11
Boardmember Sifuentes asked about the percentages. A discussion ensued.
Chair Fullmer asked if Section B was capping the reimbursement. Mr. Borup replied that if there was a particular user, supported by the city, there could be additional support by the RDA. Mr. Blakesley felt that it was a signal of intent and if they wanted more than percent, they would have to come back to the RDA Board.
Bookmark12
Chair Fullmer asked about the development timeline. A discussion ensued.
Chair Fullmer asked the board if they liked the structured parking, pedestrian, open space and public infrastructure listed in the agreement. Mr. Borup reviewed the phasing and the impact of structured parking on returns. A discussion ensued.
Bookmark13
Chair Fullmer asked about in the agreement. She also asked about tying tax increment to phasing.
Chair Fullmer asked about opportunities for phasing. Mr. Brim explained that some of the phasing would be tied to the reimbursement agreement. There was a discussion about the phasing and tying them to reimbursements. Mr. Blakesley suggested they tie a certain amount to each phase. Boardmember Welsh suggested that this agreement be tied to the development agreement. The discussion continued.
Bookmark14
Section B approval of an amendment or capping it. Mr. Borup replied that if there was a particular user, supported by the city, there would be additional support by the RDA. Jayme signal of intent. Obligated at% more would need to come back to the RDA.
Mr. Blakesley gave a recap of the discussion. Approve the agreement as drafted withrevisions: ·         Bring in the revocation provision from the development agreement, that if the initial phase did not begin by December,26, the city could begin the process of revoking the reimbursement agreement ·         The city would reserve percent of the expenses eligible to be reimbursed in Phase until the developer pulls a building permit and begins vertical construction on the subsequent phase with a/70 split for all subsequent phases. There was further discussion about the split. Use the same language included in the development agreement.
Bookmark15
Chair Fullmer asked…
Mr. Blakesley reviewed the changes: ·         Carry over the rescission language from Section2 of the development agreement. Adding identical language that if by December,26 they have not pulled a building permit and began vertical construction on the initial phase then the city shall have the right to revoke the reimbursement agreement. ·         Thirty percent of the eligible reimbursable amount as determined by the assessed value of the property will be held by the city until a building permit is pulled and vertical construction begins on a subsequent block of the development and each block of the development shall have similar/30 to create an incentive that the entire project be built. The discussion continued.
Bookmark16
Mr. Borup reviewed the phasing and the impact of structured parking and returns. A discussion ensued.
Chair Fullmer felt that it was important to talk about Section B which mentions the intent to come back for additional increment. She felt that the goal was to incentivize incredible anchors.
Bookmark17
Chair asked about predictability for phasing. Mr. Brim explained that there was phasing built into the development. Application phase by phase or breaking the agreement into traunches to create an incentive for each phase to be completed. A discussion ensued.
Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION U2023-11, APPROVING THE FORGE TAX INCREMENT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND ALLOWING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NOTED CHANGES AS READ BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION: ·         CARRY OVER THE RESCISSION LANGUAGE FROM SECTION2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ADDING IDENTICAL LANGUAGE THAT IF BY DECEMBER,26 THEY HAVE NOT PULLED A BUILDING PERMIT AND BEGAN VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE INITIAL PHASE THEN THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT. ·         THIRTY PERCENT OF THE ELIGIBLE REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS PULLED AND VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS ON A SUBSEQUENT BLOCK OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND EACH BLOCK OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL HAVE SIMILAR/30 TO CREATE AN INCENTIVE THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT BE BUILT.
Bookmark18
Phasing…
There was a discussion about the agreement and phasing. Boardmember Sifuentes wanted to tie the continued phases to reviewing the site plans. The discussion continued.
Bookmark19
RDA reimbursement is conditioned on pulling a permit on the next phase. Mr. Borup expressed his concern with the investment. He asked if there was a way to add a cap.
ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, AND WELSH VOTED YES, BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIEDTO        ADJOURNMENT
Bookmark20
50% on the initial phase, and then…complete the initial phase you would know the full amount. Submit for the remainder when they submit for phase There was a discussion about the options. Agree to an assessed value and calculate the increment and say% of the value unless phaseis started. Mr. Borup expressed concern with their bond value. Capped that they can only ask for any more than what lot one would generate.
Motion: BOARDMEMBER FLAKE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT51 PM. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.     MINUTES APPROVED ON:    March,2027                    CERTIFIED CORRECT BY:   Pamela Spencer, CIty Recorder
Bookmark21
Assignment clause in the agreement. Jayme carry over the revocation provision. Cristy’s concern if they only build phase one, the city’s commitment would remain and the developer could sell to someone else. Add additional language. The discussion continued.
Bookmark22
3a in the participation agreement. years after the first payment the reimbursement ends.
Bookmark23
Jayme’s preference would be the carrot approach. He asked what the percentage would work for the developer. Mr. Borup suggested/30.
Bookmark24
Chair Fullmer stated that she wanted to the project advance.
Bookmark25
Jayme stated his understanding. Approve the agreement as drafted withrevision, the revocation section, the city would reserve% of expense eligible to be reimbursed in phaseuntil the developer pulls a building permit./30 for all subsequent phases. There was further discussion about the split. Use the same language included in the development agreement.
Bookmark26
Bookmark27
Bookmark28
Mardi felt the current agreement would keep moving forward.
Bookmark29
Changes: carry over the rescinding language, identical language…%of the amount as determined by the assessed value will be held, each block shall have similar/30.
Bookmark30
Chair Fullmer felt that it was important to talk about section B for the ability to comeback for more increment if… draw in awesome anchors.
Bookmark31
Bookmark32
Cristy moved to adopt resolution U2023-11, with the noted changes. Boardmember Rasmussen seconded the motion.
Bookmark33
There was a discussion about the agreement. Tie the continued phases to the reviewing the site plans. The discussion continued.
Bookmark34
Roll call went as follows: Chair Fullmer, Boardmembers Flake, Rasmussen, and Welsh voted yes, Boardmember Sifuentes voted nay. The motion carriedto          ADJOURNMENT
Bookmark35
tycec amber5     MINUTES APPROVED ON: CERTIFIED CORRECT BY:   /s/ Pamela Spencer Pamela Spencer, CIty Recorder
All right, everybody, we're going to go ahead and get started. 00:00:04
December 27th, Wednesday, the time is 7:41 and we're going to start our Vineyard Redevelopment Agency Board. We're actually 00:00:07
starting this meeting with a closed session. 00:00:13
Pam, would it be appropriate for us to hold a closed session and? 00:00:22
Perfect. Then everybody can stay here. So we'll start out and I just need a motion to go into a closed session for item a 00:00:29
discussion of character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. 00:00:35
So moved OK even though I just read it OK. 00:00:43
OK, you have to read it yourself Marty. I move to go into a closed session immediately in the City offices conference room to 00:00:48
discuss the character, professional competence of physical or mental health of an individual. OK, a first line Marty 2nd. 00:00:56
Second by ties all in favor. OK, Christy. 00:01:04
I, Marty, I, I, Amber, I and Tice. All right, we will be back. 00:01:08
That brings us to our business items this. 00:01:20
This is the appointment of an RDA Director Resolution U2023-12. 00:01:23
I am presenting a recommendation for the appointment of an RDA Director. The RDA Board has the opportunity to accept this 00:01:33
resolution. I am submitting the name Josh Daniels. Does anybody have any questions or comments as far as that? Otherwise I just 00:01:40
need a motion. Sure. I move to adopt RDA resolution U2023-12 authorizing the board chair to enter into a consult. I say board 00:01:46
chair unless you to enter into consultant agreement with Josh Daniels. Or is it Joshua Daniels for the position of Vineyard 00:01:53
Redevelopment Agency Director. 00:02:00
2nd. 00:02:08
First by Christy, second by Amber. Any discussion? 00:02:09
OK, I'll do this by roll call. Christy, Marty, yay, yay Amber. Aye, nice. Okay, we'll move on to the Forge Tax Increment 00:02:15
Participation Agreement Resolution U2023-11. This item was continued from the December 13th, 2023 RDA Board meeting. And where is 00:02:25
Oh, there you are. Steve will go ahead and present from the code of specific. 00:02:35
Do you want me to go right to presenting? 00:02:53
Morgan or Eric? OK. 00:02:57
I have a quick question. 00:03:06
Jeremy on 3.1. 00:03:10
We are going to use Josh Daniels Company's name. Is that OK or would we need to amend our motion? 00:03:13
I think the company names fine. Okay, Yeah, OK. 00:03:23
For the record, Steve Borup with Dakota Pacific Real Estate. It's nice to be here earlier. Last time I looked in everybody's eyes, 00:03:31
they looked a lot more tired when I was here on the 13th. 00:03:35
So, um. 00:03:44
Thank you for the opportunity to come back and share a little more detail about our request for RDA funds on the Forge last time 00:03:49
we talked a little bit about. 00:03:54
This is a landmark development. The development agreement was approved. It's a different kind of development. It's a kind of 00:04:00
development we don't see in Utah County. It's a development you don't see outside of downtown urban areas often. 00:04:07
And we'll talk about the value of that and why that is in the shortcoming, basically. 00:04:15
Together with the RDA, we can partner to make and close the gap as to why this kind of development doesn't happen. 00:04:22
And I think we can jointly benefit from that together so. 00:04:29
The current request is to ask for a performance based TIF, meaning that 75% of available funds that come to the RDA, we have to 00:04:34
create the increment before it can be paid to us. It is reimbursed for qualified expenses specifically focused on public open 00:04:41
space, those areas that have an A publicly accessible easement overlaying it. So if we talk in the development agreement, we 00:04:49
talked about 5 acres in particular, it's those open space, right? We're not talking about open space for. 00:04:57
You know, apartment building during that it's those parts and those plazas and those trail systems that are, are are the focus for 00:05:04
the funds and then structured parking of the parcels included in the Forge development agreement. So just wanted to talk 00:05:12
background. When the Forge mixed-use District was created, I think there was at least some trailing connection and discussion with 00:05:20
RDA at that time. I wasn't with Dakota Pacific at the time, but I do I did go back to the records and in 2018 in February. 00:05:28
$9.8 million was approved at that time. It was about a 780 stall garage in order as an acknowledgement that you know that there 00:05:36
was public private benefit in order to to to find a way. 00:05:43
To avoid seas of asphalt surface parking and create a garage that would benefit everybody. And so that was approved in 2018. It 00:05:52
was actually never signed. I don't think a participation agreement was actually ever signed or or agreed to and then. 00:05:58
As discussed prior, you know that particular phase didn't move forward. 00:06:07
When we came back in the first quarter and fourth quarter last year, we talked about TIFF. It was signaled, it was, it was 00:06:12
discussed in public hearing subcommittees and then in the development agreement we also signaled that. So I just wanted to be 00:06:18
clear that there has been some acknowledgement that this development is different. 00:06:23
It there is some dependency on being able to share jointly in some of the costs that come with them. 00:06:29
With the investment that's being made. 00:06:37
The project brings again landmark development right the Gateway Vineyard. 00:06:43
It brings significant added tax increment. 00:06:48
It's sustainable development, it's walkable development, It's a different kind of development, and I'll show some examples of what 00:06:52
I mean by that. It has significant public open space, amenities for the community, and it creates an economic base. The graphic 00:06:59
that you're looking at there is a typical tax increment financing kind of graphic where it shows that you have a baseline 00:07:05
property. Let me create the laser here. 00:07:11
Where you have a baseline property value and at a creation point there's additional investment which creates additional tax 00:07:24
because investments being made by a developer. 00:07:29
Eventually the collection period for the TIF ends and then 100% of the value. 00:07:39
Goes 100% to the taxing entities, that lighter blue portion, this is the portion that we're proposing that there's some shared 00:07:46
value in. And again, we would both be able to share in that value. Some of that would come back as reimbursement for those 00:07:52
qualified expenses. Some of that would just go to the taxi entity, some of that would go to the RDA. 00:07:58
If we were to do traditional development, when I say traditional, again, think the seeds of asphalt instead of taking these layers 00:08:05
of parking structure, spread them out over the whole site, right, which then you don't get the same kind of density. And we talked 00:08:11
about that a little bit last time. You get about 1/3 of the tax increment, that light blue portion, so. 00:08:16
The thesis of what I'm going to present today is that by actually investing along with us, it's going to create more value and 00:08:23
it's going to create more value than traditional development would for the taxi entities and allow all the benefits of this kind 00:08:28
of development as well. 00:08:32
So here's two developments that you may be familiar with. They're both in Utah County. One is the Valley Grove. It's in Pleasant, 00:08:40
Pleasant Grove, just across the freeway if you get off. 00:08:44
Pleasant Grove Blvd. You see the Valley Grove, there's some larger office buildings that sit here, and then there's some retail 00:08:49
here. These are the developed portions, therefore have included in the boundary. About 12% of the land is covered in buildings on 00:08:56
the ground floor. It's about 20 acres and you get about 4.1 million per acre of taxable value. That's not tax, but the value of 00:09:02
the buildings is about four point. One of the improvements is about 4.1 million per acre of taxable value. 00:09:08
The one on the right is Freedom Commons that was developed in Provo. 00:09:15
And it was hard, again, I think, to find instances where structured parking is used. This is 3 acres. It includes office, garage, 00:09:20
retail on the ground floor of the garage and includes the hotel. This is actually a public building, so there's no tax associated 00:09:26
with it, and I had to exclude it. 00:09:31
Another case study. Let's just take a 5000 square foot restaurant, OK? 00:10:13
And if you park that at 5 stalls per thousand square feet, you get 25 stalls required. 00:10:18
The cost per stall to develop on a surface part scenario over here is about 3 to $4000 per stall where structured parking might be 00:10:23
25 to 30,000. We talked about that. It's about 10X, you know, 9 to 10X the cost. 00:10:29
So in the surface park scenario, as a developer, I invest 1.6 million in a structured park, I invest 2.3 million. The structured 00:10:36
park has the benefit of taking about 1/3 of an acre versus 2/3 of an acre. So I'm using less land and I'm increasing the taxable 00:10:42
base is associated with it and therefore the tax increment per acre that's generated. And this is just tax increment, right? This 00:10:48
doesn't include land or some of the other levy costs, but it's nearly 3X on a tax increment per acre by allowing the structured 00:10:55
parking to occur. 00:11:01
Right, it creates funds for the taxing entities. 00:11:08
Case number study #2 takes block four. OK, this is the block of Geneva Road and Vineyard Connector and it says if I were to be 00:11:14
surface parked, which is the graphic at the top, I can fit 45,000 square feet of office on there. I can park it at 4 1/2 per 00:11:20
thousand at 180 stalls. Those you know our surface park throughout. 00:11:27
And I invest $13 million in that building, right? 00:11:35
With some assistance in partnership, we can create. 00:11:38
Something that looks more like this, that has $50 million of investment and again creates almost four times the amount of tax 00:11:44
increment per acre. And again, this is in addition to sustainable development, walkable development, economic base, right, people 00:11:50
being employed character, high character, so. 00:11:56
I'm just trying to show the logic side of the tax increment, but there's also so many other soft benefits in addition. 00:12:04
So taking that case study and that kind of information into that, that graphic that I showed earlier, you know, our land value, 00:12:13
the tax value is about 200,000 doesn't even show up on the graphic because it's not really significant in terms of the numbers 00:12:18
that we're talking about. 00:12:22
My estimates are under traditional development and the density we could get on the property, we would generate about $28 million 00:12:28
of of of tax increment. 00:12:33
Right. Again, that surface part, that's AC of asphalt. That's not a very interesting streetscape if you're walking down it. 00:12:41
With a portion of the additional increment that comes from creating the proposed development right through structured parking is 00:12:50
one element of that. 00:12:55
We can close that we can increase the tax increment to 73 million and these are estimates, right. This is all performance based, 00:13:01
but $73 million is the estimate for the the the increment under the proposed project. 00:13:09
Once the reimbursement period is over, you can see on the right the long term value creation for the taxing entities. It is a 00:13:18
major, major difference. 00:13:22
And the value that's going to go to a school district, that's going to go to Vineyard City, it's going to go to Utah County. 00:13:29
So. 00:13:41
The summary by the numbers says we invest $388 million, which includes 60 million of parking structures and $6 million into the 00:13:42
public open space. From that $388 million tax increment of $73 million will be generated. 00:13:49
The taxing entities will retain about 25% of that, which is $18 million. So they benefit, they get to $18 million, then they send 00:13:58
$55 million to the RDA. 00:14:02
Under the proposed terms, the RDA then takes that $55 million, holds back $14 million that's earmarked for affordable housing and 00:14:09
other RDA needs, and remits $41 billion over a 25 year period to reimburse qualified expenses. 00:14:16
That 25 year period is significant because we build the $66 million of qualified expenses as listed here up front. We pay for it, 00:14:26
we pay interest on it and then over 25 years we slowly get paid back. 00:14:33
$100, if I were to give you $100 in 25 years from now, if you were to discount that back at 8% per year, it would be worth $15 00:14:45
today. 00:14:50
Right. We'll put it another way. If you took $15 and invested at 8% for 25 years, you'd have $100. 00:14:58
The parking structures and the open space and I have a slide to show you on that as well. 00:15:36
So as said we, we provide the initial funding to construct the improvements. 00:15:45
And we pay about $27 million in carry costs just in order to have funded it up front and then slowly get reimbursed overtime. How 00:15:50
does that $14 million get allocated, $6 million allocated to public open space and $8 million allocated to parking. That's about 00:15:58
13.3% of the structured parking that says parking at structured parking in particular. 00:16:06
So the participation from the developer is significant here, right? We're not asking for the RDA to close the entire gap, in fact. 00:16:15
The RDA closes a portion of the gap and a lot of that gap is left remaining, but we believe that we have investors. 00:16:25
That will believe in this, that believe in this project and will be able to look at the scale and the impact of this and invest 00:16:34
anyways, even though the returns might not yield the same as they would if this was a traditional surface park development and the 00:16:38
kind of returns they could get on that. 00:16:43
So the conclusion is. 00:16:51
That TIF was always contemplated with the forged mixed-use district, at least on our side. We knew it was enabling. We knew it was 00:16:54
going to be necessary to create this kind of development and that's why we're here asking today, 100% of this TIF supports public 00:17:00
benefit. It, it creates open space, it creates increased tax revenues during the collection period and significant after the 00:17:06
taxing period and it enables real sustainable development. 00:17:12
And so the developer is going to invest along with the RDA to close the economic gap and capture public benefit. But we can't do 00:17:18
it alone and therefore we have submitted the request. So do we have any questions? I have a question. Did you mention a timeline 00:17:24
associated with this of building out your projects? 00:17:30
The Development agreement has a timeline in it. The Participation Agreement doesn't mention one specifically. It certainly makes 00:17:38
sense to tie those two together. 00:17:42
Can you go back to the slide that shows? 00:17:49
The 75% you went from that one? 00:17:54
I I kind of got confused. 00:18:02
Because we talk about how you're requesting 75% of the qualified tax lawyer or you're asking to be reimbursed 75% and then. 00:18:06
And that leaves us 14,000,000 is what you're saying if the projected. 00:18:17
I just don't understand. 00:18:23
Yeah, I'm sorry. So. 00:18:25
You believe that or your projections is the 73,000,000 what you believe the tax generated? That's the tax increment that all the 00:18:29
tax entities have at, you know. 00:18:35
Like over the next 30 years, if you take our taxable value that we've invested you time to buy the tax rate, that's $73 million, 00:18:42
OK. So that's what's generated. If we didn't reimburse you anything, we would guess your projection said that they're being in $73 00:18:49
million worth of tax, assuming we could develop the project still, that would be true. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It just helps me wrap my 00:18:56
head around these numbers. So then the 55,000,000 is 75% of that that would go to the RDA. 00:19:04
OK. And then that leaves us. 00:19:11
So this $14 million here is a hold back from the RDA. 00:19:17
You hold back 25% of the 55 million in the agreement and Eric or Morgan, somebody else can speak to how the RDA would allocate 00:19:23
that fund, but there is a hold back at 25% and that somewhere in that 14,000,000 specifically goes to the RDA for the RDA board to 00:19:30
decide. How about those funding that gets spent? 00:19:37
Yeah, that's a like that that would go to the greater RDA and you you can allocate that however as approved under the RDA. 00:19:45
And I don't, I don't know where this falls in the requirements, but specifically in the projections when we were working with 00:19:55
staff earlier, it was 10% was affordable housing I think was kind of earmarked. Again, I don't know how that works, but a certain 00:20:02
portion of that would be earmarked for that as I understand it. Yeah, I believe there is an exemption for remediation and there 00:20:10
there's some things that were in the state code, but essentially it's those, it's those three main priorities of the of the RDA. 00:20:17
Cleanup and infrastructure, those top two. 00:20:25
And you had asked for a timeline or a chart of what that is per year or what were you asking? 00:20:29
I was asking for a timeline on a build, so how fast they would build, whatever it is, get more clarity on that before we're we. 00:20:37
We get off of that question entirely, but did I, I have more questions, but I'd like to hear more about. Yeah, I just want to make 00:20:47
sure that this 14,000,000 isn't getting confused with the $14 million of what you could also look at it as a bondable value, 00:20:54
right? Like if we were to take that future flow of cash and say bond investors, how much will you give me today? If we were to 00:21:01
sell you that future stream of cash flows, they would give us about $14 million for for that stream. 00:21:08
Does that make sense? 00:21:16
Yeah. 00:21:19
So go to the next slide. 00:21:24
And I didn't I. 00:21:27
I guess I just get confused from here and I'm so sorry. 00:21:32
I don't have a background in finance nor development. 00:21:37
But umm. 00:21:42
Why are we talking about the 14,000,000 again? Are you just trying to tell me that this is? 00:21:43
Like I just am so confused. The 1490 keeps coming up with that money. I think the main point is people look at that $41 million 00:21:48
and say, wow, that's a big portion. The parking is only going to cost 60 million. We're paying for 2/3 of the parking. Well, 00:21:55
that's really not the case because we're paying again interest on the debt that was created to build the parking garages. And $27 00:22:02
million of that 41 is really just goes to carry costs of being able to have built it up front and reimburse slowly over time. 00:22:09
So it's really $14 million that we can allocate to the initial construction. Everything else is just tied up and carry costs. 00:22:16
And this kind of works like what Top Golf and the movie theater have where it's like every year we're doing a reimbursement. 00:22:25
That's very similar. 00:22:35
When you go to the site after that son. 00:22:37
I'd say that the main difference though between those is I believe there was some upfront cost with the with the top call for, 00:22:45
for, for infrastructure to get in place. Whereas this there's no, there's, there's no like upfront cost being requested. This is 00:22:52
just paying based off of the increment that the developers project adds to to the site. There was 500,000 upfront for water 00:23:00
infrastructure and connections for the medical and the infrastructure for the whole site. 00:23:07
The shared cost for every building. So basically. 00:23:14
This is saying that. 00:23:18
Like if you didn't build at all, right, if we just left the line, we would have, well, we would have no tax revenue at all. We 00:23:20
would just it would be money. It would go back to this is the value of our land and that would be in perpetuity. So you developing 00:23:26
brings the city money. 00:23:32
And benefits us and to help work as a partnership. What you're asking and what's commonly done with the RDA is you're asking for 00:23:39
75% of what the tax increment or the tax revenue is 75% of that for the next 25 years. Yeah, exactly. Maybe further clarify this 00:23:47
would just be proper taxes. There's nothing with sales taxes that that would be involved. OK, that's good to know. That's a good 00:23:55
clarification. Thank you. This was approved. This was part of the plan we approved in the last meeting, right. 00:24:03
This language, the participation agreement, the RDA wasn't bound by anything that we, the development agreement just kind of 00:24:12
signaled a desire to request. If we do, if this doesn't move forward, what happens on your end with that development? Yeah, we 00:24:18
have a real viability issue as a developer in that. 00:24:24
Some of these costs, right, The fact that on Lot 4, for instance, we have $14.8 million. 00:24:33
Versus 630? 00:24:42
And maybe this is a better example because this is a restaurant, but you know, we have $600,000 that we have to also make a return 00:24:46
on in order to be equivalent and attract an investor that's also going to look at the yard or the Valley Grove or anywhere else. 00:24:51
And how do we attract that investors money if they can go invest? 00:24:57
With a cost structure that looks more like this right, when the rent is going to be very similar. And so we have a challenge if 00:25:03
this isn't approved and we're going to have to figure out how to close that. Can you show me the project area? 00:25:09
In total, yeah, the project area is more or less. I'm gonna go back to this graphic. 00:25:19
But it's. 00:25:26
Everything in the forge except for this. So it's Lot 10. So it's the whole, that's the entire forge area. That's right. 00:25:28
It's equivalent of the Forge zoning. 00:25:38
The black 8, that's just in the future phase. 00:25:43
Is that as far As for development? Yeah, it is in the future, yeah. I mean we designated a land use with it in the development 00:25:48
agreement. That's where the potential for the land donation for the park will be. But. 00:25:56
Yeah, when you talk about. 00:26:07
How things are getting more expensive if we had done this five years ago. 00:26:11
I'm just curious. 00:26:17
Difference like what would it, what would that change on the numbers? Because we often people often do come in and ask about even 00:26:20
tonight we have a comment that said, I don't care if something sits for 25 years, right? 00:26:25
And so, well, I'll tell you, in the RDA application that was done in 2018, the cost of a stall was 19,700, I'm assuming 27,500, 00:26:33
somewhere between 25 and 30. 00:26:38
25,000 maybe something we're holding on to that's gone 30% more yeah, construction costs, yeah, have increased significantly in 00:26:44
the last four years for sure how much have we already invested like I know we did the streets and the trees and. 00:26:50
What did we? I know we've already invested money in that line. I'm just curious. 00:26:58
Sorry, that first of all a question I had as well on the very first slide, first or second slide, you talked about that 9.8 00:27:02
million that was US done in 2018, but then you made some comment like it wasn't signed. Can you tell me more about that agreement? 00:27:09
I wish I knew more where that money is well. 00:27:15
The increment wasn't generated. The participation agreement wasn't signed. So it was approved in this board, but the actual paper 00:27:22
was never generated and signed. So I don't, I don't have. That's right. The RDA did not approve. I mean, it was intended. So we 00:27:31
discussed it and we talked about it with the idea that they would bring forth a project that we would then be able to approve. And 00:27:39
so the project just didn't come back in time. And so that that agreement has now I think that Phase 1 ultimately proved. 00:27:47
So whatever agreement that was to go into a parking section, whatever that was, the only reason I bring that up is just because it 00:27:57
signals again some kind of tie and understanding of RDA participation in this kind of development. Well, I'm just glad we're 00:28:03
talking about it cuz I did bring up that there have been past agreements made in when we talked about this earlier this year and 00:28:09
it didn't seem like your group remembered any of that. So I'm glad that we're, it was the February meeting of 2018 if somebody 00:28:15
wants to go back. 00:28:20
So it made me able to clarify, are you speaking about 650 N was something that the RDA, right. So that was money that the city put 00:28:28
in to do those streets. I believe there's some cleanup costs as well. Yeah, there was city money that went toward this public Rd. 00:28:37
Right. We developed it and it was reimbursed partially by the city and there was some, I think it was like 60 or $70,000 that I 00:28:47
think maybe even largely to this piece here for remediation. That's the extent of the RDA. All the other roads were funded 100% by 00:28:53
developer Cauldron Rd. Anvil Road, 100% by developer. No RDA participation. We find it on the public infrastructure. Yeah. The 00:29:00
total capital project improvements for the RDA board was about 1.2 million. The Mill Rd. streetlights was 100,000. The main road, 00:29:07
St. Lights was. 00:29:14
4. 00:29:21
191,000 Engineering was 75,000. The status system for the sewer Rd. system that services the whole area was about 100,000 and then 00:29:22
there was something with a rail, some type of transfer that was about 1.4. 00:29:30
Million I believe and then a lot of this was done in 2016 and then in 2018 we discussed in two meetings the approval of a parking 00:29:40
garage and in fact it had like a facade to make it look nicer and I have the meeting minutes if you guys want to go back on either 00:29:49
of those was that because this when I was talking about even before Dakota Pacific owned it because. 00:29:58
Right, that's right. That was thrown away. 00:30:09
That's right. 00:30:13
Yeah, OK. It was right before I think we had put in all of the infrastructure that 4 million in 2018. We were moving and advancing 00:30:16
forward with the projects and then their partnership occurred at Dakota Pacific, bought it and then we didn't see any movement on 00:30:24
it for several years after that merger, whatever it was that however you guys bought the property. 00:30:32
And then the RDA reimbursement opportunity failed. Yeah, but I just want to clarify, you said we invested 4 million. 00:30:40
Do you mean no in the in the things that I listed and all of the capital improvements, I believe the total RDA contribution was 00:30:52
closer to the 1.2 million. Yeah, the Forge reimbursement as far as what we gave in contribution just to that site. But what we 00:30:59
usually do with our improvements is that we. 00:31:06
Do something for the site itself like the status system or the streets that went around it or the improvements to open up your 00:31:13
area. All of those things are things that we put into an agreement to make the forge workable. So and I'll just say the yard as 00:31:19
well, right, that's 650 N is not disservicing our project. 00:31:25
So. 00:31:33
Just so I have it on the record. 00:31:36
It wasn't 70,000, it was 1.2 million. This there were the portion tied to remediation. I think that was the 70 that was specific 00:31:38
to our site. 00:31:42
This one point, 1.1 million ish was tied to the 650 N which was shared benefit between the 75 went into the engineering and then 00:31:47
this data system was 100,000. And there were different things like we did for the other sites in the forest to upgrade the water 00:31:54
and do the sewer system, things like that. But that was more about Dakota Pacific doing construction. Can we build 650 at the same 00:32:02
time before the city, you know RDA chose to reimburse and it wasn't. 00:32:09
It wasn't directly applicable to our land as much as we're doing construction, let's do it and then get reimbursed. Yeah. Each of 00:32:18
these costs were to open up the land though just in total, this is how we, this is how we talk about any of our projects is these 00:32:25
were the costs that went to open up this area. So that's where we are. And then the 10 million, I believe it was, was it 00:32:32
10,000,009? Eight, yeah, nine, eight, yeah, 98. That's that came in January and February in 2018. 00:32:39
So and that's what failed. That was what had a failed point because no growth happened after that. 00:32:46
So do you mind if I ask a question on that growth part? 00:32:53
I I would like to understand the development agreement timeline. I I think it is appropriate to tie those timelines together, but 00:33:00
more specifically because it's the full area. 00:33:05
For me, when I put investment in I usually. 00:33:12
Have an idea of the type of companies that are coming in and then I like to see a timeline on those things. So just for 00:33:18
understanding this, what is the development agreement? 00:33:23
Timeline, I know we have general phasing and I know we have we want to see commercial and housing at the same time. We had a 00:33:29
requirement to start construction by a certain point in order for that development. We had a date I think it was December 31st, 00:33:34
2027. 00:33:39
Right. So we need, we need to start that. The participation agreement has some requirements once you start triggering it. I can't 00:33:45
remember if it's 35 years or something like that. 00:33:49
Before because you can trigger by parcel, right That that 35 years is also kind of an outside date for us as well after you start 00:33:56
triggering. 00:34:02
But. 00:34:08
I think that's all the development agreement includes. Hold on. So just to clarify, you're saying the development agreement, this 00:34:10
is the one we passed 2 weeks ago, It's got a requirement on when we need to start construction. We need start construction by 00:34:14
December 31st of 2027. That's right. 00:34:19
In order for that to be a binding agreement still, yeah, just oops, sorry, yeah, just provides kind of that. 00:34:25
At least a date so we know when things are going to start construction. And then I think the other timelines were like the units, 00:34:34
like there were some things of those, but they weren't specifically like held to to like a date like the, you know, the units have 00:34:41
to be constructed and completed by there was a lot discussed about the phasing, if you recall, I don't know if I included. 00:34:49
But this is the phase one, right? And we need to basically complete this before we can go talk about doing more multi family units 00:34:57
anywhere else. 00:35:00
Why don't you guys move on the project in 2018 when you initially made an agreement? The irony is on a little bit of disadvantages 00:35:06
because I went to Dakota Pacific and so. 00:35:10
I just I'm wondering why I believe it is dealt with well that was very office focused, I know that. 00:35:14
And so I don't know how it all worked out, but certainly once Covad hit office dynamics structurally changed. We've talked about 00:35:22
that, that's two years later. I don't know what happened in that gap. I know the acquisition of Cottonwood and Dakota Pacific 00:35:28
happened and that creates, you know, some decision chain changes and in terms of who's making decisions and how they're made. And 00:35:35
I'm sure that create a little bit of turbulence, but I don't I don't have the full story. 00:35:41
So. 00:35:49
But I mean, if we were to make this commitment and then nothing happened, the land, we're not out anything. 00:35:50
And then just to clarify, when you guys say that construction has to happen by December 31st, 2027, that after that the 00:35:57
development agreement would be null and void if we didn't, I don't. I'm not sure that data is correct, so I'm looking at the. 00:36:05
Development agreement right now and I believe we're referring to the rescission. 00:36:13
Let me pull that up and we can thank you would while you're looking that up. 00:36:20
If there is a date in there. 00:36:26
Is this also tied to that date and then both agreements go away there? 00:36:28
As it is in the packet right now, the reimbursement agreement does not have dates, you know, for that performance in the way that 00:36:34
you're talking about it. Here's what the the rescission language in the development agreement says. 00:36:40
2.11 It is anticipated that vertical vertical construction within the project will begin no later than July 31, 2025 if the City 00:36:48
has not issued a building permit and there has not been commencement of vertical construction under such building permit on the 00:36:55
property on or before December 31, 2026. 00:37:03
Then either party may at that point begin the rescission process. 00:37:10
That was 2026, Yeah, we state that again. So there, there are two requirements. One is that vertical construction begin before 00:37:16
July 31, 2025 and then there's a period of time where if there hasn't been commencement of vertical construction then then you can 00:37:24
issue that notice and that date is December 31, 2020. 00:37:32
Six, thank you. All right, interesting. So you have to they have to break ground on something before before. 00:37:39
No, that's when they anticipate doing it. But the the deadline is December 31, 2026. OK. 00:37:49
It's a, it's a year of margin for unknowns, yeah. 00:37:56
All right, Well, I if we were to pass something like this, I would want this to be tied. 00:38:00
To the same date. 00:38:06
Yeah, I agree that 2025, the July 31, 2025 would need to happen, absolutely. 00:38:08
Quick question on some of the. 00:38:17
Participation reimbursements, it says I believe in. 00:38:22
To be that it can go towards parking, pedestrian open space and public infrastructure is what it would be going to and then also. 00:38:29
I want to make sure that I understand this properly, that the intent is that we would incentivize new businesses to locate within 00:38:37
the area, but we would do this through the infrastructure. Am I reading that properly? OK. 00:38:43
And however you wanted to utilize them, it seems kind of broad and open-ended according to this calculation, as long as it fit 00:38:52
within those four states. 00:38:57
Or you're, you're talking about the qualified expenses, just the definition, the qualified expenses, the project improvements. 00:39:04
Yeah, right. It's kind of open-ended as so you could use it for any of these things in particular, but they have to be attributed 00:39:10
to those. Yes, we have to submit a request for reimbursement and we have to prove what those are for and provide evidence of them. 00:39:17
And then you review that packet and say, yes, these are qualified expenses. This is for public open space, this is for parking and 00:39:24
the qualified expenses are listed here. That's right. So they are. 00:39:32
As I state them. 00:39:40
Umm, is it possible for me to tie the qualified expenses to an anchor in phasing throughout the agreement? So for instance. 00:39:41
And we talk about doing a clean up and a reimbursement agreement, but we talk about how there's medical users and we believe that 00:39:52
there's going to be some kind of tax base that comes back. And we don't just want it to be throughout Topgolf. We don't just want 00:39:58
it to be a golfing club. We want it to be a name grant, a name brand club that we sit behind. And and that's what allows us to 00:40:04
know that we're going to get that reimbursement. 00:40:10
Is there an ability to say? 00:40:17
Within each of your phases, if you're asking for those, the anchor that is in each of those different areas must be approved. 00:40:21
To, you know, coalesce with the project improvements. 00:40:31
Are you? Are you meaning for each different reimbursement request they would tie it to? 00:40:40
That shows the whole area. 00:40:45
So. 00:40:51
Let's talk about this one in particular, this entertainment area. 00:40:53
Say they wanted to put any of the qualified. 00:40:58
Project improvements within this area we would area traction right? 00:41:03
Regional, thank you. We would allow for the infrastructure within that segment if they have brought in. 00:41:10
The right anchor. 00:41:18
Or you move to the mixed-use area and the project improvement goes according to an anchor within that location. Yeah, I want to 00:41:20
phrase this carefully, OK. 00:41:27
Legislature recently limited the ability of municipal Rdas to provide retail incentives and we want to make sure our reimbursement 00:41:34
agreement stays away from that line. 00:41:41
So I think you could certainly tether the repayment conditions to completion of certain phasing. 00:41:49
I think you get close to that line when you begin tying it to specific retail or commercial activities. Isn't there a provision in 00:41:59
there that says if we're building around housing that we are able to conduct such business? 00:42:07
There are some, there are some exceptions in affordable housing is one of the things that you can use. 00:42:16
Money is for that relate to that I or incentivize something that's near affordable housing. I'm just concerned. I think we'd have 00:42:23
to do a little bit more work if you wanted to tie it to specific retail anchors. Well, the only reason why I say it is I really 00:42:31
want to do the infrastructure. I think that it's Better Business and better practice to incentivize an area with infrastructure. I 00:42:39
think that it's important for us to have the kind of industry and economy that will come in that allows us to pay for that. 00:42:47
Get. 00:43:27
This is what's difficult for us is when we've done this in the past in the yard, which you brought up several times, we knew 00:43:28
exactly what we were getting. 00:43:31
There was a very specific. 00:43:35
No outcome. We're closer aligned to the downtown agreement, infrastructure, parking. 00:43:38
I I have another question. In Section B, under the participant reimbursement agreement, it says the participant may request the 00:43:46
agency's approval for an amendment of this agreement to 85%. The amendment isn't tying us to anything. Is this us capping them? 00:43:54
Do you want me to? Yeah, either way. 00:44:05
That was more again of a of a signal to say if there is a particular user that and I got. 00:44:08
That we as a developer want to bring and I guess the city supports, right based on what what Jamie just said that there could be 00:44:16
additional infrastructure reimbursement for that Lot 1 in particular, right, that's just for the entertainment block that's. 00:44:23
That says certain users may have additional requirements that have more infrastructure costs. And if so, can we come back and 00:44:32
petition for more at full discretion of the RDA board whether or not they want to approve it? So there's no nothing binding there. 00:44:38
And again, it's not for me to say, but that was our intent is not to bind, but just to signal that there might be users where it 00:44:44
makes sense to increase it. Yeah, the the language does require the come back. I agree with that reading. I don't view it as a 00:44:50
cap. 00:44:56
Limitation. I think it's a signal of intent, but not. 00:45:03
The cost difference between. 00:45:40
So you answered my time terms before you're done. I do want to just talk about the phasing and the phased approvals and respond to 00:46:19
that if we can. Yeah, go for it. 00:46:23
I'm going to go to a slide here that I put together to try to articulate. 00:46:33
The impact of structured parking. 00:46:40
On returns I'm going back to our 5000 square foot restaurant. 00:46:44
This looks at cost slightly different and slightly buckets, different buckets than we talked about because before it was just 00:46:51
about increment, but. 00:46:54
If I surface park I spend 2.2 million on it. If I structure park I pay 2.8 million. My rent probably isn't that different. 00:46:57
Right. And so I'm bringing in $150,000 a year, no matter what, whether it's surface or structure. In fact, in some ways it's 00:47:07
harder to get retailers to buy into this because they all want Dr. throughs. So my yield went down as a result of this, right? 00:47:14
Where in a structured park, I could go to an investor and say 6.8% I can, I can give you bank. There's guaranteed money coming in 00:47:22
here. Now I've got 5.3. Well, if the TIFF enables some reimbursement for a portion of the commercial structured parking stalls. 00:47:30
And, and therefore that decreases my cost and now I'm at 6% yield. Now I go to the investor and I say investor, I can get you 6%. 00:47:39
He says I can get 6.8 over here. Why do I want to come? 00:47:44
I only bring this up because if you're talking about phase and tying, I need predictability with that investor to say, I can get 00:47:49
this, you invest with us and there is mass, right? But if you take away that ability for that investor to say, I know mass is 00:47:55
coming with this improved yield, right? I've only closed half the gap. How do I close the other half? I've got to do it through 00:48:01
something that's inviting it. But there is a future to predict in and to invest in. I mean, without that I don't, I don't have it. 00:48:07
So as you. 00:48:13
Think through solutions. Please help me think through how do we also get predictability for the people who are ultimately going to 00:48:20
finance this in addition to the RDA? 00:48:23
In section. 00:48:32
General reimbursement terms, I think I'm reading this right. I just wanted to make sure that this makes it so even if there's a 00:48:35
transfer of property, we don't lose the ability for them to complete the agreement. Is that right? Yeah. 00:48:40
How long does structured parking last? Like what kind of improvements you know? 00:48:53
This would probably be a great question we should have asked when we were saying the development agreement far beyond 25 years. 00:49:00
Another way? Like are there ways to improve them without tearing them down? 00:49:07
And I don't know that I can tell you exactly how long, but there are, I mean, I know I've been working buildings with parking 00:49:11
structures that are 60 years old, you know, so. 00:49:16
And there's a question maybe about maintenance or like when there there needs to be a significant maintenance, is that like what 00:49:23
would the association be building up a pot so that they can take care of larger? Yeah, every investment has reserves for such 00:49:28
uses, but it's a private responsibility, private use. 00:49:34
That would be honest. I just want to make sure that the investment we're making obviously would be maintained and that we're being 00:49:43
both of our best interests, of course. 00:49:46
I'm probably not the best person on this. Alright, it's concrete and steel Yeah, no, I I just don't love the structure parking in 00:49:52
this area. And so I'm. I know the rest of the council has been running for it the whole time, so. 00:49:59
That's how to get approved. 00:50:07
Oh, it's already been approved in the development of your. I see what you're saying. 00:50:13
I mean, that is what you're saying, right? 00:50:17
The one in 2018 had a beautiful facade on it. 00:50:22
So you could add that to this. Ours are wrapped with beautiful residential units with balconies. 00:50:27
That doesn't help me, sorry. 00:50:35
Can you talk to me more about opportunities for phasing? I understand the need for protectability, but I think that predictability 00:50:38
comes in several forms and one of them is what we can predict as a city for the growth in this area. So I want to talk a little 00:50:45
bit about opportunities there. Any of our staff have any thoughts on opportunities for phasing that offers predictability for 00:50:52
them, but a lot of predictability for us? 00:50:59
So there there's some phasing that's built into the the the development agreement. I think what Chris, to me you're getting at is 00:51:08
that you're tying some of that phasing with with the reimbursement agreement. 00:51:14
Like other than that, I guess are rewind, are you wanting something specific to like phasing of blocks as blocks come in or do you 00:51:21
want like actual timelines as far as like dates knowing that. Yeah. And maybe Jamie is stating it clearly for me where he said you 00:51:29
could break this up and have the, you know, applications come back for each of the areas. I mean, is that kind of what you 00:51:36
suggested? Jamie, I, I guess I'm getting up there a few different ways you could handle it. One would be. 00:51:44
Reapplication phase by phase. The other would be where you're breaking the reimbursement into tranches that they would submit for 00:51:53
when they incurred expenses. You could cap and phase that distribution in a way that creates an incentive for each phase to be 00:52:01
completed. I like that so. 00:52:09
What it eliminates is you could have a developer that incurs eligible expenses all in phase one that eats up a majority of this 00:52:19
amount and you'd prevent that from happening. They'd only be able to get a certain amount per phase and could only submit phase by 00:52:25
phase. 00:52:31
And then if it became a problem, they could just come back and say we have this incredible opportunity, we want an amendment. 00:52:39
And what I was saying was to tie. 00:52:46
If we made any kind of motion tonight, that whatever we decided would be tied to the same to the development agreement. 00:52:49
And if they don't develop within that timetable, this agreement also goes away, right, Right. Yeah. You use the same decision, 00:52:57
Yes, of 2026, December 31st, 2026. So they have to start building July 20. 00:53:06
No July 2026 and then the rescissions. 27th July was an intended date. The the deadline was hoping to start building but the 00:53:16
development agreement says they have to by. 00:53:22
December 30, right? Correct. 00:53:29
And we retain this to the December 31st. 00:53:31
It was felt appropriate to put margin in that right. We have a plan date, but we know things change and so that's that's all the 00:53:36
difference in those two dates was. 00:53:41
OK. And that's two years? 00:53:46
But we can do both of those. I feel like it's important to do the timeline. I I stated that as well. I just wonder if we should 00:53:51
also do the reimbursement tranches. 00:53:56
That incentivizes it to keep rolling in so additional monies aren't asked for, you know? 00:54:02
It's such a blank ask. 00:54:08
Do you know what I mean? 00:54:11
So if we set some limitations that incentivize opportunity, I feel like that could be helpful. And then if it wasn't good, you 00:54:13
could come back and ask for an amendment. I think that would be appropriate. 00:54:19
Yeah, I think the basis for the structured parking again I think was the downtown agreement at the time and. 00:54:26
It was saying that structured parking adds value. 00:54:35
It adds tax base. 00:54:38
Let's make sure there's predictability in that portion of it. 00:54:41
Because the whole development is kind of dependent on all filling the same character. How do you start phase one if you don't know 00:54:47
if phase two is going to be able to follow the same kind of character and style? And I'm not saying we can't get it, it's just we 00:54:52
have the same issue. I know, I know, I don't know how to bridge that. 00:54:58
You don't like the chances, though, that we were hitting middle ground. I'm just, I'm, I'm trying to think what that looks like 00:55:05
and what, what, what, what that means. Maybe elaborate more on what the tranche. 00:55:10
When you say there's a tranche. 00:55:19
We're going to deliver phase one, Steve. How many phases total are in the project, in the overall project, It's so hard to predict 00:55:22
beyond here. We said it would be done through. 00:55:28
I believe in the application was it 20312032? I think there's a schedule in the application. 00:55:35
You know it could start phasing building by building as users come in. So I don't I don't know how. 00:55:42
The only thing in the development agreement is an initial phase, which is the entertainment and mixed-use that's cordon off in 00:55:48
blue. I don't think any other phases are identified. 00:55:53
Right, big picture. 00:55:59
And so if you were to trunt it as you're talking about, what does that look like for phase one, for instance? 00:56:33
I think what the? 00:56:44
The RDH here is suggesting is that. 00:56:46
Submitting to be reimbursed and having phase one eat up all of the committed RDA revenues is not wanted by the city. That they 00:56:51
want some incentive that the full project will be built out. 00:56:57
Yeah, that's fair. 00:57:05
I'm good. Could you just do it based off of the share of the project area? So if you're talking about 35 acres and this, you know, 00:57:08
you, you, you limit a percentage to this phase one because it's, it's a percentage value. Remember that the 73,000,000 is an 00:57:16
assumed build out of all of that. The phasing is already implicit in it, I suppose. 00:57:24
In that the tax increment has to be generated after we build something. 00:57:33
So you know, it may end up being $80 million in increment, it may end up being $40 million of increment. You know, I don't know 00:57:38
what the assessor is going to do and how it's going to shake out. So I don't know how you talk about percentages against 73 00:57:43
because it's an estimated number, but by default if we only build out phase one, that's all that's available to us is the 00:57:49
increment from that and maybe. 00:57:54
For instance, let me just show you. 00:58:05
In our application we include is this. 00:58:09
And this shows lot 123 each of the different blocks. 00:58:12
Let one create of the $41 million total, lot 1 creates $3.1 million of increment. That's all we can ask for, right? It's phased, 00:58:18
it's, it's tapped by the value it created, all right. 00:58:24
Lot lot 4 is the same, Lot 5 is the same. We can only ask for what we've created. So I think the phasing is kind of implicit to 00:58:32
it. As I'm saying, I think you're missing the point of the request. 00:58:38
You're saying that phasing is implicit because the amount that can be spent is capped, but the phasing is not implicit in terms of 00:58:45
using the RDA revenues as an incentive to complete the entire project. 00:58:51
But the. 00:58:59
RDA revenues only come if we build out the future phases, I guess is my point. If all I ever build out is Lot 1, all I can ever 00:59:00
ask for is $3.1 million. 00:59:05
I think This is why phasing becomes. 00:59:10
Important to the RDA where we can say you want to start with phase one. 00:59:15
Go on an application for phase one, you want to start on phase four, go on an application for phase four and it ties the tax 00:59:20
increment financing from each of those phases to that area so that. 00:59:26
We know each of these areas is going to be started. What is exciting about this ask is that it has the potential to say all of 00:59:33
it's going to be accomplished. And we've been waiting on this site. This was the site we thought would go 1st. And so we're saying 00:59:41
so is how this is going to happen. And I feel like there's opportunity here. I don't exactly know the wording, but I think I have 00:59:49
a suggestion as we as we talk through it. So we have the dissolution language in the development agreement. 00:59:56
That if they don't pull a building permit and begin vertical construction by a certain date, then the land use approvals can be 01:00:04
revoked. What if the RDA reimbursement for the initial phase is conditioned on pulling a permit and beginning vertical 01:00:14
construction on the next phase and then that sequence continues where we don't have other phases identified? It would be. 01:00:24
Block to block to block. 01:00:34
You're saying the first reimbursement couldn't come until you could not request reimbursement on the initial phase until you pull 01:00:37
a permit and begin construction on the second phase? So we're pushing the collection of dollars out? 01:00:45
Which is reducing the present value. 01:00:54
The commitment from the city would remain, but the the actual reimbursement would not occur until the next phase, right. By 01:00:56
pushing that out, I'm paying interest longer, I'm paying investors longer. I'm just saying that present value just got eroded in 01:01:03
the gap starts to not be like it's, it's an incentive for you to keep moving. It is an incentive to keep moving. I just worry can 01:01:10
I start under terms that. 01:01:17
And that gives us the guarantee that you're going to keep moving. 01:01:26
That's we're answering our list. You can answer your list. Yeah. My risk is I can't start. 01:01:29
You're putting a hand behind my back a little bit on starting. 01:01:37
Right. 01:01:42
And to be fair, that's the truck record on that land. 01:01:44
Right. It's it's been sitting there and sitting there and sitting there. Yeah, it's been a tough entitlement for sure. 01:01:48
Yeah. 01:01:54
Is there a way to make it so? 01:01:57
There's a cap to that phase before, right? Overlap these somewhat a little bit so that it's not, it's not all or nothing. So 01:02:00
because there's going to be a natural break anyways, right, you're going to have some overlap. 01:02:07
You're going to finish phase one, you're going to lease it up, then you're going to go design and you're going to start 01:02:15
constructing. So there could be several years of gap is all I'm saying, where money is sitting there in the Rdas and we're not 01:02:19
able to access it. 01:02:23
And help our investor feel a little bit better with the captive phase one be something like the project area is reduced to that 01:02:28
area. 01:02:32
That phase. 01:02:38
For the tax increment financing. 01:02:42
Because it really doesn't phases. 01:02:47
Because I'm trying to think through what he proposed and it erodes the whole incentive that you're trying to create. Yeah, you're 01:02:54
right. If 25% of the OR I don't know what the cap is, right? But there's more money sitting out there for us to collect if we 01:03:01
start the next phase. But we're able to start collection understanding that there's always an overlap between phases. 01:03:08
So you can start collecting, but at a certain .40 to 50% whatever, we'd be leaving money on the table or it's going to be 01:03:16
collecting an RDA coppers until we actually do start the next phase. It's just that you can start it, you just can't finish 01:03:21
reimbursing. 01:03:26
The agreement would allow you to submit for 50% reimbursement on the initial phase. 01:04:06
The remaining 50% would be held until a permit is pulled in, vertical construction begins on the next block, and then each of them 01:04:14
would sequence the same 5050% of work. 01:04:21
1075. 01:04:29
Of your anticipated 75. 01:04:34
Yeah, that's what I'm asking. It's the anticipated. So we'd come to an agreement on what the anticipated. 01:04:36
Increment is for phase one and we would basically say 50% of that can get released. I think this is what I was proposing more or 01:04:43
less 50% can get released back, 50% is really tied to the next phase having have momentum whether it's a site plan, building 01:04:50
permit construction. When you complete the initial phase, you'll know the full amount of the. 01:04:56
Reimbursable expenses that are eligible, right, you will have built it. 01:05:04
So what we're saying is you take that amount, write it in half and you can't go beyond 50% until you begin phase two. Once you 01:05:10
once you begin phase two, you can submit for it all. 01:05:16
Yeah, I'm getting. Basically you can submit for 37.5% of the qualified expenses until it allows you to overlap the phases if you 01:05:24
need to right? It just. 01:05:30
Means that you'll have an initial allotment of RDA eligible reimbursed expenses that you can't quite tap into. 01:05:37
So that would be option one, option 2. 01:05:47
Is agreed to an estimated increment that's going to happen, right, based on our investment value or after the first year, I 01:05:51
suppose we'll have an assessed value, right? We'll have an assessed value. We'll be able to calculate what the increment is going 01:05:57
to be over 25 years and say 50% of that value. 01:06:02
So you're not pushing cash so far out, but yet it's still gated. We can only get 50% of the value of it unless phase two is 01:06:08
started. 01:06:12
That would be my preference. Does that make sense? So you'd finish the project, assessor would assess we would have take the taxes 01:06:18
from the new project times it by 25, we can take 50% of that. 01:06:24
For qualified expenses back 50% has to be tied to some momentum on phase two. So I think either mechanism creates the incentive to 01:06:31
to get the next phase going. It's going to be a policy question for the RDA board, which they prefer. 01:06:39
The one thing? 01:06:49
I don't know what that will do to our bond value, right, If we were to be able to go to bondholders and say? 01:06:52
Help us build this now instead of taking this deferred cache string. 01:06:58
Again, that 14,000,000 is still. 01:07:03
It's there's risk tied to it. 01:07:05
I still think it's going to tie it, put a hand behind her back in terms of what we're able to viably do. This gap is, is real. 01:07:08
I've showed you the difference in yields. It doesn't close the gap, but the RDA is doing. 01:07:14
You can if we, if we decrease what that RDA contribution is, I am, I am concerned about about that. I don't think we'll be able to 01:07:21
bond it if we were to choose to do that. 01:07:26
But we are capped in that we can only ask. 01:07:40
I know you say I don't. I don't. It doesn't sound like I'm getting it. What? 01:07:44
What's being asked? 01:07:49
But we can't ask for any more than what lot 1 is generated. 01:07:51
If we spend $5,000,000 which of qualified expenses which we will spend more than 3 million? 01:07:56
We don't get anymore until. 01:08:03
We go on to the next phase. 01:08:06
We have to generate it to ask for it. 01:08:14
It's is there an amount greater than 50% that keeps your? 01:08:26
I don't know financing viable. 01:08:32
I don't know, I'd have to ask folks that sell the bond. But if you're an investor and you're going to buy this bond, you're going 01:08:35
to pay a lot less for it because you know there's less certainty in those future cash flows, right? 01:08:40
So with what he's saying, where? 01:08:47
They're only going to get whatever they generate in that first phase. There's no guarantee to keep building right? 01:08:50
What happens to this agreement if they. 01:08:57
Stop building. 01:09:01
How long does this stay in place? 01:09:04
Does it get tied to that land? Do they sell that? If they sell the rest of their land to somebody else does this and it's tied to 01:09:07
that, it continues with that land. 01:09:13
There, there's an assignment, there's an assignment clause, The city would have to concur on the assignment, but you can only 01:09:22
withhold it if you have a reasonable, reasonable basis, you know, a bad actor. And, and that bothers me because that's valuable. 01:09:29
They can turn around and say, look, we've, we've got this all this land with this tip agreement. 01:09:35
They're in the same bind we are, right? We have to discount the land accordingly. 01:09:43
Nobody thinking. 01:09:49
Well, maybe if there's some kind of provision, if we keep it the way they have it, where it's still, they're still only getting, 01:09:53
you know, what they've created, but then there's some end to that agreement. There's still something in there that. 01:09:59
Doesn't tie it to the rest of the land if they're not developing, maybe that's what it is. Yeah. So we've already talked about 01:10:06
putting in and I think Steve's a great the revocation for carry over the revocation provision from the development agreement. So 01:10:12
if they don't begin vertical construction on the initial phase by December 31, 2026. 01:10:18
Then we can revoke the commitment we be in the city can revoke the commitment. I I want to restate to make sure I understand what 01:10:25
you're saying. Christy, I think your concern is for the out phases that aren't identified if they build phase one and then don't 01:10:31
do anything else. 01:10:37
The city's commitment would remain, and that would be marketable. 01:10:44
To the landowner if they sell it to someone else. 01:10:51
Maybe what you need to put in the agreement is that when the initial phase is completed, they have the clock start sticking to 01:10:55
begin the 2nd subsequent phase and so on. Or you can revoke the agreement. 01:11:03
Which is kind of what we're doing. We're just not. 01:11:12
Doing it by the permit if we just stayed in there that it has. 01:11:15
You hold back some of the reimbursable. 01:11:22
Expenses. Unless the next phase begins, the stick approach would be. 01:11:27
Start a timer, or else the city's commitment is. 01:11:34
Bonding security. 01:11:41
Well, the carrot doesn't necessarily because you're tying it over and dropping it down to 50%. But if you're still at the 75% and 01:11:44
then the timer goes off, that bonding still is there. The numbers are still there for the the bonds, but then they have a 01:11:52
timeline. So it's risky the way I scary it away, but it's, and I, and I just want to admire this, but I suggested 50%, but that 01:11:59
was just, that's easy math for talking to the example. 01:12:07
It doesn't have to be 50% and maybe there's an amount that works better for the applicant and for the city that still provides 01:12:15
that incentive. I don't know what that number is because. 01:12:21
I'm the lawyer, not the matter. 01:12:29
Again, what's your view of 3A in the participation agreement? 01:12:32
Where it says the tax and commitment collection period for the property will begin on an effective date upon the upon the latter 01:12:37
oven. There's a few options in there, but it says 35 years after the first annual increment payment, so for the entire project 01:12:41
area. 01:12:46
It says the reimbursement period basically ends 35 years after he asked for the first payment. Now there are some other provisions 01:12:51
in there around the phase four collection period and some other things, but is there something around that, Jamie that you see is 01:12:58
a is a way to close? Tell me where you're looking? Again, this is the participation agreement on 3A. 01:13:04
The three on mine doesn't have any subsections. 01:13:12
It's the timing of the annual increment payments and then triggering collection of increment you see. 01:13:16
Mm-hmm. 01:13:23
That's the beginning, that's the 1st. 01:13:27
I don't know if we have a version control issue or not, but it basically says. 01:13:31
We trigger. 01:13:36
And the collection period ends 35 years later, meaning you have to trigger the rest of the parcels within that time. 01:13:39
And again, there is a provision in here for. 01:13:48
Also just the end of phase four, which I don't know what the end of phase four RDA period is, It's the latter of right now, but if 01:13:51
we were to say. 01:13:55
Key type trigger. 01:14:01
Once you trigger the first one. 01:14:03
The collection period ends, you know, 40 years later or whatever it is, meaning we have to have started everything in order, 01:14:06
otherwise we're giving up back end revenue. 01:14:11
I understand that. I don't think that provides the incentive that the RDA board's looking for. 01:14:18
We would be giving up, yeah. 01:14:24
This benefit would basically phase out if we didn't start timely. Is it 4D that he's talking about Jamie? 01:14:29
It starts with triggering a collection of interest and again we did exchange some versions and I. 01:14:37
Look at correction. I don't I don't see the language he's referring to. 01:14:43
Whether or not this is in what you're looking at, you could you could evaluate this. 01:14:50
You have a different agreement than the one we're looking at. 01:15:04
Could this be a proposed language though that bridges or a version of it? 01:15:07
Can you read it again or is this is it? 01:15:22
I'm basically suggesting there's an outside date. If we haven't triggered, we're going to start giving up back end revenue because 01:15:34
the collection period has a defined end date. 01:15:38
And I'll advise the RDA board here. I I think that's a longer period than what you're looking for. 01:15:45
Because we're kind of saying the same thing, only we're talking about a much sooner date. 01:16:01
I feel like we have the same thing in mind, we just have a much sooner date in mind. 01:16:07
Yeah, it's so tricky, right? Like. 01:16:21
You want this project to start, you want it to be viable. And so you put these anchors in there and yet those tire hands and then 01:16:24
don't allow us to have the ability to start. And you want assurance. I get it. I get the pull. I don't know what the I don't know 01:16:29
what the solution is. 01:16:34
That is difficult. 01:16:43
The gap in returns is real and if we hamper the ability. 01:16:49
To bond that, that's impactful for sure. 01:16:55
What about the stick approach that we talked about that? 01:17:01
Makes it so the numbers kind of remain the same. Then you have a stick approach but at a longer date, right? So what's a shorter 01:17:04
date? Because that's not really meeting the needs. 01:17:11
35 years that we're doing. 01:17:19
Yeah, yeah. And that's on the back end, right. That's obviously not the start. That's that basically gives you 10 years to have 01:17:21
triggered the last parcel, otherwise you're giving up cash. 01:17:25
So the entire development would have had to start over 10 years. This is an 8 year development already. 01:17:32
Otherwise, we're starting to give up cash. 01:17:37
That's the one I prefer, the other. 01:17:47
Yeah, I think, I think that's the most. 01:17:50
The least impactful as far as closing the gap? 01:17:55
That's preventing viability to start with. 01:18:00
The other stick, I guess. Maybe somebody could articulate. 01:18:04
It was more tied to a start date. 01:18:08
What goes away? All future parcels basically wouldn't if we didn't start on a certain time. You're suggesting that all parcels? 01:18:11
The participation agreement would be void for all future parcels if we didn't start on time, that's correct. It's basically doing 01:18:18
what we're doing on phase one. 01:18:22
But doing that for future phases as well, right? 01:18:27
Then the question is how do we define phases and what does that mean? 01:18:32
I don't favor that approach because of the moving parts. 01:18:36
The ladder. 01:18:40
Yeah, I mean. 01:18:42
What we've heard from you is we know about the initial phase. We haven't chunked the subsequent phases, so. 01:18:45
We don't know exactly what they'll look like yet. I don't know how you would identify those dates. 01:18:54
To a degree that you're comfortable with today. So I. 01:19:00
I mean, my own preference would be the carrot approach and then set those percentages at an amount that you think will work with 01:19:03
your ability to bond and and build the project. 5050 was illustrative. 01:19:10
Yeah, give us an amount that works for you. Yeah, the carrot is a stick. I mean, just. 01:19:17
Because again, it puts a hand behind her back, but you say hand behind your back. It's an incentive to do the next phase. Yeah. So 01:19:22
what's an amount that, I mean, I'm throwing a lifeline here and trying to. 01:19:29
To lead you to a solution that'll get you what you're asking for. 01:19:36
And provide an incentive that the project is not going to die after the initial phase, so. 01:19:40
5050 clearly won't work because you're very uncomfortable with that. 01:19:46
What will? 01:19:51
What if we were to be something more 7030? Let's just say we would be able to go to those bondholders, they would discount us 01:20:06
still for that last 30. 01:20:11
Unless it we actually performed. So I don't I don't know, I don't know what that what that discount would be. 01:20:19
But let me put that on the table and I think looking at the RDA board, you know, 30% is a meaningful incentive that. 01:20:26
That gives me some comfort that they'll be motivated to move the next phase forward. 01:20:36
I just put on the table, I need to go talk to the advisors that do this kind of stuff and understand that. And if so, I'll have to 01:20:41
come back to the art party and discuss it. But. 01:20:46
If that's what moves forward tonight. 01:20:53
That's really helpful for me. I've I've been doing this for a really long time and this site in particular is difficult for me and 01:20:58
it's really, it would be really helpful for me if you feel like that's an opportunity. 01:21:04
If you had a magical idea that was better than this, I'd be open to it too. I I really just want to see this advance, and I'm 01:21:11
brushing with broad strokes on this. I watched other developments. I saw how they built. I watched their history. I pushed them 01:21:17
far beyond their limits. 01:21:23
And I felt comfortable and. 01:21:29
And so anything that allows me to know that the history of the site is going to change is helpful in any kind of agreement like 01:22:06
this. I, I feel more comfortable towards doing something like that. So if, if you feel like you converge the gap with us with 01:22:12
that, I feel more comfortable moving forward with something like that. 01:22:19
So can I state my understanding so when and if you decide to make a motion, you can state it the way it will need to be reflected 01:22:27
in the agreement. It would be that you approve the reimbursement agreement as drafted with two revisions. The 1st is that we bring 01:22:37
in the revocation provision from the development agreement that if the initial phase does not begin by December 31st of. 01:22:46
2026. 01:22:57
The city can begin the process of revoking the. 01:22:58
Reimbursement agreement. And then the second would be that the city will reserve 30% of the. 01:23:03
Of the expenses eligible to be reimbursed in phase one. 01:23:14
Until the developer. 01:23:18
I couldn't remember if we did it. I felt like we didn't. 01:23:56
Company and Steve requested that the association instead of the property zone association, as long as we got that in, I was going 01:24:00
to tie it to this and I don't want to forget that that was important to me. And then is there any other language that we need to 01:24:05
tie to this? Like we don't want to talk about the provision of having an actual anchor that we are approving even though I feel 01:24:11
like we have the opportunity. 01:24:17
The the idea is good, unfortunately. 01:24:24
In an RDA agreement, I don't believe state law supports them. What about tying the regional discussion? I mean, obviously the 01:24:27
development has to the agreement has to occur in this site. And do we need to do anything like tie that here and have it come back 01:24:34
to the board? Or do we just let it go through the process because we've made a good standard? OK, Yeah. If you remember, the 01:24:41
development agreement provides the Planning Commission the ability to make it appeal if to the City Council. OK, awesome. 01:24:49
Wait a second till the City Council can. Can the council override the Planning Commission if they want something OK? 01:24:57
Which is the same as the RDA. Are you talking about from Mike? So let's say the Planning Commission, something the council liked 01:25:06
it, the Planning Commission was trying to install the project, right? Yeah. 01:25:13
I was just wondering how the last phase works. We just give 100% on the last phase because if we. 01:25:22
And to be clear, the 7030 split is against the total estimated increment over the 30 years. 01:25:33
Not I submit for $100 pay 70 it's you pay up to the 70% and then payments stop until the next one. I just want to make sure that 01:25:42
that's what we're talking about. I believe that's correct. Yeah, thank you you you will at the conclusion of the initial phase 01:25:49
have an idea of. 01:25:56
You will have documented what the reimbursable amounts are, right? It will be built. 01:26:04
And so you will. I think we can. 01:26:11
Put a language to again after completion, the assessor will assess that's what's going to that's what's going to define what 70% 01:26:14
is of so. 01:26:17
And what is the definition of starting the next phase, submitting the builder permit and beginning vertical construction? We'll 01:26:22
use the same languages in the development agreement in the revocation provision. 01:26:28
So it's more than a permit they have to actually start turning to. 01:26:36
Which means it'll be. 01:26:41
Bonded and everything else. 01:26:43
Anybody else have any questions? 01:26:53
Comments. I'm sweating over here. This is good. This is good discussion. It's really hot in here. I'm like turning red because 01:26:56
it's. 01:27:00
OK. 01:27:10
Comments, comments, comments from the board. 01:27:12
I think that I don't know. I think that the current agreement that we've come to does protect the city to keep forward progress 01:27:16
and to incentivize the developer to keep forward progress. I think that if that was our goal, I think we've got a good agreement, 01:27:23
good middle ground. You encapsulate it again just so I understand all the details. We've saved the noted changes, then I can make 01:27:31
a motion right after and refer to those. So the changes will be that we. 01:27:38
Carry over the racism language from Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement and put identical language in this agreement. That 01:27:46
language is that if by December 31st, 2026 they have not pulled the building permit and begin vertical construction on the initial 01:27:54
phase, then the City shall have the right to revoke. 01:28:02
This reimbursement agreement and then the second change is that? 01:28:11
30% of the eligible reimbursable amount. 01:28:17
As determined by the assessed value of the property will be held by the city. 01:28:23
Until a building permit is pulled in, vertical construction begins on a subsequent block of the development, and then each block 01:28:29
of the development shall have a similar 7030 to create an incentive that the entire project be built. But we're still basically 01:28:37
committing money to land that we don't know what's going to be built on. 01:28:44
Right, you know what the permitted uses are at this point. 01:28:52
You don't know what the specific site plans look like. 01:28:58
But they will at that point they will have gone through that whole process. 01:29:03
I do want to mention something. 01:29:10
I think that it's really important as we have this discussion to talk about the agreement and the participation reimbursement 01:29:12
Section B, where you have the intent to come back at 85% in case you need to 1st specific identified features of whatever. 01:29:20
I think the goal here is that whatever we are giving you today should incentivize incredible anchors to come because what I was 01:29:29
just told is that I cannot put something in that allows me to address the anchors that are coming because we want to really focus 01:29:36
on the infrastructure. So asking for additional beyond this, what we're saying is everything that you're doing is so good and we 01:29:44
hope that that draws in awesome anchors. That's what we're really hoping with this agreement. 01:29:51
Does everybody understand that that's sitting here? 01:30:00
That's my intent with this is that everything that we're doing today draws in the anchors that we need and that we want. And, and 01:30:02
my expression of this is that we've discussed in the development agreement the types of entities and and companies that we're 01:30:10
hoping to retain and see. But I think that's important as we look at the signal of intent in section B that you understand my 01:30:18
signaling to you that I hope this is satisfying for the people that you're looking after. 01:30:26
Coming in. 01:30:34
OK. 01:30:35
Understood. My intent has been spoken all right. 01:30:38
All right. Thank you. Good. Then I just need a motion. 01:30:43
OK, I moved to adoption resolution. 01:30:51
U2023-11 approving the Force Tax Increment Participation Agreement and allowing its chair to sign the agreement with the noted 01:30:55
changes as read by. 01:31:00
Jamie earlier. 01:31:06
All right, Christy has given us a first second. 01:31:12
Amber is giving us a second. Is there any discussion? 01:31:17
If there is no discussion, I am going to do this by roll call Christy. 01:31:24
Marty. 01:31:30
Can you come back to me? 01:31:34
Nope. And wait. 01:31:36
I just still don't feel comfortable. 01:31:44
With the fact that we're committing funds to land that we don't have a plan on. 01:31:46
So I'm a knee. 01:31:51
OK. Did you want to have a discussion on it? 01:31:53
Well, I feel like I've brought it up a couple times. Chrissy's the one that even put the bug in my ear about it. Can we have a 01:31:56
discussion right now? OK. 01:32:00
Great. So the development, sorry, I understand what you're saying that we're putting forth these funds to incentivize them, but 01:32:06
it's still this really big agreement. 01:32:11
I, I just feel like we could somehow split it up, but I, I understand your concern and you're put in a hard position. I just, I 01:32:17
don't feel comfortable voting it that way. 01:32:21
Just because. 01:32:27
It's always bothered me the whole time that we don't have something explained in faith. 01:32:29
Two. Is that two or four? 01:32:35
Well, we did. So they brought a full plan to us earlier this year and we did. We denied it. 01:32:38
So we and the feedback we gave to them was you need to do this by blocks and in phases because we weren't willing to approve the 01:32:46
whole plan. You remember the full plan. 01:32:51
I remember seeing it, but I don't remember all the details of it. 01:32:58
Right. So they this was what they. 01:33:02
This was from our. This came from our direction well. 01:33:06
My direction was let's change the code and not to structure parking as much as it makes sense financially. I'm thinking about what 01:33:11
I would want to see on that land for the community, not just. 01:33:17
Did you have any suggestions on how you would like to see it happen during this discussion? I don't really feel like you have 01:33:24
mentioned any type of phasing or solution for Yeah, I don't know if I have a solution. It's just hard for me to approve funding. 01:33:31
But you did approve the plan 2 weeks ago. Yeah. And I I did it because I knew I did approve the plan. 01:33:38
But it hasn't been something I've been wanting this whole time. I just knew that not approving it wouldn't make a difference and 01:33:47
so and then I find out that I'm approving lots of funding to go towards this project. 01:33:53
I'm not trying to. 01:34:00
I I feel at a loss. 01:34:04
Your voice matters and you have you're important to us as you represent the people. And so we want to make sure that what is it 01:34:37
that you would feel comfortable with as you want to work with the property owners and you also want to represent and bring benefit 01:34:42
to the community. 01:34:48
We could. 01:35:02
Well, let's, let's see. Let's keep having our discussion. 01:35:05
I. 01:35:13
I understand that the board. 01:35:16
I, I actually would like to push this to another meeting. So, and I don't feel like that's going to be a popular request on the 01:35:21
board because this is a huge agreement. It's a lot of money and I don't feel like it's been figured out completely. And I feel 01:35:30
like we're rushing it through because the council wants to see their projects completed. And so I feel a little bit. 01:35:38
I feel like, I don't feel like it's complete. Would it be helpful to, because they, they have like the conceptual plan for that 01:35:48
phase one that was part of the development agreement, but having maybe prior to initiating that like the next phase, the next 01:35:55
block that they, they come back for a, a conceptual exhibit that it gets added to the development agreement because right now the 01:36:02
site planning would be done. 01:36:09
Just at the Planning Commission level that maybe ones in charge of doing that, but having kind of that same level of a content 01:36:17
plan that was approved for phase one, I mean is that is that something you'd be interested in? 01:36:23
Just having a conceptual, conceptual plan doesn't really commit them to anything, right? Well, it could, it could as far as like, 01:36:31
like, like uses you could get into to some level of detail. Like phase one does have a pretty, it's, it's pretty close to being 01:36:39
almost like a like a site plan. Like it shows the amenities that, you know, the walkways. Just a suggestion if, if that's maybe 01:36:47
something that that would help with kind of understanding what's what, what's going to happen later on. 01:36:55
In talking with Steven, it sounded like they didn't know like at this point I didn't know that that level of detail. But by the 01:37:03
time they get very close with phase one being completed before they initiate, you know, construction on the next phase that they 01:37:08
can come back to the. 01:37:13
RDA board with with another concept plan and I don't know Jamie, if that's something you would then reincorporate back into the 01:37:21
development agreement or is essentially they they just approve that and then they would align their site plan with the Planning 01:37:26
Commission with that concept plan. 01:37:31
Because I do understand maybe there's some banks with not have not having kind of that level of authority because it's the 01:37:37
Planning Commission kind of takes it takes it over from there. But that would at least provide some sort of constant level 01:37:42
approval from the RDA before it goes to the site planning process with the Planning Commission. So basically what you're saying 01:37:47
is? 01:37:52
How it's approved right now and I'm so sorry, remind me the phases because phase one is the entertainment section, right? And 01:37:58
phase two is the apartment building. 01:38:02
That is all phase one. 01:38:08
Phase two is the one that I don't know yet. They haven't numbered subsequent phases, so they have. 01:38:12
The initial phase is what you see there and what we're talking about. Anything after that, we're not sure what it looks like, 01:38:20
which is why the the incentive language is by blocked. Yeah. 01:38:29
The corner of Vineyard Connector in Geneva allows office with supplementary retail. The commercial allows hotel, retail and 01:38:39
restaurants. 01:38:42
The mixed-use is where the residential is with some emphasis on ground floor. So currently how it is with the development 01:38:46
agreement that we've signed and then if we would have put this through right now, anything in the future, we won't, we won't look 01:38:51
at this again. 01:38:56
We being the RDA board, maybe not. 01:39:06
We be in the city, yes, but Landius approvals don't always occur at the City Council level and and with. 01:39:09
State laws changed and still beginning February, a lot of site plan activities that the city council's used to doing will by 01:39:19
statute, by state statute, not by city ordinance, happen at the Planning Commission level, not the City Council level. So the 01:39:25
approvals on site plans will come to the city. They may not come necessarily to the City Council or the RDA board. You can always 01:39:31
tie it. 01:39:37
And I think what Morgan is suggesting is that the site. 01:39:45
That for the out phases. 01:39:49
Maybe you tie the continued RDA participation to the RDA being presented that site plan so you know what you're looking at. 01:39:51
Would that help you feel comfortable that that that really could be that kind of the conceptual idea of what the next phase is 01:40:06
going to deliver? And then once you approve that, then the actual site planning, getting to the architectural, all those little 01:40:11
elements would then be approved by the Planning Commission. 01:40:16
So. 01:40:22
You're what you're saying is. 01:40:24
I'm having a hard time repeating it back to you, which makes me feel like I probably don't understand it. 01:40:29
You'd commit to the known phase and then any phase after that, they'd come back to the RDA board with the site plan and you would. 01:40:35
And if I don't approve the site plan? 01:40:41
What happens then? 01:40:47
I think we have to figure out what that means and what happens. Yeah, I mean, I think that that's tied to the reimbursement, 01:40:50
right. Like Marty, I mean this respectfully, but I, I think if you were to introduce that into the agreement, it would. 01:40:57
Erode the incentive the. 01:41:06
That we just negotiated to see the full project built out. Yeah, that makes sense. 01:41:10
So. 01:41:16
Their priorities can compete sometimes and that would be a competing priority. I mean, you're saying you want to know what the 01:41:19
next phases look like and. 01:41:23
I like, I like the priority of making sure that we see this as a completed project and it doesn't just die out and. 01:41:29
Like incentivizing that way, I do see the benefit in that. 01:41:36
So basically I can't have the best of both worlds. Well, you would. 01:41:41
You would fall back on the development agreement for UM. 01:41:46
Structuring how the land use approvals would occur. 01:41:53
And fall back on the development agreement, meaning the development. The development agreement lays out how the approvals on the 01:41:58
subsequent phases will work. And you do it with that and with city code. But it you wouldn't introduce a new requirement that 01:42:04
would relate to the RDA dollars in the current land use. 01:42:10
I mean, we can't do whatever we want, right? Like there's design characteristics already in the zoning, there's uses defined in 01:42:18
the development agreements, there's the design guidelines in the development agreement in terms of the quality of open space and 01:42:24
things like that. So it's not a free for all by any means, not in the future phases. 01:42:30
What what you don't know is how it will be masked and how it will be arranged on the site and if you know where the particular 01:42:38
uses are, but they're the menu of what they can put there has been limited. 01:42:43
Yeah, it's all constrained. So everything is going to happen. It would just be a parking garage on this square instead of this 01:42:49
square, but it would all be the same constraints that are already approved in the development agreement. 01:42:54
Does that give you comfort? 01:43:03
Yeah, I mean, that is helpful. Yeah. Umm. 01:43:07
I just have a lot of conflicting things going on in my mind right now. 01:43:12
Knowing that there's already an approved plan and that they they can go forward, what is what would it be? What would be the 01:43:20
downfalls or the negatives of giving financing to help them accomplish those goals? No, I mean, I think you bring up a good point 01:43:26
that. 01:43:31
The ship sailed. It's already been approved. 01:43:38
And we're just holding funding and negotiating the funding conversation. 01:43:41
I just I just didn't feel like and I understand that this is just a difference of opinion. 01:43:51
And that's basically what I'm here for, is my opinion. 01:43:58
I just feel like this whole project hasn't been what my opinion has wanted and so it's just really hard for me to, you know. 01:44:03
To see something go through that I didn't really want to go through and then. 01:44:15
Now I get to throw a bunch of money at something I didn't want to see happen. Yeah, I hear you. And so it's just. 01:44:18
And I, I just kind of feel like it's to the point where, you know, I could ask for a lot of things and I just, I felt a little 01:44:26
discouraged. Yeah, for me, I was really happy for the development agreement that we were able to reduce housing and the intensity 01:44:32
of the project. I thought that was good for sure. I, I just wanted to see the yard 2.0 And I know that that's not the dollar maker 01:44:38
and I know that's not like I, I mean. 01:44:44
You had a very great presentation on explaining why financially it's a better idea. It's just. 01:44:52
A certain height we want to cap on some of the housing. 01:45:35
And but the project was already put in there. So going back and running something in the yard, those just weren't the cards that 01:45:38
we were dealt with in this in the last six years. 01:45:43
Well, I don't think you would have accepted that. A total reduction of housing. Yeah, well. 01:45:50
The way it was standing, they said that the current zone, they couldn't have done anything with it and so we had to change it for 01:45:57
them. 01:46:00
Yeah, I don't think they meant housing, but it was nice that we were able to get a reduction of housing. So I hear you. I hear 01:46:04
what you're saying is, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying I didn't like it when it was put in originally. Even 01:46:10
though we were able to reduce housing and create this plan, I still don't like it. And so as an RDA board, it's difficult for me 01:46:16
to say. We understand that growth needs to happen and incentivize business, but I don't want to put money towards that because 01:46:22
it's not something I cared for. 01:46:28
Over all of these years, and I think that's fine to say I, I don't know if there's obligations inside of that, that we say this is 01:46:35
what we use RDA money for, this is the purpose of RDA funds. Or if you walk away and say I could use that tax increment financing 01:46:42
on another site and not on the site in general, you know, so those are all things that you have the ability to. 01:46:49
I don't know how you want to vote or if you are still in the same boat, but. 01:48:00
Does everybody after this discussion still? 01:48:07
Stand on the two. 01:48:10
1st and 2nd that went through, there's been a motion, there's been a second you're. 01:48:14
Having discussion in the midst of a vote, as I understand it, and I'm looking at our recorders to make sure we have it on record. 01:48:20
It's a roll call vote. Christie has voted yes. There's no other votes have been scored. Does your vote remain the same? 01:48:27
Yeah, I guess I'm a no, OK. 01:48:37
I'm going to go with yes. Did you hear about I? OK, awesome. Let's go ahead and adjourn. Thank you. Second and third. Aye, thank 01:48:40
you. Thank you, Council. 01:48:47
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
Unable to preview the file.
All right, everybody, we're going to go ahead and get started. 00:00:04
December 27th, Wednesday, the time is 7:41 and we're going to start our Vineyard Redevelopment Agency Board. We're actually 00:00:07
starting this meeting with a closed session. 00:00:13
Pam, would it be appropriate for us to hold a closed session and? 00:00:22
Perfect. Then everybody can stay here. So we'll start out and I just need a motion to go into a closed session for item a 00:00:29
discussion of character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. 00:00:35
So moved OK even though I just read it OK. 00:00:43
OK, you have to read it yourself Marty. I move to go into a closed session immediately in the City offices conference room to 00:00:48
discuss the character, professional competence of physical or mental health of an individual. OK, a first line Marty 2nd. 00:00:56
Second by ties all in favor. OK, Christy. 00:01:04
I, Marty, I, I, Amber, I and Tice. All right, we will be back. 00:01:08
That brings us to our business items this. 00:01:20
This is the appointment of an RDA Director Resolution U2023-12. 00:01:23
I am presenting a recommendation for the appointment of an RDA Director. The RDA Board has the opportunity to accept this 00:01:33
resolution. I am submitting the name Josh Daniels. Does anybody have any questions or comments as far as that? Otherwise I just 00:01:40
need a motion. Sure. I move to adopt RDA resolution U2023-12 authorizing the board chair to enter into a consult. I say board 00:01:46
chair unless you to enter into consultant agreement with Josh Daniels. Or is it Joshua Daniels for the position of Vineyard 00:01:53
Redevelopment Agency Director. 00:02:00
2nd. 00:02:08
First by Christy, second by Amber. Any discussion? 00:02:09
OK, I'll do this by roll call. Christy, Marty, yay, yay Amber. Aye, nice. Okay, we'll move on to the Forge Tax Increment 00:02:15
Participation Agreement Resolution U2023-11. This item was continued from the December 13th, 2023 RDA Board meeting. And where is 00:02:25
Oh, there you are. Steve will go ahead and present from the code of specific. 00:02:35
Do you want me to go right to presenting? 00:02:53
Morgan or Eric? OK. 00:02:57
I have a quick question. 00:03:06
Jeremy on 3.1. 00:03:10
We are going to use Josh Daniels Company's name. Is that OK or would we need to amend our motion? 00:03:13
I think the company names fine. Okay, Yeah, OK. 00:03:23
For the record, Steve Borup with Dakota Pacific Real Estate. It's nice to be here earlier. Last time I looked in everybody's eyes, 00:03:31
they looked a lot more tired when I was here on the 13th. 00:03:35
So, um. 00:03:44
Thank you for the opportunity to come back and share a little more detail about our request for RDA funds on the Forge last time 00:03:49
we talked a little bit about. 00:03:54
This is a landmark development. The development agreement was approved. It's a different kind of development. It's a kind of 00:04:00
development we don't see in Utah County. It's a development you don't see outside of downtown urban areas often. 00:04:07
And we'll talk about the value of that and why that is in the shortcoming, basically. 00:04:15
Together with the RDA, we can partner to make and close the gap as to why this kind of development doesn't happen. 00:04:22
And I think we can jointly benefit from that together so. 00:04:29
The current request is to ask for a performance based TIF, meaning that 75% of available funds that come to the RDA, we have to 00:04:34
create the increment before it can be paid to us. It is reimbursed for qualified expenses specifically focused on public open 00:04:41
space, those areas that have an A publicly accessible easement overlaying it. So if we talk in the development agreement, we 00:04:49
talked about 5 acres in particular, it's those open space, right? We're not talking about open space for. 00:04:57
You know, apartment building during that it's those parts and those plazas and those trail systems that are, are are the focus for 00:05:04
the funds and then structured parking of the parcels included in the Forge development agreement. So just wanted to talk 00:05:12
background. When the Forge mixed-use District was created, I think there was at least some trailing connection and discussion with 00:05:20
RDA at that time. I wasn't with Dakota Pacific at the time, but I do I did go back to the records and in 2018 in February. 00:05:28
$9.8 million was approved at that time. It was about a 780 stall garage in order as an acknowledgement that you know that there 00:05:36
was public private benefit in order to to to find a way. 00:05:43
To avoid seas of asphalt surface parking and create a garage that would benefit everybody. And so that was approved in 2018. It 00:05:52
was actually never signed. I don't think a participation agreement was actually ever signed or or agreed to and then. 00:05:58
As discussed prior, you know that particular phase didn't move forward. 00:06:07
When we came back in the first quarter and fourth quarter last year, we talked about TIFF. It was signaled, it was, it was 00:06:12
discussed in public hearing subcommittees and then in the development agreement we also signaled that. So I just wanted to be 00:06:18
clear that there has been some acknowledgement that this development is different. 00:06:23
It there is some dependency on being able to share jointly in some of the costs that come with them. 00:06:29
With the investment that's being made. 00:06:37
The project brings again landmark development right the Gateway Vineyard. 00:06:43
It brings significant added tax increment. 00:06:48
It's sustainable development, it's walkable development, It's a different kind of development, and I'll show some examples of what 00:06:52
I mean by that. It has significant public open space, amenities for the community, and it creates an economic base. The graphic 00:06:59
that you're looking at there is a typical tax increment financing kind of graphic where it shows that you have a baseline 00:07:05
property. Let me create the laser here. 00:07:11
Where you have a baseline property value and at a creation point there's additional investment which creates additional tax 00:07:24
because investments being made by a developer. 00:07:29
Eventually the collection period for the TIF ends and then 100% of the value. 00:07:39
Goes 100% to the taxing entities, that lighter blue portion, this is the portion that we're proposing that there's some shared 00:07:46
value in. And again, we would both be able to share in that value. Some of that would come back as reimbursement for those 00:07:52
qualified expenses. Some of that would just go to the taxi entity, some of that would go to the RDA. 00:07:58
If we were to do traditional development, when I say traditional, again, think the seeds of asphalt instead of taking these layers 00:08:05
of parking structure, spread them out over the whole site, right, which then you don't get the same kind of density. And we talked 00:08:11
about that a little bit last time. You get about 1/3 of the tax increment, that light blue portion, so. 00:08:16
The thesis of what I'm going to present today is that by actually investing along with us, it's going to create more value and 00:08:23
it's going to create more value than traditional development would for the taxi entities and allow all the benefits of this kind 00:08:28
of development as well. 00:08:32
So here's two developments that you may be familiar with. They're both in Utah County. One is the Valley Grove. It's in Pleasant, 00:08:40
Pleasant Grove, just across the freeway if you get off. 00:08:44
Pleasant Grove Blvd. You see the Valley Grove, there's some larger office buildings that sit here, and then there's some retail 00:08:49
here. These are the developed portions, therefore have included in the boundary. About 12% of the land is covered in buildings on 00:08:56
the ground floor. It's about 20 acres and you get about 4.1 million per acre of taxable value. That's not tax, but the value of 00:09:02
the buildings is about four point. One of the improvements is about 4.1 million per acre of taxable value. 00:09:08
The one on the right is Freedom Commons that was developed in Provo. 00:09:15
And it was hard, again, I think, to find instances where structured parking is used. This is 3 acres. It includes office, garage, 00:09:20
retail on the ground floor of the garage and includes the hotel. This is actually a public building, so there's no tax associated 00:09:26
with it, and I had to exclude it. 00:09:31
Another case study. Let's just take a 5000 square foot restaurant, OK? 00:10:13
And if you park that at 5 stalls per thousand square feet, you get 25 stalls required. 00:10:18
The cost per stall to develop on a surface part scenario over here is about 3 to $4000 per stall where structured parking might be 00:10:23
25 to 30,000. We talked about that. It's about 10X, you know, 9 to 10X the cost. 00:10:29
So in the surface park scenario, as a developer, I invest 1.6 million in a structured park, I invest 2.3 million. The structured 00:10:36
park has the benefit of taking about 1/3 of an acre versus 2/3 of an acre. So I'm using less land and I'm increasing the taxable 00:10:42
base is associated with it and therefore the tax increment per acre that's generated. And this is just tax increment, right? This 00:10:48
doesn't include land or some of the other levy costs, but it's nearly 3X on a tax increment per acre by allowing the structured 00:10:55
parking to occur. 00:11:01
Right, it creates funds for the taxing entities. 00:11:08
Case number study #2 takes block four. OK, this is the block of Geneva Road and Vineyard Connector and it says if I were to be 00:11:14
surface parked, which is the graphic at the top, I can fit 45,000 square feet of office on there. I can park it at 4 1/2 per 00:11:20
thousand at 180 stalls. Those you know our surface park throughout. 00:11:27
And I invest $13 million in that building, right? 00:11:35
With some assistance in partnership, we can create. 00:11:38
Something that looks more like this, that has $50 million of investment and again creates almost four times the amount of tax 00:11:44
increment per acre. And again, this is in addition to sustainable development, walkable development, economic base, right, people 00:11:50
being employed character, high character, so. 00:11:56
I'm just trying to show the logic side of the tax increment, but there's also so many other soft benefits in addition. 00:12:04
So taking that case study and that kind of information into that, that graphic that I showed earlier, you know, our land value, 00:12:13
the tax value is about 200,000 doesn't even show up on the graphic because it's not really significant in terms of the numbers 00:12:18
that we're talking about. 00:12:22
My estimates are under traditional development and the density we could get on the property, we would generate about $28 million 00:12:28
of of of tax increment. 00:12:33
Right. Again, that surface part, that's AC of asphalt. That's not a very interesting streetscape if you're walking down it. 00:12:41
With a portion of the additional increment that comes from creating the proposed development right through structured parking is 00:12:50
one element of that. 00:12:55
We can close that we can increase the tax increment to 73 million and these are estimates, right. This is all performance based, 00:13:01
but $73 million is the estimate for the the the increment under the proposed project. 00:13:09
Once the reimbursement period is over, you can see on the right the long term value creation for the taxing entities. It is a 00:13:18
major, major difference. 00:13:22
And the value that's going to go to a school district, that's going to go to Vineyard City, it's going to go to Utah County. 00:13:29
So. 00:13:41
The summary by the numbers says we invest $388 million, which includes 60 million of parking structures and $6 million into the 00:13:42
public open space. From that $388 million tax increment of $73 million will be generated. 00:13:49
The taxing entities will retain about 25% of that, which is $18 million. So they benefit, they get to $18 million, then they send 00:13:58
$55 million to the RDA. 00:14:02
Under the proposed terms, the RDA then takes that $55 million, holds back $14 million that's earmarked for affordable housing and 00:14:09
other RDA needs, and remits $41 billion over a 25 year period to reimburse qualified expenses. 00:14:16
That 25 year period is significant because we build the $66 million of qualified expenses as listed here up front. We pay for it, 00:14:26
we pay interest on it and then over 25 years we slowly get paid back. 00:14:33
$100, if I were to give you $100 in 25 years from now, if you were to discount that back at 8% per year, it would be worth $15 00:14:45
today. 00:14:50
Right. We'll put it another way. If you took $15 and invested at 8% for 25 years, you'd have $100. 00:14:58
The parking structures and the open space and I have a slide to show you on that as well. 00:15:36
So as said we, we provide the initial funding to construct the improvements. 00:15:45
And we pay about $27 million in carry costs just in order to have funded it up front and then slowly get reimbursed overtime. How 00:15:50
does that $14 million get allocated, $6 million allocated to public open space and $8 million allocated to parking. That's about 00:15:58
13.3% of the structured parking that says parking at structured parking in particular. 00:16:06
So the participation from the developer is significant here, right? We're not asking for the RDA to close the entire gap, in fact. 00:16:15
The RDA closes a portion of the gap and a lot of that gap is left remaining, but we believe that we have investors. 00:16:25
That will believe in this, that believe in this project and will be able to look at the scale and the impact of this and invest 00:16:34
anyways, even though the returns might not yield the same as they would if this was a traditional surface park development and the 00:16:38
kind of returns they could get on that. 00:16:43
So the conclusion is. 00:16:51
That TIF was always contemplated with the forged mixed-use district, at least on our side. We knew it was enabling. We knew it was 00:16:54
going to be necessary to create this kind of development and that's why we're here asking today, 100% of this TIF supports public 00:17:00
benefit. It, it creates open space, it creates increased tax revenues during the collection period and significant after the 00:17:06
taxing period and it enables real sustainable development. 00:17:12
And so the developer is going to invest along with the RDA to close the economic gap and capture public benefit. But we can't do 00:17:18
it alone and therefore we have submitted the request. So do we have any questions? I have a question. Did you mention a timeline 00:17:24
associated with this of building out your projects? 00:17:30
The Development agreement has a timeline in it. The Participation Agreement doesn't mention one specifically. It certainly makes 00:17:38
sense to tie those two together. 00:17:42
Can you go back to the slide that shows? 00:17:49
The 75% you went from that one? 00:17:54
I I kind of got confused. 00:18:02
Because we talk about how you're requesting 75% of the qualified tax lawyer or you're asking to be reimbursed 75% and then. 00:18:06
And that leaves us 14,000,000 is what you're saying if the projected. 00:18:17
I just don't understand. 00:18:23
Yeah, I'm sorry. So. 00:18:25
You believe that or your projections is the 73,000,000 what you believe the tax generated? That's the tax increment that all the 00:18:29
tax entities have at, you know. 00:18:35
Like over the next 30 years, if you take our taxable value that we've invested you time to buy the tax rate, that's $73 million, 00:18:42
OK. So that's what's generated. If we didn't reimburse you anything, we would guess your projection said that they're being in $73 00:18:49
million worth of tax, assuming we could develop the project still, that would be true. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It just helps me wrap my 00:18:56
head around these numbers. So then the 55,000,000 is 75% of that that would go to the RDA. 00:19:04
OK. And then that leaves us. 00:19:11
So this $14 million here is a hold back from the RDA. 00:19:17
You hold back 25% of the 55 million in the agreement and Eric or Morgan, somebody else can speak to how the RDA would allocate 00:19:23
that fund, but there is a hold back at 25% and that somewhere in that 14,000,000 specifically goes to the RDA for the RDA board to 00:19:30
decide. How about those funding that gets spent? 00:19:37
Yeah, that's a like that that would go to the greater RDA and you you can allocate that however as approved under the RDA. 00:19:45
And I don't, I don't know where this falls in the requirements, but specifically in the projections when we were working with 00:19:55
staff earlier, it was 10% was affordable housing I think was kind of earmarked. Again, I don't know how that works, but a certain 00:20:02
portion of that would be earmarked for that as I understand it. Yeah, I believe there is an exemption for remediation and there 00:20:10
there's some things that were in the state code, but essentially it's those, it's those three main priorities of the of the RDA. 00:20:17
Cleanup and infrastructure, those top two. 00:20:25
And you had asked for a timeline or a chart of what that is per year or what were you asking? 00:20:29
I was asking for a timeline on a build, so how fast they would build, whatever it is, get more clarity on that before we're we. 00:20:37
We get off of that question entirely, but did I, I have more questions, but I'd like to hear more about. Yeah, I just want to make 00:20:47
sure that this 14,000,000 isn't getting confused with the $14 million of what you could also look at it as a bondable value, 00:20:54
right? Like if we were to take that future flow of cash and say bond investors, how much will you give me today? If we were to 00:21:01
sell you that future stream of cash flows, they would give us about $14 million for for that stream. 00:21:08
Does that make sense? 00:21:16
Yeah. 00:21:19
So go to the next slide. 00:21:24
And I didn't I. 00:21:27
I guess I just get confused from here and I'm so sorry. 00:21:32
I don't have a background in finance nor development. 00:21:37
But umm. 00:21:42
Why are we talking about the 14,000,000 again? Are you just trying to tell me that this is? 00:21:43
Like I just am so confused. The 1490 keeps coming up with that money. I think the main point is people look at that $41 million 00:21:48
and say, wow, that's a big portion. The parking is only going to cost 60 million. We're paying for 2/3 of the parking. Well, 00:21:55
that's really not the case because we're paying again interest on the debt that was created to build the parking garages. And $27 00:22:02
million of that 41 is really just goes to carry costs of being able to have built it up front and reimburse slowly over time. 00:22:09
So it's really $14 million that we can allocate to the initial construction. Everything else is just tied up and carry costs. 00:22:16
And this kind of works like what Top Golf and the movie theater have where it's like every year we're doing a reimbursement. 00:22:25
That's very similar. 00:22:35
When you go to the site after that son. 00:22:37
I'd say that the main difference though between those is I believe there was some upfront cost with the with the top call for, 00:22:45
for, for infrastructure to get in place. Whereas this there's no, there's, there's no like upfront cost being requested. This is 00:22:52
just paying based off of the increment that the developers project adds to to the site. There was 500,000 upfront for water 00:23:00
infrastructure and connections for the medical and the infrastructure for the whole site. 00:23:07
The shared cost for every building. So basically. 00:23:14
This is saying that. 00:23:18
Like if you didn't build at all, right, if we just left the line, we would have, well, we would have no tax revenue at all. We 00:23:20
would just it would be money. It would go back to this is the value of our land and that would be in perpetuity. So you developing 00:23:26
brings the city money. 00:23:32
And benefits us and to help work as a partnership. What you're asking and what's commonly done with the RDA is you're asking for 00:23:39
75% of what the tax increment or the tax revenue is 75% of that for the next 25 years. Yeah, exactly. Maybe further clarify this 00:23:47
would just be proper taxes. There's nothing with sales taxes that that would be involved. OK, that's good to know. That's a good 00:23:55
clarification. Thank you. This was approved. This was part of the plan we approved in the last meeting, right. 00:24:03
This language, the participation agreement, the RDA wasn't bound by anything that we, the development agreement just kind of 00:24:12
signaled a desire to request. If we do, if this doesn't move forward, what happens on your end with that development? Yeah, we 00:24:18
have a real viability issue as a developer in that. 00:24:24
Some of these costs, right, The fact that on Lot 4, for instance, we have $14.8 million. 00:24:33
Versus 630? 00:24:42
And maybe this is a better example because this is a restaurant, but you know, we have $600,000 that we have to also make a return 00:24:46
on in order to be equivalent and attract an investor that's also going to look at the yard or the Valley Grove or anywhere else. 00:24:51
And how do we attract that investors money if they can go invest? 00:24:57
With a cost structure that looks more like this right, when the rent is going to be very similar. And so we have a challenge if 00:25:03
this isn't approved and we're going to have to figure out how to close that. Can you show me the project area? 00:25:09
In total, yeah, the project area is more or less. I'm gonna go back to this graphic. 00:25:19
But it's. 00:25:26
Everything in the forge except for this. So it's Lot 10. So it's the whole, that's the entire forge area. That's right. 00:25:28
It's equivalent of the Forge zoning. 00:25:38
The black 8, that's just in the future phase. 00:25:43
Is that as far As for development? Yeah, it is in the future, yeah. I mean we designated a land use with it in the development 00:25:48
agreement. That's where the potential for the land donation for the park will be. But. 00:25:56
Yeah, when you talk about. 00:26:07
How things are getting more expensive if we had done this five years ago. 00:26:11
I'm just curious. 00:26:17
Difference like what would it, what would that change on the numbers? Because we often people often do come in and ask about even 00:26:20
tonight we have a comment that said, I don't care if something sits for 25 years, right? 00:26:25
And so, well, I'll tell you, in the RDA application that was done in 2018, the cost of a stall was 19,700, I'm assuming 27,500, 00:26:33
somewhere between 25 and 30. 00:26:38
25,000 maybe something we're holding on to that's gone 30% more yeah, construction costs, yeah, have increased significantly in 00:26:44
the last four years for sure how much have we already invested like I know we did the streets and the trees and. 00:26:50
What did we? I know we've already invested money in that line. I'm just curious. 00:26:58
Sorry, that first of all a question I had as well on the very first slide, first or second slide, you talked about that 9.8 00:27:02
million that was US done in 2018, but then you made some comment like it wasn't signed. Can you tell me more about that agreement? 00:27:09
I wish I knew more where that money is well. 00:27:15
The increment wasn't generated. The participation agreement wasn't signed. So it was approved in this board, but the actual paper 00:27:22
was never generated and signed. So I don't, I don't have. That's right. The RDA did not approve. I mean, it was intended. So we 00:27:31
discussed it and we talked about it with the idea that they would bring forth a project that we would then be able to approve. And 00:27:39
so the project just didn't come back in time. And so that that agreement has now I think that Phase 1 ultimately proved. 00:27:47
So whatever agreement that was to go into a parking section, whatever that was, the only reason I bring that up is just because it 00:27:57
signals again some kind of tie and understanding of RDA participation in this kind of development. Well, I'm just glad we're 00:28:03
talking about it cuz I did bring up that there have been past agreements made in when we talked about this earlier this year and 00:28:09
it didn't seem like your group remembered any of that. So I'm glad that we're, it was the February meeting of 2018 if somebody 00:28:15
wants to go back. 00:28:20
So it made me able to clarify, are you speaking about 650 N was something that the RDA, right. So that was money that the city put 00:28:28
in to do those streets. I believe there's some cleanup costs as well. Yeah, there was city money that went toward this public Rd. 00:28:37
Right. We developed it and it was reimbursed partially by the city and there was some, I think it was like 60 or $70,000 that I 00:28:47
think maybe even largely to this piece here for remediation. That's the extent of the RDA. All the other roads were funded 100% by 00:28:53
developer Cauldron Rd. Anvil Road, 100% by developer. No RDA participation. We find it on the public infrastructure. Yeah. The 00:29:00
total capital project improvements for the RDA board was about 1.2 million. The Mill Rd. streetlights was 100,000. The main road, 00:29:07
St. Lights was. 00:29:14
4. 00:29:21
191,000 Engineering was 75,000. The status system for the sewer Rd. system that services the whole area was about 100,000 and then 00:29:22
there was something with a rail, some type of transfer that was about 1.4. 00:29:30
Million I believe and then a lot of this was done in 2016 and then in 2018 we discussed in two meetings the approval of a parking 00:29:40
garage and in fact it had like a facade to make it look nicer and I have the meeting minutes if you guys want to go back on either 00:29:49
of those was that because this when I was talking about even before Dakota Pacific owned it because. 00:29:58
Right, that's right. That was thrown away. 00:30:09
That's right. 00:30:13
Yeah, OK. It was right before I think we had put in all of the infrastructure that 4 million in 2018. We were moving and advancing 00:30:16
forward with the projects and then their partnership occurred at Dakota Pacific, bought it and then we didn't see any movement on 00:30:24
it for several years after that merger, whatever it was that however you guys bought the property. 00:30:32
And then the RDA reimbursement opportunity failed. Yeah, but I just want to clarify, you said we invested 4 million. 00:30:40
Do you mean no in the in the things that I listed and all of the capital improvements, I believe the total RDA contribution was 00:30:52
closer to the 1.2 million. Yeah, the Forge reimbursement as far as what we gave in contribution just to that site. But what we 00:30:59
usually do with our improvements is that we. 00:31:06
Do something for the site itself like the status system or the streets that went around it or the improvements to open up your 00:31:13
area. All of those things are things that we put into an agreement to make the forge workable. So and I'll just say the yard as 00:31:19
well, right, that's 650 N is not disservicing our project. 00:31:25
So. 00:31:33
Just so I have it on the record. 00:31:36
It wasn't 70,000, it was 1.2 million. This there were the portion tied to remediation. I think that was the 70 that was specific 00:31:38
to our site. 00:31:42
This one point, 1.1 million ish was tied to the 650 N which was shared benefit between the 75 went into the engineering and then 00:31:47
this data system was 100,000. And there were different things like we did for the other sites in the forest to upgrade the water 00:31:54
and do the sewer system, things like that. But that was more about Dakota Pacific doing construction. Can we build 650 at the same 00:32:02
time before the city, you know RDA chose to reimburse and it wasn't. 00:32:09
It wasn't directly applicable to our land as much as we're doing construction, let's do it and then get reimbursed. Yeah. Each of 00:32:18
these costs were to open up the land though just in total, this is how we, this is how we talk about any of our projects is these 00:32:25
were the costs that went to open up this area. So that's where we are. And then the 10 million, I believe it was, was it 00:32:32
10,000,009? Eight, yeah, nine, eight, yeah, 98. That's that came in January and February in 2018. 00:32:39
So and that's what failed. That was what had a failed point because no growth happened after that. 00:32:46
So do you mind if I ask a question on that growth part? 00:32:53
I I would like to understand the development agreement timeline. I I think it is appropriate to tie those timelines together, but 00:33:00
more specifically because it's the full area. 00:33:05
For me, when I put investment in I usually. 00:33:12
Have an idea of the type of companies that are coming in and then I like to see a timeline on those things. So just for 00:33:18
understanding this, what is the development agreement? 00:33:23
Timeline, I know we have general phasing and I know we have we want to see commercial and housing at the same time. We had a 00:33:29
requirement to start construction by a certain point in order for that development. We had a date I think it was December 31st, 00:33:34
2027. 00:33:39
Right. So we need, we need to start that. The participation agreement has some requirements once you start triggering it. I can't 00:33:45
remember if it's 35 years or something like that. 00:33:49
Before because you can trigger by parcel, right That that 35 years is also kind of an outside date for us as well after you start 00:33:56
triggering. 00:34:02
But. 00:34:08
I think that's all the development agreement includes. Hold on. So just to clarify, you're saying the development agreement, this 00:34:10
is the one we passed 2 weeks ago, It's got a requirement on when we need to start construction. We need start construction by 00:34:14
December 31st of 2027. That's right. 00:34:19
In order for that to be a binding agreement still, yeah, just oops, sorry, yeah, just provides kind of that. 00:34:25
At least a date so we know when things are going to start construction. And then I think the other timelines were like the units, 00:34:34
like there were some things of those, but they weren't specifically like held to to like a date like the, you know, the units have 00:34:41
to be constructed and completed by there was a lot discussed about the phasing, if you recall, I don't know if I included. 00:34:49
But this is the phase one, right? And we need to basically complete this before we can go talk about doing more multi family units 00:34:57
anywhere else. 00:35:00
Why don't you guys move on the project in 2018 when you initially made an agreement? The irony is on a little bit of disadvantages 00:35:06
because I went to Dakota Pacific and so. 00:35:10
I just I'm wondering why I believe it is dealt with well that was very office focused, I know that. 00:35:14
And so I don't know how it all worked out, but certainly once Covad hit office dynamics structurally changed. We've talked about 00:35:22
that, that's two years later. I don't know what happened in that gap. I know the acquisition of Cottonwood and Dakota Pacific 00:35:28
happened and that creates, you know, some decision chain changes and in terms of who's making decisions and how they're made. And 00:35:35
I'm sure that create a little bit of turbulence, but I don't I don't have the full story. 00:35:41
So. 00:35:49
But I mean, if we were to make this commitment and then nothing happened, the land, we're not out anything. 00:35:50
And then just to clarify, when you guys say that construction has to happen by December 31st, 2027, that after that the 00:35:57
development agreement would be null and void if we didn't, I don't. I'm not sure that data is correct, so I'm looking at the. 00:36:05
Development agreement right now and I believe we're referring to the rescission. 00:36:13
Let me pull that up and we can thank you would while you're looking that up. 00:36:20
If there is a date in there. 00:36:26
Is this also tied to that date and then both agreements go away there? 00:36:28
As it is in the packet right now, the reimbursement agreement does not have dates, you know, for that performance in the way that 00:36:34
you're talking about it. Here's what the the rescission language in the development agreement says. 00:36:40
2.11 It is anticipated that vertical vertical construction within the project will begin no later than July 31, 2025 if the City 00:36:48
has not issued a building permit and there has not been commencement of vertical construction under such building permit on the 00:36:55
property on or before December 31, 2026. 00:37:03
Then either party may at that point begin the rescission process. 00:37:10
That was 2026, Yeah, we state that again. So there, there are two requirements. One is that vertical construction begin before 00:37:16
July 31, 2025 and then there's a period of time where if there hasn't been commencement of vertical construction then then you can 00:37:24
issue that notice and that date is December 31, 2020. 00:37:32
Six, thank you. All right, interesting. So you have to they have to break ground on something before before. 00:37:39
No, that's when they anticipate doing it. But the the deadline is December 31, 2026. OK. 00:37:49
It's a, it's a year of margin for unknowns, yeah. 00:37:56
All right, Well, I if we were to pass something like this, I would want this to be tied. 00:38:00
To the same date. 00:38:06
Yeah, I agree that 2025, the July 31, 2025 would need to happen, absolutely. 00:38:08
Quick question on some of the. 00:38:17
Participation reimbursements, it says I believe in. 00:38:22
To be that it can go towards parking, pedestrian open space and public infrastructure is what it would be going to and then also. 00:38:29
I want to make sure that I understand this properly, that the intent is that we would incentivize new businesses to locate within 00:38:37
the area, but we would do this through the infrastructure. Am I reading that properly? OK. 00:38:43
And however you wanted to utilize them, it seems kind of broad and open-ended according to this calculation, as long as it fit 00:38:52
within those four states. 00:38:57
Or you're, you're talking about the qualified expenses, just the definition, the qualified expenses, the project improvements. 00:39:04
Yeah, right. It's kind of open-ended as so you could use it for any of these things in particular, but they have to be attributed 00:39:10
to those. Yes, we have to submit a request for reimbursement and we have to prove what those are for and provide evidence of them. 00:39:17
And then you review that packet and say, yes, these are qualified expenses. This is for public open space, this is for parking and 00:39:24
the qualified expenses are listed here. That's right. So they are. 00:39:32
As I state them. 00:39:40
Umm, is it possible for me to tie the qualified expenses to an anchor in phasing throughout the agreement? So for instance. 00:39:41
And we talk about doing a clean up and a reimbursement agreement, but we talk about how there's medical users and we believe that 00:39:52
there's going to be some kind of tax base that comes back. And we don't just want it to be throughout Topgolf. We don't just want 00:39:58
it to be a golfing club. We want it to be a name grant, a name brand club that we sit behind. And and that's what allows us to 00:40:04
know that we're going to get that reimbursement. 00:40:10
Is there an ability to say? 00:40:17
Within each of your phases, if you're asking for those, the anchor that is in each of those different areas must be approved. 00:40:21
To, you know, coalesce with the project improvements. 00:40:31
Are you? Are you meaning for each different reimbursement request they would tie it to? 00:40:40
That shows the whole area. 00:40:45
So. 00:40:51
Let's talk about this one in particular, this entertainment area. 00:40:53
Say they wanted to put any of the qualified. 00:40:58
Project improvements within this area we would area traction right? 00:41:03
Regional, thank you. We would allow for the infrastructure within that segment if they have brought in. 00:41:10
The right anchor. 00:41:18
Or you move to the mixed-use area and the project improvement goes according to an anchor within that location. Yeah, I want to 00:41:20
phrase this carefully, OK. 00:41:27
Legislature recently limited the ability of municipal Rdas to provide retail incentives and we want to make sure our reimbursement 00:41:34
agreement stays away from that line. 00:41:41
So I think you could certainly tether the repayment conditions to completion of certain phasing. 00:41:49
I think you get close to that line when you begin tying it to specific retail or commercial activities. Isn't there a provision in 00:41:59
there that says if we're building around housing that we are able to conduct such business? 00:42:07
There are some, there are some exceptions in affordable housing is one of the things that you can use. 00:42:16
Money is for that relate to that I or incentivize something that's near affordable housing. I'm just concerned. I think we'd have 00:42:23
to do a little bit more work if you wanted to tie it to specific retail anchors. Well, the only reason why I say it is I really 00:42:31
want to do the infrastructure. I think that it's Better Business and better practice to incentivize an area with infrastructure. I 00:42:39
think that it's important for us to have the kind of industry and economy that will come in that allows us to pay for that. 00:42:47
Get. 00:43:27
This is what's difficult for us is when we've done this in the past in the yard, which you brought up several times, we knew 00:43:28
exactly what we were getting. 00:43:31
There was a very specific. 00:43:35
No outcome. We're closer aligned to the downtown agreement, infrastructure, parking. 00:43:38
I I have another question. In Section B, under the participant reimbursement agreement, it says the participant may request the 00:43:46
agency's approval for an amendment of this agreement to 85%. The amendment isn't tying us to anything. Is this us capping them? 00:43:54
Do you want me to? Yeah, either way. 00:44:05
That was more again of a of a signal to say if there is a particular user that and I got. 00:44:08
That we as a developer want to bring and I guess the city supports, right based on what what Jamie just said that there could be 00:44:16
additional infrastructure reimbursement for that Lot 1 in particular, right, that's just for the entertainment block that's. 00:44:23
That says certain users may have additional requirements that have more infrastructure costs. And if so, can we come back and 00:44:32
petition for more at full discretion of the RDA board whether or not they want to approve it? So there's no nothing binding there. 00:44:38
And again, it's not for me to say, but that was our intent is not to bind, but just to signal that there might be users where it 00:44:44
makes sense to increase it. Yeah, the the language does require the come back. I agree with that reading. I don't view it as a 00:44:50
cap. 00:44:56
Limitation. I think it's a signal of intent, but not. 00:45:03
The cost difference between. 00:45:40
So you answered my time terms before you're done. I do want to just talk about the phasing and the phased approvals and respond to 00:46:19
that if we can. Yeah, go for it. 00:46:23
I'm going to go to a slide here that I put together to try to articulate. 00:46:33
The impact of structured parking. 00:46:40
On returns I'm going back to our 5000 square foot restaurant. 00:46:44
This looks at cost slightly different and slightly buckets, different buckets than we talked about because before it was just 00:46:51
about increment, but. 00:46:54
If I surface park I spend 2.2 million on it. If I structure park I pay 2.8 million. My rent probably isn't that different. 00:46:57
Right. And so I'm bringing in $150,000 a year, no matter what, whether it's surface or structure. In fact, in some ways it's 00:47:07
harder to get retailers to buy into this because they all want Dr. throughs. So my yield went down as a result of this, right? 00:47:14
Where in a structured park, I could go to an investor and say 6.8% I can, I can give you bank. There's guaranteed money coming in 00:47:22
here. Now I've got 5.3. Well, if the TIFF enables some reimbursement for a portion of the commercial structured parking stalls. 00:47:30
And, and therefore that decreases my cost and now I'm at 6% yield. Now I go to the investor and I say investor, I can get you 6%. 00:47:39
He says I can get 6.8 over here. Why do I want to come? 00:47:44
I only bring this up because if you're talking about phase and tying, I need predictability with that investor to say, I can get 00:47:49
this, you invest with us and there is mass, right? But if you take away that ability for that investor to say, I know mass is 00:47:55
coming with this improved yield, right? I've only closed half the gap. How do I close the other half? I've got to do it through 00:48:01
something that's inviting it. But there is a future to predict in and to invest in. I mean, without that I don't, I don't have it. 00:48:07
So as you. 00:48:13
Think through solutions. Please help me think through how do we also get predictability for the people who are ultimately going to 00:48:20
finance this in addition to the RDA? 00:48:23
In section. 00:48:32
General reimbursement terms, I think I'm reading this right. I just wanted to make sure that this makes it so even if there's a 00:48:35
transfer of property, we don't lose the ability for them to complete the agreement. Is that right? Yeah. 00:48:40
How long does structured parking last? Like what kind of improvements you know? 00:48:53
This would probably be a great question we should have asked when we were saying the development agreement far beyond 25 years. 00:49:00
Another way? Like are there ways to improve them without tearing them down? 00:49:07
And I don't know that I can tell you exactly how long, but there are, I mean, I know I've been working buildings with parking 00:49:11
structures that are 60 years old, you know, so. 00:49:16
And there's a question maybe about maintenance or like when there there needs to be a significant maintenance, is that like what 00:49:23
would the association be building up a pot so that they can take care of larger? Yeah, every investment has reserves for such 00:49:28
uses, but it's a private responsibility, private use. 00:49:34
That would be honest. I just want to make sure that the investment we're making obviously would be maintained and that we're being 00:49:43
both of our best interests, of course. 00:49:46
I'm probably not the best person on this. Alright, it's concrete and steel Yeah, no, I I just don't love the structure parking in 00:49:52
this area. And so I'm. I know the rest of the council has been running for it the whole time, so. 00:49:59
That's how to get approved. 00:50:07
Oh, it's already been approved in the development of your. I see what you're saying. 00:50:13
I mean, that is what you're saying, right? 00:50:17
The one in 2018 had a beautiful facade on it. 00:50:22
So you could add that to this. Ours are wrapped with beautiful residential units with balconies. 00:50:27
That doesn't help me, sorry. 00:50:35
Can you talk to me more about opportunities for phasing? I understand the need for protectability, but I think that predictability 00:50:38
comes in several forms and one of them is what we can predict as a city for the growth in this area. So I want to talk a little 00:50:45
bit about opportunities there. Any of our staff have any thoughts on opportunities for phasing that offers predictability for 00:50:52
them, but a lot of predictability for us? 00:50:59
So there there's some phasing that's built into the the the development agreement. I think what Chris, to me you're getting at is 00:51:08
that you're tying some of that phasing with with the reimbursement agreement. 00:51:14
Like other than that, I guess are rewind, are you wanting something specific to like phasing of blocks as blocks come in or do you 00:51:21
want like actual timelines as far as like dates knowing that. Yeah. And maybe Jamie is stating it clearly for me where he said you 00:51:29
could break this up and have the, you know, applications come back for each of the areas. I mean, is that kind of what you 00:51:36
suggested? Jamie, I, I guess I'm getting up there a few different ways you could handle it. One would be. 00:51:44
Reapplication phase by phase. The other would be where you're breaking the reimbursement into tranches that they would submit for 00:51:53
when they incurred expenses. You could cap and phase that distribution in a way that creates an incentive for each phase to be 00:52:01
completed. I like that so. 00:52:09
What it eliminates is you could have a developer that incurs eligible expenses all in phase one that eats up a majority of this 00:52:19
amount and you'd prevent that from happening. They'd only be able to get a certain amount per phase and could only submit phase by 00:52:25
phase. 00:52:31
And then if it became a problem, they could just come back and say we have this incredible opportunity, we want an amendment. 00:52:39
And what I was saying was to tie. 00:52:46
If we made any kind of motion tonight, that whatever we decided would be tied to the same to the development agreement. 00:52:49
And if they don't develop within that timetable, this agreement also goes away, right, Right. Yeah. You use the same decision, 00:52:57
Yes, of 2026, December 31st, 2026. So they have to start building July 20. 00:53:06
No July 2026 and then the rescissions. 27th July was an intended date. The the deadline was hoping to start building but the 00:53:16
development agreement says they have to by. 00:53:22
December 30, right? Correct. 00:53:29
And we retain this to the December 31st. 00:53:31
It was felt appropriate to put margin in that right. We have a plan date, but we know things change and so that's that's all the 00:53:36
difference in those two dates was. 00:53:41
OK. And that's two years? 00:53:46
But we can do both of those. I feel like it's important to do the timeline. I I stated that as well. I just wonder if we should 00:53:51
also do the reimbursement tranches. 00:53:56
That incentivizes it to keep rolling in so additional monies aren't asked for, you know? 00:54:02
It's such a blank ask. 00:54:08
Do you know what I mean? 00:54:11
So if we set some limitations that incentivize opportunity, I feel like that could be helpful. And then if it wasn't good, you 00:54:13
could come back and ask for an amendment. I think that would be appropriate. 00:54:19
Yeah, I think the basis for the structured parking again I think was the downtown agreement at the time and. 00:54:26
It was saying that structured parking adds value. 00:54:35