Sep 23, 2024 TIF #2

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

MEETING OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCE REINVESTMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER TWO.

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN APPEARANCES.

IF WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD AGAIN ABOUT AN ITEM THAT IS NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO DO THAT.

ARE THERE ANY SUCH REQUESTS? I SEE NONE.

[3.A. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 19, 2024 Tax Increment Finance Reinvestment Zone #2 (TIF #2) Board meeting. (Staff Contact: Amanda Campos, City Secretary)]

THOSE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU MEMBERS.

IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THEM, I'LL BE READY FOR A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR SECOND BY BOEDEKER TO APPROVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

[3.B. Consider approval of the Second Amendment to the 380 and Development Agreement for Public and Private Improvements in the Reinvestment Zone Number Two (CSO#542-11-2016), City of Burleson Between the City of Burleson and Realty Capital Management, LLC. (Staff Contact: Alex Philips, Economic Development Director)]

NUMBER TWO, CSO NUMBER 542-11-2016 CITY OF BURLESON BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLESON AND REALTY CAPITAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC.

AND THIS ITEM WILL BE PRESENTED BY ALEX PHILLIPS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

THANK YOU. TIF MEMBERS ALEX PHILLIPS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON, HERE TO PRESENT THE DEPOT ON MAIN SECOND AMENDMENT TO THEIR AGREEMENT.

DEPOT ON MAIN IS A 275 UNIT CLASS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN MAIN AND KING STREET DOWN HERE IN OLD TOWN.

IT IS THE FORMER SITE OF THE CITY OF BURLESON SERVICE CENTER.

THEIR APPRAISED VALUE ON THE ROLES AS IT IS TODAY IS 21 A LITTLE BIT OVER $21 MILLION.

CURRENT 380 AGREEMENT WITH REALTY CAPITAL IS A 75% TIF TWO REBATE ANNUALLY.

MAXIMUM REBATE THE CAP ON THAT IS $2 MILLION REBATE TO REIMBURSE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SIDEWALKS, PARKING, STREETSCAPE, ETC..

DRAINAGE IN THE DOG PARK ON JUNE 7TH OF 21, COUNCIL APPROVED A PD ZONING AMENDMENT AMENDMENT, REDUCING THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FROM 75 TO A LITTLE BIT OVER 56 AND PROHIBITING CORRUGATED METAL.

THE AMENDMENT WAS REQUESTED DUE TO SITE RESTRICTIONS CAUSED BY THE RESULTS OF A FLOOD STUDY.

THE SITE PLAN WAS ALSO AMENDED TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC DOG PARK IN THE DETENTION AREA, AND A TRAIL ON THE UP RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PARK. REALTY CAPITAL AND CITY STAFF WORKED WITH UP AND EXHAUSTED ALL OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL.

UP WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE ON THEIR RIGHT OF WAY.

STAFF MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOR ADA ACCESS OVER THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL TO THE DOG PARK POSSIBLE.

REALTY CAPITAL STUDIED THE INITIAL DESIGN AND PRICED FULL DESIGN AND IN CONSTRUCTION, THE THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN DEEMED COST PROHIBITIVE AND THE LAST VIABLE OPTION FOR ADA ACCESS, THAT COST WAS $438,220.

THE AMENDMENTS THAT'S BEING REQUESTED HAS REQUESTED TO AMEND THEIR SITE PLAN TO REMOVE THE DOG PARK AND ASSOCIATED SIDEWALKS, LIGHTING, ETC., AND AMEND THE 380 AGREEMENT ACCORDINGLY. LOWER THE 380 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENT FROM $2 MILLION TO $1.5 CAP.

AMEND THE 380 EXHIBITS TO INCLUDE THE NEW SITE PLAN AND UPDATED COST OF APPROVED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

IF APPROVED THE PER CITY POLICY, THE STAFF WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPOT ON MAIN WOULD RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THAT PARCEL AND MAINTENANCE.

THE PUBLIC WILL STILL HAVE ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE OR OTHER USE.

REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO APPROVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 380 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLESON AND REALTY CAPITAL OR DENY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND OTHERS, REPRESENTATIVES FROM REALTY CAPITAL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THERE WAS THERE WAS ACTUALLY PLANS FOR PUBLIC USE, BUT IT'S NOT PUBLIC USE FRIENDLY IS IT? NO, SIR. OKAY.

SO I WAS NOTICING THAT ONE OF THEM WAS FOR PUBLIC USE.

WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THIS, DAN? YOU'VE SAID EXACTLY WHAT I INTENDED TO SAY, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN YOU DID.

I FIGURED YOU WOULD. WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OF WHICH NO MEMBER REMAINS HERE OTHER THAN MYSELF, THIS WAS TO BE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

THE PD ZONING WAS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

THE ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE CITY TO GET THIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WAS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF BUILDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC.

ALL CITIZENS OF BURLESON.

AND AS THIS PROJECT HAS MOVED THROUGH TIME, FROM 2016 TO THE PRESENT DATE, IT HAS TAKEN SEVERAL TURNS, EACH OF WHICH HAS MOVED THIS PROJECT

[00:05:09]

THE FIRST CHANGE WAS IN THE THE GRADUAL MOVEMENT AWAY FROM THE MIXED USE COMPONENT OF THIS THING, WHERE WE COULD JUSTIFY BUILDING PARKING PLACES FOR OUR CITIZENS TO DRIVE TO BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE DRIVING TO RESTAURANTS, BUSINESSES, OFFICES AND VARIOUS THINGS THAT WERE TO BE OPERATED ON THE LOWER FLOOR OF WHAT WAS A THREE STORY BUILDING.

NOW, BACK IN 2016, MY MENTAL IMAGE OF THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF OF, SAY, THE LEFT BANK DEVELOPMENT IN FORT WORTH, WHICH, ALTHOUGH IT'S FIVE STORIES TALL, IT HAS A SOLID RETAIL COMPONENT ON THE LOWER FLOOR HOUSING ABOVE.

I TOOK A PICTURE OF IT LAST NIGHT WE WERE UP THERE IN THE AREA AND REMINDED ME OF JUST WHAT THIS THING STARTED OUT INTENDING TO BE, AND WHY THE COUNCIL SUPPORTED IT.

I HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE NOWADAYS, EIGHT YEARS LATER, WHY WE SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE AS THAT COMPONENT WENT AWAY, WE ALSO HAVE DISCOVERED ALONG THE WAY THAT ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WAS TO BE BUILT ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT COULDN'T BE BUILT BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS.

BUT AT THAT POINT, THE COUNCIL WAS ASKED TO REEVALUATE THAT PROJECT IN TERMS OF TAKING THE SPACE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED ON THAT SITE AND ADDING IT TO THE TOPS OF THE BUILDINGS.

AND NOW THIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HAS CLIMBED FROM THREE STORIES ALL THE WAY UP TO FIVE.

NOW, GRANTED, THE ORIGINAL PD ALLOWED 3 TO 5 STORIES IN THIS MIXED USE COMPONENT, BUT NOW HERE WE ARE WITH A DOG PARK IN PLACE OF WHAT HAD BEEN A BUILDING.

WELL, THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS PRETTY DARN GOOD TOO, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF CITIZENS, 275 UNITS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE REALLY NO USABLE GREEN SPACE TO GO, AND ESPECIALLY NOT TO TO TURN A DOG FREE AND WE HAVE A LOT OF DOG OWNERS IN THIS PLACE.

BUT NOW WE'VE DECIDED THAT ACCESS IS GOING TO COST MORE MONEY THAN WE THOUGHT.

SO I'M STUCK ON THE IDEA IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A $500,000 CUT IN THE REIMBURSEMENT, WHY NOT JUST BUILD THE BRIDGE, PROVIDE THE DOG PARK, WHICH HAS GOT TO BE A GREAT INVESTMENT AS FAR AS ATTRACTING NEW RESIDENTS, NEW TENANTS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERWISE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THIS SPACE? IT'S GOING TO BE SITTING THERE.

IF ANYBODY'S BEEN BY THERE LATELY, THEY CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY, WHICH IS A BULLDOZED PIECE OF FLAT LAND COVERED WITH MUD, PUDDLES AND DEBRIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE.

SO I WANT TO KNOW WHY THIS IS THE VERY LAST JUSTIFICATION.

THIS DOG PARK IS THE VERY LAST JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY OF THIS PARKING THAT WE'VE BUILT TO BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PARKING.

BECAUSE IF WE HAD A DOG PARK AT THE END OF MAIN STREET, WE WOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, SOME OF THE PARKING PLACES IS FOR ACCESS TO THE PARK.

FINE. SO WHAT OTHER PUBLIC USE DOES IT HAVE? WHY WOULD ANY CITIZEN OF BURLESON, OTHER THAN A TENANT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, HAVE ANY REASON TO DRIVE ANY FURTHER NORTH ON KING ON MAIN STREET THAN KING? I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD.

SO I BELIEVE WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE, DEGREE BY DEGREE, WE'VE BEEN PULLED INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE USED TAX DOLLARS TO PAY FOR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, FOR THE USE OF THE TENANTS AND NO ONE ELSE.

AND NOW THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE DOG PARK OUT OF THE PICTURE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

THE PARKING SPACES AT THE END OF MAIN STREET ARE FARTHER AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF OLD TOWN, MEANING THE PLAZA OUT HERE THAN 300 AND SOME ODD SPACES THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH TO USE.

SO WHY WOULD ANYBODY GO ALL THE WAY UP THERE TO PARK TO COME BACK TO OLD TOWN? AND THE ANSWER IN MY MIND IS THEY WOULDN'T.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MAKE A STATEMENT TO REALTY CAPITAL THAT WE STAND BY OUR COMMITMENT TO BUILD OR TO PAY YOU THE $2 MILLION CAP. WE WANT YOU TO STAND BY YOUR COMMITMENT AND BUILD WHAT YOU AGREED TO BUILD.

AND IF IT COST YOU MORE MONEY THAN YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD.

I'M A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR.

I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS 35 YEARS.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I'VE GONE TO THE CITIES THAT I BUILD ROADS FOR AND TOLD THEM, HEY, GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED THAT THIS ROAD I'M SUPPOSED TO BUILD FOR YOU IS GOING TO COST MORE MONEY THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD, SO DON'T MAKE ME DO IT.

YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF ANSWER I'D GET FROM THAT, I'M SURE.

TIF BOARD, MR. MCCLENDON. KYLE COOPER REALTY CAPITAL.

DAN, I WOULD RESPOND TO TO THAT FROM A HIGH LEVEL AND SAY, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO READ THIS

[00:10:04]

BUT THIS TELLS THE STORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE FROM DAY ONE, FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, THE ORIGINAL 380 AGREEMENT THE UNFORESEEN SURPRISE THAT THAT OCCURRED, YOU KNOW, TO BOTH THE CITY OF BURLESON AND OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM.

BUT THERE WERE A FEW OPTIONS IN HERE.

ONE WHICH INCLUDED REQUESTING THE COST OF THE BRIDGE, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $200,000. SO WE WERE WILLING TO UP THAT AMOUNT BY AN ADDITIONAL $200,000.

AND THAT OPTION INCLUDED TRANSFERRING THE LAND BACK TO THE CITY OF BURLESON.

SO THAT WAS OPTION ONE.

OPTION TWO.

AND ALEX AND ALEX CHIME IN HERE AS NECESSARY.

OPTION TWO WAS BASICALLY WE TAKE THIS TIF CUT WE RESERVE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO USE THIS AS PUBLIC LAND IN THE FUTURE.

AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS.

SO THERE WERE WE PRESENTED OPTIONS.

I MEAN, WE WANT TO BUILD THIS DOG PARK.

WE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH ENGINEERING, MICHELLE, EDC, DREW, ALEX, I MEAN, WE WORKED OUR TAILS OFF ON TRYING TO MAKE THIS THING HAPPEN.

WE WISH IT WAS OUT THERE TODAY.

AND WE'RE NOT IN THE POSITION THAT WE WANT TO BE.

I MEAN, WE WISH WE COULD HAVE BUILT THIS THING.

AND JUST VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SAY THAT WE COULD NOT GET THAT APPROVAL FROM, FROM UP.

BUT, DAN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THIS MEMO.

IT TELLS THE STORY FROM DAY ONE.

IT I MEAN, WE ARE WAY, WAY FURTHER THE $500,000 WE'RE IN WAY FOR MORE THAN THAT.

WITH THIS FLOOD ANALYSIS AND THIS REDESIGN I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO TOO MUCH OF THE NUMBERS, BUT WE FEEL THAT'S A VERY FAIR, VERY FAIR AMOUNT FOR THE REDUCTION.

BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE MEMO, AND WE WISH WE COULD BUILD THIS DOG PARK.

AND WE JUST WERE DISAPPOINTED TO SAY WE CAN'T.

BUT WE THINK THIS DEAL THAT WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH EDC IS A FAIR ONE.

THANK YOU. I FEEL YOUR PAIN BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF HAVING THINGS COST ME MORE MONEY THAN I THOUGHT THEY WOULD, BUT WHEN I'VE GIVEN MY WORD TO DO SOMETHING, I'D FOLLOW THROUGH.

AND I'D DO IT EVEN IF IT IS A LITTLE BIT PAINFUL.

AS I SAID, I THINK THE CITY STANDS FIRM IN ITS COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR PROJECT TO THE LEVEL THAT IT SAID IT WOULD, AND WE JUST THINK YOU SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME THING.

AND IF YOU'RE DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE $200,000 IS ALL IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE BRIDGE BUILT AND THE DOG PARK BUILT, THEN WE'RE JUST NEGOTIATING AND I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP NEGOTIATING.

BUT MY NEGOTIATION WOULD BE THE DOG PARK GETS BUILT.

LET ME CLARIFY THE COST OF THE BRIDGE THAT WE VETTED THERE WAS ACTUALLY A TYPO IN THE AGENDA, I THINK IT SAID $438 IT WAS ACTUALLY $483.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS SO.

THAT ANSWERS ONE QUESTION WHY YOU WOULDN'T SPEND $438,000 INSTEAD OF $500,000.

THAT MAKES THAT MAKES SENSE.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE I'M JUST POINTING OUT FACTS.

BUT WE'RE WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION.

WE WE WERE CONVINCED TO PUT PUBLIC FUNDS INTO THIS PROJECT.

I SEE NOTHING PUBLIC ABOUT IT JUST LIKE THE MAYOR SAID WITH HIS OPENING OPPONENT HERE WITHOUT A PARK.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A DOG PARK.

A PARK OF ANY KIND THAT COULD BE USED BY OTHER CITIZENS WOULD BE AT LEAST SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR US HAVING COMMITTED PUBLIC FUNDS TO THIS PROJECT.

IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD AN IDENTICAL PROJECT TO THIS OUT ON WILSHIRE, WE WOULDN'T BE PAYING YOU FOR ROADS AND PARKING LOTS AND AND OTHER COMPONENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF YOUR FACILITY YOU WOULD.

SO I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS JUSTIFIABLE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE STEWARDS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, AND I THINK THEY NEED TO BE SPENT ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.

I WELCOME ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD.

SORRY. I WAS SITTING OUT THERE WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS COMING ABOUT, AND ALEX AND DREW BOTH KNOW THE CAPACITY THAT I WAS ALSO INFORMED ABOUT AS A CITIZEN, AS A BUSINESS OWNER, AND WHAT'S THERE IS NOT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITIZENS OR TO THE COUNCIL BACK IN 2016. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THE THING IS, IS THAT WE TRUSTED THE COUNCIL AND NOW BEING A PART OF THAT AS WELL, TO MAKE A SOUND

[00:15:10]

YOU NEED TO COME THROUGH WITH WHAT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO, AND IF IT COST A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY, SO BE IT.

THAT FALLS ON YOU.

THERE'S PROFIT AND LOSS, WHICH THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER LESSON.

AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO JUST EAT IT.

SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT DAN'S SAYING AS WELL.

WE WERE TOLD ONE THING, AND THERE HAVE BEEN LITTLE WAVERING'S THROUGHOUT THE PAST EIGHT YEARS THAT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM WHAT THAT PLAN WAS, THAT WAS SOLD TO THE CITIZENS, THAT WAS SOLD TO THE COUNCIL, AND THAT'S OUR TAX DOLLARS THAT WERE ALLOCATED FOR THAT.

SO IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED AS SUCH.

AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN HAD FIVE BUILDINGS ON IT THAT WERE LIKE YOU ARE POINTING OUT SMALLER SCALE, THREE STORY, FOUR STORY.

WE WOULD HAVE LOVED TO BUILD THAT FROM DAY ONE.

UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH THE CITY OF BURLESON AND OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM WERE PRESENTED A PRETTY LARGE PROBLEM ABOUT THE FLOOD.

THE SURROUNDING 350 ACRES AROUND OUR AREA ALL FLOOD TO OUR SITE.

EVERYTHING GOES TO THOSE CULVERTS UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 150 YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG.

SO WE SOLVED A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, WE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH MICHELLE CITY WITH CITY ENGINEERING.

THIS SITE IS MUCH IMPROVED TO WHAT IT WAS BACK IN 2016, WHEN THE CITY OF BURLESON OWNED IT.

DO WE WISH WE COULD HAVE BUILT THAT SMALLER SCALE PRODUCT FROM DAY ONE? YES. WE ALSO THINK THERE'S A PRETTY DARN GOOD PRODUCT OUT THERE TODAY.

WE'VE GOT NOTHING BUT GOOD REVIEWS FROM OUR FROM OUR RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE DEALS UPON MOVE IN WHERE A RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, WE WE PROVIDE THEM WITH GIFT CARDS, DISCOUNTS TO OLD TOWN.

THERE'S WALKABILITY.

PEOPLE LOVE IT.

LOOK AT OUR GOOGLE REVIEWS.

THEY'RE PRETTY DARN GOOD.

ALL THAT TO SAY, WE'VE WE'VE HAD TO DODGE SOME OBSTACLES ON THIS.

AND IS IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM DAY ONE WHEN IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED? YES. WE STILL BELIEVE IT'S AN AMAZING PRODUCT FOR OLD TOWN, THE CITY OF BURLESON.

IT IT COULD BE THAT.

BUT IT'S STILL AN AMAZING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PERIOD WITH NO PUBLIC COMPONENT, NO RETAIL.

YOU GUYS ORIGINALLY SHOWED US DEPICTIONS OF A FULLY DEVELOPED LOWER FLOOR FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

DID YOU NOT? THOSE ARE BUILT OUT AS LIVE WORK UNITS.

THOSE ARE BUILT AS APARTMENTS.

YOU GUYS WERE SENT RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL CLIENTS AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM STAFF, YOU WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT.

NOW, WHY WOULD YOU BE UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE POTENTIAL CLIENTS? I SUPPOSE BECAUSE YOU SET THE RENT THAT THEY TO A LEVEL THEY WOULDN'T PAY.

WE DID MEET WITH VARIOUS SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, RESTAURANT TOUR, A NAIL SALON.

THERE WAS A FITNESS FITNESS USE THAT THAT WE TOURED AND AS YOU MENTIONED [INAUDIBLE] NOTHING COULD WE VETTED IT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE OUR MARKET MARKET RATES.

AND THAT IS JUST HOW HOW IT SHOOK OUT.

BUT THOSE LIVE WORK UNITS ARE BUILT OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PD AT TO THIS DAY.

SO THEY'RE GROUND FLOOR LIVE WORK UNITS THAT HAVE KIND OF UPGRADED AMENITIES, TALLER CEILING, THERE'S A FRONT DOOR OUT THAT HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SIDEWALK.

THERE'S A WALK IN WASHER AND DRYER AMENITY THAT THE OTHER UNITS DO NOT HAVE.

SO THOSE UNITS, ARE THOSE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? YES. SO ANYONE CAN GO IN THERE AND USE THOSE FREE OF CHARGE BECAUSE THEIR TAX DOLLARS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR IT.

NOT TO USE AS A DAY TO DAY WORKSPACE.

BUT IF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WANTED TO COME IN AND WORK OUT OF THERE OR DO A FINISH OUT YOU KNOW, TO BUILD THE SPACE TO THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEM, THEY COULD THEY COULD ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE AS AN APARTMENT UNIT.

SO THOSE ARE NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANYONE RUNNING A BUSINESS THAT PEOPLE COME TO AND VISIT ON THOSE LOWER FLOORS? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO AS OF TODAY, BUT THAT COULD CERTAINLY CHANGE OVER THE YEARS.

[00:20:03]

I JUST WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT INTO WHAT DAN WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER, AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I COME FROM FROM THE COUNTY BUDGET STANDPOINT.

BUT I KNOW WE ARE THE OVERSEERS AND THE AND THE TREASURERS OF, OF THE CITIZENS MONEY THEY PAY TAX IN.

AND I WOULDN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE COULDN'T AGREE TO SPEND MONEY ON SOMETHING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT ALL OF THE CITIZENS, NOT JUST A GROUP THAT HAPPENED TO LIVE IN A IN A CERTAIN SET OF APARTMENTS OR A CERTAIN AREA BECAUSE THAT'S TAXPAYERS DOLLARS COMING FROM EVERYBODY IN THIS CITY. AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT'S NOT MUCH PUBLIC.

THERE'S NOT MUCH PUBLIC LEFT IN IT.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER BACK SOME OF THE DRAWINGS, WASN'T THERE A BREEZEWAY WITH THE RETAIL ON THE INSIDE OF THE BREEZEWAY? NOT AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN.

NO, SIR.

OKAY. FOR SOME REASON, I'M THINKING THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE.

AND NOW YOU'VE GOT A WALL FACING WILSON THAT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO ANY KIND OF RETAIL.

THERE'S NO VISUAL OR ANYTHING.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU DIDN'T WANT THE RETAIL.

YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY THAT'S THE WAY I JUST VIEW IT.

I REMEMBER I WAS NEW AT THIS JOB.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT CAME UP.

AND IT WAS THERE WAS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF SATISFACTION AT THE TIME.

OKAY. WE HAD PAST COUNCIL MEMBERS UP HERE, AND THE NEW PEOPLE WERE HEARING THINGS, AND I I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HELPING YOU OUT ON THIS.

YOU MADE A DEAL.

YOU TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE.

YOU HAD STUDIES BEFORE YOU TURNED DIRT.

YOU KNEW WHAT SHE WAS GETTING INTO.

AND I'M LIKE, I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS A LONG TIME LIKE, DAN, I'VE HAD TO EAT SOME STUFF TO.

DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT I DID IT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON IT.

GIVE US A REASON TO GIVE IT TO YOU.

GIVE US SOME WAY WHERE WE CAN START CREATING SOME REVENUE SOMEWHERE ELSE, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE STARTED, BUT I'M KIND OF DONE WITH IT.

TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THEIR PREVIOUS, PREVIOUS STUDIES.

I AM NOT AWARE OF.

YOU GOT TO HAVE THEM TO START THE BUILDING.

IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC STUDIES.

YOU GOT TO HAVE IT TO GET THE PROJECT STARTED.

SO YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT IT WAS THERE.

AM I WRONG? SO THE 380 WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THEM GETTING STARTED.

AND THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENT FROM ENGINEERING THE FLOOD STUDY AND TRAFFIC STUDIES AND THINGS AFTER THEY SUBMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE BUILDING PLANS.

BUT THE 380 AT THAT TIME WAS ALREADY APPROVED WITH THE SITE PLAN, THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN WITH THE FIVE BUILDINGS.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO LEAN ON DAN ON THIS HE WAS HERE WHEN IT ALL STARTED AND I HATE TO DO THAT TO YOU, DAN, BUT.

I THINK WE WE EITHER NEED TO VOTE THIS OR TABLE IT TILL YOU GUYS WANT TO WORK OUT A DIFFERENT DEAL OR IF THAT'S THE DEAL.

I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

SO YOU'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LEASE THE SPACE TO OTHER BUSINESSES? CORRECT. SO YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE LIVE WORK UNITS.

YES. SO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO TRY TO ATTRACT THOSE BUSINESSES? I MEAN, SO WE HAD A AN AGREEMENT WITH REALTY CAPITAL ON THE LAST AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS FROM THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. I BELIEVE IT WAS 18 MONTHS FROM 18 MONTHS FROM COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION TO ADVERTISE FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES.

WE DID THE SAME WITHIN OUR INTERNAL STAFF.

LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAD SOME SOME DIFFERENT USERS THAT WERE INTERESTED.

HANDED THEM OFF TO REALTY CAPITAL FOR THEM TO WORK OUT ANY KIND OF DEAL ON, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF FINANCIALS THAT WERE NEEDED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO AND THAT ONCE THE 18 MONTHS WERE UP, THEY WERE ABLE TO RENT THOSE OUT AS LIVE WORK UNITS, WITH IT BEING BASICALLY LIVE UNITS.

JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, KYLE.

DID YOU ADVERTISE TO POTENTIAL TENANTS OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE A DOG PARK? YES, SIR. DO YOU WANT US TO VOTE IT? I'D LIKE TO TABLE

[00:25:01]

ALL RIGHT. I'LL NEED A MOTION TO TABLE.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ISSUE.

I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION BY FLETCHER AND SECOND BY BOEDEKER TO TABLE THE ISSUE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS ITEM 4.

BOARD REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR REPORTS.

HAVE WE ANY? I SEE NONE.

HAVE WE A NEED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION? WE DO NOT. SO WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:11.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.