Consider/Discuss/Act on a Term Sheet for the Development of Jefferson Verdant as a Partnership between JPI Companies and the McKinney Public Facilities Corporation

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Term Sheet for the Development of Jefferson Verdant as a Partnership between JPI Companies and the McKinney Public Facilities Corporation]

BUSINESS. SECOND IS 2 TO 0893 CONSIDERING ACT ON A TERM SHEET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF JEFFERSON DANTAS, PARTNER BETWEEN JP COMPANIES AND MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT PHILLIPS.

CONGRATS ON YOUR ELECTION. KIM FLAM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE TERM SHEET FOR THE JEFFERSON BURDETTE , WHICH IS A 383 UNIT. MULTI FAMILY PROJECTS PROPOSED AS A PFC PARTNERSHIP. IF YOU REMEMBER YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER, BUT WAY BACK IN MAY, THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS TO FURTHER WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN THE CITY. ONE WAS AN M HFC CO DEVELOPMENT DEAL, AND THE OTHER IS A PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION, BOTH OF THOSE USED TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY AS A WAY TO FURTHER WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OF THE SIX RESPONSES RECEIVED THE COMMITTEE THAT EVALUATED ALL THE RESPONSES RECOMMENDED THAT WE WORK WITH JP AND THEIR PROJECT. THEY HAVE AN EXISTING PROJECT THEY ARE WORKING ON IN MCKINNEY, UM THE JEFFERSON PRUDENT, WHICH IS LOCATED GENERAL AROUND THREE ETIENNE BODER KIND OF BEHIND CINEMARK THEATER AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTING ATTORNEY JIM PLUMBER WHO WAS ON THE PHONE TONIGHT FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND HAVE ESTABLISHED A TERM SHEET FOR YOUR REVIEW. AND YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD APPROVES THE TERM SHEET, WE WILL WORK WITH THE PARTIES TO CONVERT THAT INTO AN ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT WILL COME BACK FOR FORMAL APPROVAL. UM, WE ARE ALL HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. WE ALSO HAVE RYAN FROM JP COMPANIES WHO IS REPRESENTS THE DEVELOPER AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. QUESTIONS FOR KIM. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL MAKE A COMMENT ON IT. AND I HAVE TALKED WITH PAUL QUITE A BIT, AND I THINK IN OUR MEETINGS WHERE WE DISCUSSED THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE GOT A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. THE PFC MECHANISM ALLOWS THE CITY TO GRANT SALES AND PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TO A DEVELOPER IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME LEVEL OF SUBSIDIZED RENTS OR AFFORDABILITY. UM AND WHAT WE ACCEPT. HERE'S THE STATE BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY OF THE INCOME LEVELS OR PRODUCT PRICE POINTS THAT ARE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT IDENTIFIED. AND I THINK IT SHOULD I THINK LIKE I SAID, WE'RE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT IT. AND I THINK WE NEED A POLICY THAT STATES THAT WE NEED THOSE WE NEED THAT. AFFORDABILITY IN THESE PROJECTS. OTHERWISE, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE DOING THEM. UM I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF UNDERWRITING THESE SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE TRADE OFFS OF WHAT WE'RE GETTING. AND WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP. IN THE 10 YEAR. PRO FORMER THE ATTORNEY CONSULTANT PUT TOGETHER THEY SOMEWHAT OUTLINED WHAT THESE BENEFITS WHERE THESE BENEFITS WOULD GO. UM THE CITY WILL BE MADE WHOLE AND ALL OF ITS SHARE OF PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES. SO IN TERMS OF THE NET. TAX SAVINGS TO THE PROJECT. UM.

I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AT HOW THAT NET TAX SAVING THIS TO SAVINGS IS DISTRIBUTED. UM ABOUT 6% OF THAT NET WOULD GO TO THE CITY IN THE FORM OF A STRUCTURING FEE. THE RESIDENTS OF THESE 195 UNITS. WOULD RECEIVE ABOUT 31% OF THAT NET TAX BENEFIT, AND THOSE ARE RESIDENTS THAT MAKE BETWEEN 132,000 YEAR. UM. AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD RETAIN THE REMAINING 63% AND THAT'S OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD THAT THE DEVELOPED THAT THE ATTORNEY EVALUATED. UM. OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE PROCEEDS FROM POTENTIAL SALE, BUT I THINK IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR MORE AFFORDABILITY IN THIS PROJECT. UM LASTLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO ALIGN THIS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO ADMINISTER AND MONITOR COMPLIANCE. THE PROJECT . I THINK WE NEED TO EARMARK THE PROCEEDS FROM THESE PROJECTS OR AT LEAST SOME PORTION OF THEM TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM SO BASICALLY, I'M A NO ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT FAILS TO ACHIEVE ANY OF THE AFFORDABILITY. WE NEED FORFEITS TOO MANY TAX DOLLARS FOR WHAT WE RECEIVE IN RETURN. AND UH AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE IDENTIFYING THE PROCEEDS FROM THIS TO FURTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN

[00:10:06]

OUR COMMUNITY. SO FOR THEM. I'M NOT FAN. RIGHT UM. IF I MAY COMMENT, MR MAYOR. THIS IS A FLAGSHIP PROJECT. IT'S OUR FIRST WE JUST CREATED THIS BOARD. AND WE'RE VENTURING INTO AN AREA THAT NONE OF US HAVE VENTURED BEFORE. UH THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO USE THIS AS A STEPPING STONE AND LEARNING TOOL SO THAT WE CAN REACH DOWN TO THE LOWER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY. OF COURSE, THIS PROJECT DOESN'T GIVE US EVERYTHING THAT WE WOULD DESIRE OR HAVE ON OUR WISH LIST, BUT IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN THOSE NEEDS IN THE FUTURE. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUES WITH AIR MARKING. THE MAJORITY OF OUR PROCEEDS TOWARDS FURTHER AFFORDABILITY. BUT I SEE THIS AS A STUDY. UH IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING.

AFFORDABLE HOMES IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. AH AND IT'S PART OF THE GROWTH AND LEARNING EXPERIENCE, AND IT DOES. RETURN SUM TO THE CITY SO THAT WE CAN INVEST THAT IN FURTHER AFFORDABILITY FOR OTHER AREAS OF OUR ECONOMIC STRUCTURE. YEAH. I WOULD SAY THAT AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT SPEAKING FOR YOU, JUSTIN. BUT WHEN YOU SAY IT DOESN'T ADDRESS SOME. WHAT I'M SENSING IS THAT THIS ADDRESS IS PROVIDES 51% OF UNITS TO BE AT 80% AND MY AVERAGE MEDIUM INCOME VERSUS WE HAVE GREATER NEEDS, OR CERTAINLY ADDITIONAL NEEDS AND GREATER NEEDS. I'LL SAY AT 60% 50% 40% TO ME AS A FIRST TRIAL PROJECT. AH! WE HAVE MADE THE DECISION, AT LEAST AS CONSENSUS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN ALL OF OUR MEETINGS PRIOR TO NOW. THAT, ALTHOUGH WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WE WERE OPTING TO TAKE THE TO HAVE THE CITY BENEFIT. UH I THINK OVER 12 YEARS, THE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ASSUMING A SINGLE CASH TRANSACTION THAT SELL EVENT VERSUS WHAT WILL PROBABLY BE TOO UM, SOMEWHERE AROUND $9.6 MILLION VERSUS $5.9 MILLION IN AND WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVIL ARM TAXES OVER THAT SAME PERIOD, AND THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT DELTA OF ALMOST $4 MILLION TO INVEST IN YOUR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WANT TO ASSURANCE THAT THAT WOULD BE INVESTED IN FURTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SURFACE. I'M ALL FOR THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD , THOUGH. I DON'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD WANT TO WITHOUT A CRYSTAL BALL KNOWING THAT THEIR CASH THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES UP THAT WE MAY DETERMINE. IS I BETTER USE OF THOSE FUNDS BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE OTHER TAX CREDIT PROJECTS OR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT, UM THAT DON'T REQUIRE US TO UTILIZE THAT. WHAT MIGHT BE FOREIGN AND ANOTHER. CASH EVENT, YOU KNOW, FIVE OR $6 MILLION DON'T KNOW THAT I'D WANT TO BE CONSTRAINED . IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE OUR INTENT. BUT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT OTHER PROJECTS WOULD COME. I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SAY THAT, UM WE WOULD WANT TO CLOSE THAT DOOR ON ANY OTHER GENERAL FUND USE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE PFC. WAS THAT WITH CERTAINLY WOULD BE THE INTENT, BUT WE HAD THE DOOR OPEN FOR OTHER YOU KNOW USES IF WE IF WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION THAT MADE SENSE BUT, UM SO ME IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT CHARLIE SAID. I FEEL FOR A FIRST TIME. UM FOR FIRST TIME PROJECT.

AND GETTING OUR FEET WET. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORKFORCE. 80% AM I PRODUCT? AND I WOULD RATHER TAKE WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE CITY VERSUS ANOTHER 38 UNITS.

MAYBE AT 60% AND I THINK THE LEVERAGING OF THOSE DOLLARS WE COULD PROBABLY ACHIEVE MORE FOR ME. YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT SOME NUMBERS. LAST TIME. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ABOUT A WEEK AGO. ARE WE MARRYING ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE I SAW SOME NUMBERS IN THE TERM SHEET AS FAR AS BYPASSING THIS TODAY, ARE WE CARVING IN STONE. THOSE NUMBERS LIKE THE INITIAL PAYMENT. YES OKAY, HERE'S THE DIFFICULTY I'VE GOT, UM I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD DEAL FOR US. IT IS OUR

[00:15:06]

FIRST TIME AND WE DON'T KNOW. AND IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE LISTENED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATING FOR IT. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ONLY SALES TAXES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, THE BULK OF THAT GOES TO THE STATE 2% GOES TO THE CITY. THE DEVELOPER IS KEEPING THAT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BITES OF THE APPLE OF THIS THAT I WANT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A MULLIGAN. I WANT US TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE MOST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT NUMBER CLIMBED UP. FROM WHAT I'VE READ TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, AND IT JUST MAKES ME WONDER HOW MUCH MORE MEAT IS LEFT ON THE BONE. SHOULD WE BE DOING SOME MORE DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE RIGHT DEAL? BECAUSE I THINK TO JUSTIN'S POINT, OUR STAFF IS GOING TO BE OBLIGED TO KEEP UP WITH THIS. AND, UM I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE SOMETHING I REGRET VOTING FOR BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S THE BEST DEAL FOR THE MCKINNEY TAXPAYER. CAN WE HAVE A CITY? IT'S A GYM ON THE CITY SIDE. WHO ACTUALLY DOES HAVE. THEY HAD. THE EXPERIENCE DOES HAVE HIS ON THE PHONE AND HE'S ON THE PHONE. HERE'S OUR CONSULTANT, SO NONE OF US HAVE NOR, NOR DO I THINK WE WILL IF WE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS. BUT WHO? WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS A CITY AS WE ENGAGED A CONSULTANT THAT THAT ARGUABLY HAS THE EXPERTISE AND WE'RE RELYING A LOT ON WHAT OUR CITY CONSULTANT HAS. IS TELLING US AND JIM, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE. YOU CAN HEAR ME. I AM. YES, SIR.

SO YOU HAVE TOLD US IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND CERTAINLY DON'T LET ME PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH THAT BASED ON WHAT THE MARKET IS ON THESE TYPES OF DEALS THAT WE ARE, THIS DEAL IS VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH WITH WHAT WE COULD EXPECT AND WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT. THAT DEAL WAS ACTUALLY ABOVE ABOUT ONLINE. HAVE REPRESENTATIVE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION, TRAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION. SEVERAL IN SAN ANTONIO. AND A WHOLE LOT OF THEM ARE LITTLE CITIES. AND KNOW WHAT TO HOUSTON. HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION JUST TOO LATE. THIS DEAL MEETS THOSE TERMS AND ALL OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS. AND IN ADDITION, WHAT WE DID AFTER OUR LAST CONVERSATION WAS IT? AFTER OUR LAST CONVERSATION, THE NUMBERS YOU SAW PRETTY MUCH THE STANDARD TERMS OF THE F C. D. WE WENT BACK TO THEM, AND WE SAID LOOK.

THERE IS A DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE CITY. PRODUCE ADDITIONAL, TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND TO USE THE PROCEEDS OF THIS TRANSACTION. SOFTWARE AMOUNT PROJECTS THROUGH WHICH VERY LOW INCOME LEVELS. AND THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE. IS IF YOU PROVIDE US WITH HIS MUCH MONEY. UPFRONT CURRENT. WE CAN DO AND STILL GET THIS DEAL CARDS. AND THEY DID COME BACK AND PROVIDE US WITH ANOTHER $600,000 OF UPFRONT MONEY. WHICH GIVES YOU A $2 MILLION PART OF MONEY. THE NEWS. IN HOPEFULLY A TAX CREDIT PROJECT. ABUSED BY DOWN TO THE LOWER INCOME LEVELS.

THAT YOUR COMMUNITY, WILL IT UM AND. SIGNAL I CAN TELL YOU BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD DEAL FOR PFC. IN YOUR I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA SQUEEZE ANY MORE OUT OF THE DEVELOPER, PARTICULARLY ON THE FRONT END OF THE SIGNAL. AND SO BASED ON DOING COMMON. WHEN HE WAS 30. AND YOU CAN WATCH PEOPLE YEARS. I CAN TELL YOU. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DEAL. HMM I SIR PATRICK LADY. I APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING TO HEAR SOMEONE THAT REPRESENTED US TO TELL ME THAT YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW AND DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT IT. SO IT'S WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CANE TAXPAYER. AND IF YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD DEAL, BASED ON WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING AND THAT'S OKAY WITH ME.

SO HERE'S MY CONCERN, AND WE HAD A PRESENTATION DONE BY JOHNNY AWHILE AGO, AND THEN WE HAVE THE ROUTE STUDY AS WELL TO TELL US WHERE OUR BIGGEST NEEDS ARE. SO I DO UNDERSTAND JUSTICE JUSTIN'S POINT FROM STANCE, BUT. UM WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EARMARKING, I HAVE TO HAVE TO SAY I JUST DISAGREE. I THINK THEY'RE MARKING THE PROCEEDS OF THIS PROJECT, TOO. DEDICATE TO

[00:20:02]

HOUSING THAT WE'RE REALLY IN A DEFICIT FOR ACTUALLY FORCES TO BE MORE MINDFUL. COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR HOUSING, SO I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF I'M OKAY WITH THE PROJECT, BUT I WOULD I DO AGREE WITH JUSTIN THAT WE SHOULD EARMARK THAT I'M NOT FIRM ON THAT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT. BUSINESS FOR ME IF I CAN LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS, I OFTEN FEEL THAT I SHOULD LEAVE EVERY DOOR OPENED POSSIBLE, BUT THAT SAID, IT'S CERTAINLY A POINT THAT I'M VERY WILLING TO ACQUIESCE ON BECAUSE AGAIN TO ME, THIS IS A THIS IS A PILOT PROJECT AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING INTO THIS IS TO ULTIMATELY FIND FURTHER TOOLS TO BETTER OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO I'M NOT GOING TO DIE ON THAT SWORD AT ALL. IF THAT'S THE MY THOUGHT, IS THIS IS GOING TO LIVE FAR LONGER THAN ON THIS ON THIS DIET, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING AND ANYTHING WE DO TODAY, OF COURSE, COULD ALSO BE REVISITED. BUT I AM. I WOULD CERTAINLY WOULD BE WILLING TO ACQUIESCE TO THAT. FROM MY FROM MY POINT CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S POINT, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE FUTURE AND YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS BOARD BEING 20 MINUTES. UM I DID NOT EXPECT TO STEP UP AND HIT A HOME RUN MY FIRST TIME AT BAT, BUT IT IS NICE TO KNOW THAT I'VE GOT BASE RUNNERS OUT THERE. UH AND I'VE GOT FUTURE INNINGS TO PLAY. AND SO I'M OKAY WITH IT MOVING FORWARD. I THINK IT'S THE INTENTION OF EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD THAT WE STRIVE FOR FURTHER ATTAINABLE HOUSING. BUT IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY COME ALONG, AND CERTAINLY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT. AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MAY BE, BUT TIMES CHANGE THINGS CHANGE. WOULD THE IN THIS PARK IS PROBABLY QUESTION FOR YOU, THOUGH. IS THE TERM SHEET. THIS IS A TERM SHEET BETWEEN US AND A DEVELOPER. AND I DON'T THINK HAS ANY BINDING LANGUAGE AS TO WHAT WE DO OR DON'T DO WITH THE FUNDS, SO I DON'T KNOW, CORRECT THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY STATE AS A POLICY. THAT, UM THAT WE AS A BOARD OR GIVING CONSENSUS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THESE. THESE FUNDS GO TO THE BENEFIT OF ADDITIONAL OR OTHER AFFORDABLE, OBTAINABLE HOUSING. EFFORTS BUT IT'S REALLY NOT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. RECOMMEND IT. THAT ACTION BE TAKEN WHEN THE FINAL DOCUMENTS COME FORWARD. SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT ACCOMPANYING INSTEAD OF FINAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENTS. RESOLUTION THAT YOU'RE WILL NEED AS WELL. AND JIM, PLEASE JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME IF YOU DISAGREE. DON'T THINK YOU REALIZE YOU WERE TALKING TO ME. I'M JUST SAYING VERY SIMPLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT OUR DECISION HERE AND HOW WE USE FUNDS IS IN ANY PART PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE WITH THE THIRD PARTY DEVELOPER.

IT IS NOT. THEY ARE YOUR FARMS, SO THAT WOULD BE A POLICY THING. FOR ANY PURPOSE. BUT CERTAINLY, AS I STATED, I WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE CONSENSUS TO THEM AS A POLICY, SO I GUESS MY ANSWER IS CONSISTENT. THAT DECISION CAN BE MADE LATER. AND IF YOU WANT TO ON THE SAME AGENDA AS YOUR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DEFINITIVE DOCUMENTS, WE CERTAINLY CAN SO THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS DEAL ULTIMATELY CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT BOTH. IF NEED BE. I DID WANT TO ASK MR PLUMMER, A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU SAID THE TERM SHEET PROVIDES US AN ADDITIONAL $600,000 AN UPFRONT FEES. BUT IT ALSO DELAYS ABOUT 850 IN PILOT PAYMENTS. UM COMPARED TO THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU GAVE US LAST WEEK IS THAT CORRECT? IT DOES NOT THE PRESENTATION LAST WEEK THEY HAD ALWAYS INTENDED DESTRUCT. PAYING RAPT WANTS. THE PROJECT STABILIZED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A SOURCE OF INCOME TO PAY YOU RENT UNTIL THE PROJECTS BUILT. RIGHT BUT BUT IN TERMS OK WHERE WE SHOWED IT IN YEAR ONE. THAT IS YOUR ONE AFTER STABILIZATION NOT YEAR ONE.

STARTING CORRECT. UM AND UM. IN I GUESS MY COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP. WE WERE EVEN TALKING BEFORE WE CAME IN HERE. THIS PROJECT ALSO QUALIFIES FOR A UM PARK FEES. DISCOUNT AND SO IT IS AN ADDITIONAL 300. $12,000 THAT THE CITY WILL FOREGO AN INCOME. IF AS COMPARED TO MARKET RIGHT DEAL TO ACHIEVE AFFORDABILITY FOR YOU

[00:25:08]

KNOW, THERE'S 80% I AM MY PRODUCT. AND SO I GUESS I'M JUST I'M I APPRECIATE THE SHOULD TAKE THE WIN WHEN I GET IT WITH DEDICATING THESE TWO ADDITIONAL FURTHER ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT WE CAN GET. BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE NOT FULLY GRASPED WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP HERE AND WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR IT SO ONE THING WE CAN CERTAINLY DO, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE USE OF PFC FANS AND THE FACT THAT WHAT ARE WE 25 MINUTES OLD NOW, UM, I WOULD ANTICIPATE SOME FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PFC BOARD ABOUT SOME OF THE POLICY QUESTIONS, NOT JUST ABOUT THE USE OF THE FUNDS, BUT HOW DO WE EVALUATE FUTURE PROJECTS? AND WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF THE BOARD SO THAT WE CAN BRING THE BEST PROJECTS TO THE CITY? SO I THINK WE CAN ROLL THAT INTO FUTURE AGENDAS FOR DISCUSSION. HOW DO WE BEST EVALUATE THEM? SO YOU'RE GETTING THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT, ETCETERA. THE WAY AGAIN IN A NUTSHELL. THE WAY I'M VIEWING THIS IS IT IS A FIRST DEAL FOR US. WE HAVE WE HAVE HIRED A QUALITY, VERY, VERY QUALIFIED CONSULTANT. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT WERE THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'VE NEGOTIATED IS ABOVE THE NORM BETTER THAN HE'S SEEN IN THINK THE COMMENT WAS 30.

OTHER MARKETS AND DEALS AND WE'RE DOING IT WITH BY FAR THE BEST DEVELOPER THERE IS IN CLASS A PRODUCT TYPE WITH J P. I SO. I DON'T KNOW. ALSO POINT OUT THAT WE PUT THIS OUT FOR BIDS, AND THERE WAS A LIMITED RESPONSE AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE OFFER TO THE CITY. DO ENGAGE WITH US IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IS GENEROUS FOR OUR FIRST TIME OUT. AND WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. USE IT AS A LEARNING TOOL. ALSO USE IT FOR FUNDING FEATURE PROJECTS. IS THERE A MOTION? WOULD MAKE THE EMOTION THAT WE APPROVED. THE TERM SHEET HAS SUBMITTED. I WILL SECOND, OKAY? ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED. NO. JUST A COUNCILMAN MILLER WAS OPPOSED ALL OTHERS I AND WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THE TERM SHEET WILL ALSO HAVE THE POLICY DISCUSSION AND WE WILL UH, COMMIT TO WHAT WE JUST GAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT THE FUNDS WOULD BE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

PROJECTS. ALRIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS. UM IS THERE ANY COMMENTS? DID WE

[MEMBER AND MANAGER COMMENTS]

ACTUALLY I THINK WE MADE IT PART OF THE MOTION AND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS OR IN THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. WE ELECTED OFFICERS AND AH! DON'T MR HAUSER MADE A BALANCE GESTION THAT WE MEND THOSE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES. COURSE IT WOULD INCLUDE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE ANY AND ALL LEGAL BUSINESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. BUT WITH THE PRIMARY FOCUSED ON ATTAINABLE HOUSING. AND I THINK THAT WOULD SET THE POLICY FOR THE BOARD WITHIN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. WE COULD DO IT EITHER OF THOSE WAYS IN THE BYLAWS OR JUST TO RESOLUTION. BUT WHEN WE PUT THE ORIGINAL BYLAWS TOGETHER , WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT QUESTION, AND WE WE'RE ALL NEW AND SO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WOULD BE DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC TO THE GENERAL FUND OR TO SPECIFIC PROJECTS. WE WERE NOT READY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. SO IF YOU WANT IT IN THE BYLAWS FORMAT WILL WE CAN HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO SO THAT WAY IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PERMANENT ZONES. WE HAVE THAT CATCH ALL PHRASE OF DOING ANY LEGAL BUSINESS. I THINK THAT LEAVES US THE OPPORTUNITY ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS TO EVALUATE WHAT COMES BEFORE THIS PRESTIGIOUS BOARD. I'M NOT GOING TO TOUCH THAT ONE. THANK YOU.

REMEMBER ON THE CHARLIE IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT WAY BACK AT THE ADVENT OF THE SPORT. I NOMINATED YOU TO LEAVE US AND I'M PROUD OF THAT MOMENT RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE ALREADY HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS IT'S INTO IT. ALL RIGHT, MR MAYOR. I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND IMPROVE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS. IMPROVED. IT'S NOT. THEN THE AGENT. I'M READING THE WORDS ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION BYLAWS AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT IN

[00:30:04]

FRONT OF ME, SO OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE DOTTING OUR I'S AND ARE CROSSING OUR T S HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE JUST SOMETHING TO REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO IT. THANK YOU. I WILL MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN. SECOND ON

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Sep 27, 2022 McKinney Public Facility Corporation Regular Meeting on 2022-09-27 5:45 PM

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item