[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
AFTERNOON. WE'RE GONNA CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER TODAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH YEAR.
2022 ARE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 301 IN THE AFTERNOON. 2 22 22 NORTH TENNESSEE STREET, GREAT CITY IN MCKINNEY, WE ARE GOING TO FIRST SEE IF THERE IS ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I DO NOT SEE ANYBODY. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. APOLOGIZE FOR
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
THOSE THAT ARE HERE. UM, BUT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON ANY WORK SESSIONS, REGULAR SESSION OR SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA ITEM REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE NECESSITATED BY THE LIBERATION OF DISCUSSION OF SAID ITEMS AS NEEDED. PICK UP THE AGENDA INCOME TAKE UP THE WE ARE BACK. MOVED TO, UM REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. 22 1 OH 49 MINUTES OF MCKINNEY PUBLIC[Minutes of the McKinney Public Facility Corporation Meeting of September 27, 2022]
FACILITY CORPORATION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27 2022. WHAT'S HAPPENING. YEAH. UM MOTION TO APPROVE COME ON. SO MOVED SECOND ALL IN FAVOR. OH SORRY. I'M SORRY. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR YOU SHOULD BE RUNNING THIS MEETING. SORRY, SIR. NEVER MIND. THE MINUTE I'M SORRY. JUST A MINUTE, OKAY? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? PROMOTION TO SECOND. THE MOTION BY. NOTHING SECOND BY THE MIRROR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. MOTION PATH. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MATTER. 22 DOES 1051 CONSIDERING DISCUSS THE PUBLIC FACILITY, CORPORATIONS VIOLIN. YOU WANT TO DO 1050 1ST. YEAH,[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Authorizing the Jefferson Verdant Apartments Transaction, including the Execution of All Documentation Necessary to Carry Out the Transaction; Authorizing the Purchase of the Land for the Transaction and the Lease of Such Land for the Transaction; and Authorizing McKinney Public Facility Corporation to Serve as the General Contractor; and Other Matters in Connection Therewith]
YEAH. THANK YOU. 22 1050 CONSIDERED DISCUSS ACT ON A RESOLUTION AUTHOR RISING JEFFERSON BURDEN. APARTMENTS TRANSACTION. INCLUDING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE TRANSACTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE TRANSACTION AND THE LEAST SUCH PLANNED FOR THE TRANSACTION. AND AUTHORIZING MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTOR. THERE WITH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD, AND WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE JEFFERSON VERDIN PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION PROJECT TODAY. SO THE RESOLUTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU AUTHORIZES ALL THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO MAKE THIS A REALITY. THERE ARE THREE THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. JUST RECENTLY. THEY INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE REGULATORY AGREEMENT. FOR SOME QUICK BACKGROUND. THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED IN R F Q FOR THIS PROJECT AND SPRING OF THIS YEAR AND THROUGH A REVIEW AND A COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, THE COUNCIL APPROVED NEGOTIATING WITH J P I FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THIS PROJECT IS PLANNED GENERALLY AROUND THE AREA OF UNIVERSITY DRIVIN BO DARK BEHIND CINEMARK, AND IT IS A 383 UNIT. MULTI FAMILY PROJECT THAT INCLUDES BOTH APARTMENTS AND TOWN HOMES. IT IS A CLASS A PROJECT AND INCLUDES COMMON AMENITIES LIKE A POOL COURTYARD , 10 FT CEILINGS, ETCETERA. IN SEPTEMBER, THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD APPROVED A TERM SHEET THAT LAID OUT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PFC. AND TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE AGREEMENTS. SO A REAL QUICK OVERVIEW. THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE ALWAYS ALIGNED WITH THE TERM SHEET. THERE IS ONE ADDED PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDES AN EARLY TERMINATION CLAUSE AND THAT CLAUSE ALLOWS JP TO TERMINATE THE AFFORDABILITY AFTER THE 40TH YEAR IN EXCHANGE FOR A 5% SALE, BUT OTHERWISE ALL THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ALIGNED WITH THE TERM SHEETS VERY BROADLY. HOW THIS WORKS, THE M PFC. WHICH IS YOU HAVE SOME OBLIGATIONS, WE WILL BE OWNING THE PROPERTY AND OBTAINING A TAX EXEMPTION ON THAT PROPERTY, AND WE WILL ALSO OBTAIN A SALES TAX EXEMPTION THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN USE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER WILL LEASE THE PROPERTY BACK FROM US FOR 99 YEAR TERM. THEY WILL DESIGN CONSTRUCT AND MANAGE THIS PROJECT, AND THEY WILL ALSO PROVIDE 50% OF THE UNITS TO 80%[00:05:01]
AM I OR LOWER TENANTS? THE PFC WILL RECEIVE FUNDING FOR THIS AND A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.AT LEAST EXECUTION. CLOSING THE PFC WILL RECEIVE $2 MILLION AND THAT IS SPLIT BETWEEN A STRUCTURING FEE AND ALSO A PAYMENT THAT HELPS ACCOMMODATE THE SALES TAX SAVINGS. THERE'S ALSO FEES THAT WE WILL RECEIVE POST STABILIZATION, AND THEY INCLUDE A NET CASH FLOW RENT WHERE WE WILL GET ANNUAL RENT AND THE PROJECT THAT RENT WILL HAVE 3% INCREASE AND AFTER THE INITIAL SALE EVENT, THERE'S ALSO SORT OF A MARKET ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL OCCUR. THERE'S ALSO WHAT'S CALLED CAPITAL EVENT RENT, AND THAT IS WHEN THE PROJECT IS EITHER REFINANCED, INITIALLY SOLD OR SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD. AND THEN THERE'S THAT EARLY TERMINATION FEE THAT I MENTIONED. OVERALL OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD ON THIS PROJECT AND WE ARE EXCITED FOR THE THIS TO BE THE FIRST PFC. IN MCKINNEY. UM AND WITH THAT I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM JP IS ALSO AVAILABLE AND ARE ATTORNEY IS ON THE PHONE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM. HAVE A QUESTION SOMETHING I'VE FAILED TO CLARIFY IN OUR THREE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ON THIS, BUT THE SALES PRIZE. ON THE 40 YEARS. PLEASE VALUE BY AN INDEPENDENT OF FRASER. WHO SELECTS THE APPRAISER OR IS THAT THE APPRAISED? BUT COLLIN COUNTY FAISAL DISTRICT. I WILL DEFER TO JIM PLUMBER. I KNOW THE AGREEMENT CALLS UP FAIR MARKET VALUE, BUT THE DEFINITION BY WHICH I WILL DEFER TO HIM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT'S AN INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL. COULD YOU, UM. KIM THE SALES TAX SAVINGS RENT. YES. SO ESSENTIALLY, THAT IS A FEE BECAUSE WE WILL HELP OBTAIN A SALES TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE . AND THAT MEANS WHEN JP BUYS LUMBER ALL THE MATERIALS THEY NEED, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY SALES TAX. SO IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US SOME MONEY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THAT AS WELL AS THAT HELP EXPLAIN IT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS. I WANTED JUST TO CLARIFY. OKAY? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. IT'S J P. I WISH TO ADD ANYTHING TO MR LAM'S COMMENT. I DON'T HAVE TO. JUST JUST HEAR AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE ARE EXCITED TO BE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO BE HERE AND WE'RE HONORED TO BE AT THIS POINT AND EXCITED, EXCITED TO MOVE FORWARD. SO ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER, BUT JUST JUST HERE TO BE A RESOURCE OF WHERE'S YOUR OFFICE? IN IRVING. SOMETHING ELSE. I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION. YOU KNOW YOU APPROVE. ONE SECOND. MOTION BY MERE FULLER SECOND BY MR PUTIN. TIM ROCKERS ALL IN FAVOR , AYE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NO, IT DIDN'T. COUNCILMAN BELLA VOTED NAME SORRY. I DID NOT HEAR YOU. ALRIGHT BECAUSE I WAS ANNOUNCING THAT IT PASSED. MOVE ON TO ITEM 22. 1051 CONSIDERED DISCUSSED THE PUBLIC FACILITY
[Consider/Discuss the Public Facility Corporation Bylaws]
CORPORATIONS BY LAW. SO AGAIN, SO, UM, IF YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE EARLIER PFC MEETINGS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD ABOUT WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE FUNDING THE PFC RECEIVED. SO WE REVIEWED THAT A LITTLE BIT RIGHT? WE GET THIS LUMP SUM PAYMENT AND THEN WE GET ONGOING PAYMENTS. THE BYLAWS FOR THE PSC ESTABLISHED THAT THAT MONEY GOES INTO THE CITY GENERAL FUND. IN SOME WAYS THAT IS ONE OF THE NICE BENEFITS OF PFC. IS THAT GIVES THE CITY A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY AND WHAT TO USE WITH THE PROCEEDS FOR THESE PROJECTS? AT THE LAST PFC BOARD MEETING, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT TARGETING OR ALLOCATING THAT MONEY TO SPECIFIC, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES OR EVEN PROJECTS. SO HERE IS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE FROM THE CORPORATION BYLAWS ANY REVENUE SHALL BE PLACED INTO THE CITY GENERAL FUND FOR FUTURE APPROPRIATION. UM AND THEN THERE ARE, OF COURSE, A MILLION DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WHAT CAN BE DONE HERE? THE MONEY COULD STILL BE ALLOCATED TO THE GENERAL FUND AND COUNCIL COULD APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATED AND WHATEVER WAY IS NECESSARY. SOME OF IT COULD BE ALLOCATED TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, WHICH TARGETS IT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SPECIFICALLY THAT IS A[00:10:01]
FUND THAT IS MANAGED BY OUR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. YOU COULD SPLIT IT UP. YOU COULD SAY THE LUMP SUM. IT'S GOING TO GO IN ONE AREA. THE CASH PROCEEDS ARE GOING TO GO IN ANOTHER, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO. WE WILL DO ANY AMENDMENTS TO ANY BYLAWS OR ANY OTHER WILL DO ALL OF THE WORK BEHIND THE SCENES TO MAKE WHATEVER YOUR VISION IS A REALITY. UM I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND ALSO OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. BUT REALLY, THIS IS A CHANCE FOR YOU TO TELL US WHERE DO YOU WANT THIS MONEY TO GO? MAKING COMMENTS. SO I HAD ALWAYS BEEN OF THE MINDSET THAT IT SHOULD GO TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND CERTAINLY YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO USE IT JUST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT HAVING THAT DISCRETION WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TOMORROW BRINGS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT WILL BE FACED WITH EVERY YEAR AS WE GO INTO BUDGET AND TRYING TO GET THROUGH, YOU KNOW, SITTING THE TAX RATE. I ACQUIESCED. BECAUSE COUNSELOR BELLY YOU HAD REALLY PUSHED HARD ON HAVING AN EARMARKED STRICTLY FOR UM PORTABLE HOUSING. BUT YOU JUST VOTED AGAINST IT. I DON'T FEEL THE SAME. DUTY TO YOU KNOW? BECAUSE. TO MAINTAIN THAT SUPPORT FOR SOMETHING THAT I REALLY DON'T THINK IS RIGHT. I WAS I THOUGHT THAT, UH THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR YOU TO BE IN FAVOR, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION, BUT SO I'M I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MAKING THE STATEMENT I MADE FROM DAY ONE AND CERTAINLY MIND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS WHERE WE WOULD USE IT, BUT NOT HAVING A CRYSTAL BALL, NOT KNOWING WHAT INFLATION WILL BE NOT KNOWING WHAT TAX RATE WILL BE LOOKING AT IN YEARS TO COME BY HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY SURE SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. OF QUESTIONS COUNCIL THE WE HAVE THE GENERAL CLAUSE IN THERE THAT THE CORPORATION IS ALLOWED TO CONDUCT ALL LEGAL BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS AS A FALLBACK. YES. AND THE WAY IT'S WORDED. YEAH IT DOES NOT COMMIT US TOTALLY TOO. 100% TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT'S A DECISION THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THIS BOARD THAT'S WRITTEN YOU CAN SPIT IT. THE GENERAL FUND. I MEAN, IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. AND YOU THE BORDER. ALSO THE COUNCIL AND SO YOU GET TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. SO WE'RE JUST SEEING IF THERE'S INTEREST IN ESSENTIALLY PUTTING THE POLICY IN THESE BYLAWS. HMM. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE. LIKE THE MAYOR SAID THE SITUATION IS THE BOSS, RIGHT? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER BOARDS ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS COULD BE AMENDED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BY A FUTURE BOARD. RIGHT. SO WHATEVER WE'RE DOING TODAY ISN'T CARBON IN STONE. IT'S JUST WHAT IT IS. UM I DO HAVE AN APPETITE TOO. GIVEN THAT SURE MATTERS. WHAT WE DO WITH RESPECT TO THAT, BUT I FULLY APPRECIATE THAT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHALLENGES OF FUTURE COUNCILS ARE GOING TO BE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS GOING TO BE. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE REALLY DEEP NEEDS WHEN WE GO TO THE LOWER EMI NUMBERS, AND SO UM I'D BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE IF WE CAN DO THIS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN DO AN 80% OF REVENUE TO GENERAL FUND 20% TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND MOVE FORWARD ON THAT BASIS, KNOWING IT CAN BE EDITED, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, GIVING SOME RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S NEEDS THAT THIS 80% OF AM I PROJECT IS JUST NOT ADDRESSING THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. YOU COULD CERTAINLY THROW THAT OUT THERE. ADDRESSING WHAT THIS PROJECT ADDRESSES THE NEEDS OF THE 80% OF AM I BUT WE HAVE NEEDS WAY DOWN AT 30 AND 40% OF AM I IN THIS PROJECT DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT. AND, UH, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BACK IN THE PRIOR MEETING SEEMS LIKE A MONTH OR TWO AGO, BUT I MAY BE WRONG. UM SO I'D BE IN FAVOR IF IT COULD BE WORDED THAT WAY OF LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE 20% GOES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 80% TO GENERAL FUND. THE COUNCIL HAS APPETITE FOR THAT. BUT I JUST SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY THEY MAY NOT POINT OF CLARIFICATION WAS TO ILLUSTRATE THAT WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN GO UP TO 100% IF WE DETERMINED THAT THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO WITH ANY FUNDING COMING IN. ABSOLUTELY THAT'S RIGHT BOUND TO DO THAT, BY ANY CORRECT GOT THE FLEXIBILITY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FUTURE COUNCILS AND INFLATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. YOU WANT YOUR BYLAWS TO[00:15:02]
BE IT'S WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS LEGALLY. AND I THINK WE HAVE THAT JAM. THAT'S HOW I FEEL. MY I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP ORIGINALLY. SO I MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK OUR ISSUE. HERE IS THE COMMITMENT WE'RE MAKING. THIS. PATRICK WAS SAYING TO BRINGING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREAS THAT WE DON'T HAVE, WHICH IS LARGELY RENTAL MARKET AND THE YOU KNOW, SUB 50. AM ME AND FROM A YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE TRIED TO FIND HOMEOWNERSHIP PRODUCTS WITH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST OR OTHER THINGS. AND. UM I GUESS FROM A COMMITMENT STANDPOINT, I THINK YOU KNOW, IT SHOWS SOMETHING THAT WE PUT DOLLARS TOWARDS THAT EFFORT. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE LAST 2.5 YEARS SINCE WE HAD A ROOT POLICY STUDY THAT SHOWED US OUR GAPS. WE HAVE CREATED A COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, BUT WE HAVE YET TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT TO BRING ABOUT A HOMEOWNERSHIP PRODUCT OUTSIDE OF PUT SOME EXTRA FUNDS IN IT WHEN WE HAD IT. WE HAVE UM. STARTED AN RFP PROCESS AND SELECTED A DEVELOPER, BUT WE ARE NOT. YES, IT IS A LONGER PROCESS TO BRING ABOUT. 50% 70% AM I AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN TALKED ABOUT ANYWAY TO COME UP WITH SUB 50. AM I SO UNTIL WE CAN SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHEN THE PROJECT COMES ALONG, WE'LL COME UP WITH WITH MONEY FOR IT, BUT IT'S KIND OF A CART BEFORE THE HORSE TYPE OF THING. WE'RE NOT DOING EITHER ONE OF THEM. AND SO I'M NOT SURE I THINK PUTTING MONEY TO IT FORCES US TO DEAL WITH THE FINDING THE PRODUCT. IN WHICH TO DELIVER. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO WAIT TO PUT MONEY INTO IT UNTIL WE FIND THAT PRODUCT, AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO ACCELERATE, FINDING THAT PRODUCT BECAUSE THIS IS THE FASTEST AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WE'VE EVER HAD COME ABOUT, AND IT'S THE ONE WE DON'T NEED. BUT IS WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THIS MONEY TO BRING ABOUT ONES THAT WE NEED AND WE'RE NOT MAKING A COMMITMENT TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S MY ISSUE WITH IT. STANDPOINT OF YOU KNOW WHAT DOLLARS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK THE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT THE THAT CHART BACK UP THERE WITH THE NUMBER WAS SHOWN ON THE PFC DEAL. BUT REVENUES ARE IT'S THE ONE BEFORE THAT THERE ARE MAY HAVE BEEN THAT ONE MAJORS FROM THE SLIDE BEFORE. THERE YOU GO. SO THE SALES TAX SAVINGS RATE ESSENTIALLY REIMBURSES US FOR LOST SALES TAX. THAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ON THE MARKET RIGHT DEAL. AND THE CASH FLOW. ESSENTIALLY REIMBURSES US FOR THE LOST PROPERTY TAXES THAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN DEVELOPER. GOES ON AND GIVES THE BENEFIT FROM EITHER THE STATE PORTION OF THE SALES TAX OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND COUNTY AND COLLEGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TAXES, SO WE THOSE THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS MAKE US WHOLE. FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE , SO THESE PROJECTS CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICES THEY CONSUME WHETHER POLICE OR FIRE BUT THE STRUCTURING FEE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE OR COLLECT OR GETTING ANY OTHER WAY. INCLUDING MAY REIMBURSE US FOR SOME PERMIT. FOR SOME IMPACT FEES THAT WE WON'T GET OUR PARK FEES THAT WE WON'T GET THAT SEEMS LIKE THE OBVIOUS THING THAT IT WOULD BE EASY TO SAY.WAS SET THIS ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND WE NEED TO FIND A PRODUCT IN WHICH TO DELIVER THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THOSE FUNDS. YOU KEPT USING THE WORD FORCES US FORCES AS FORCES. THIS DOESN'T FORCE US TO DO ANYTHING. SO THAT THAT'S A WHOLE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT PUTTING IT IN FROM DOING SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOESN'T AT ALL IF YOU PUT IT INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND YESTERDAY, LISTEN, I HAVE TO DO IS CHANGE IT. NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT SHOWS THE COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE THE WANTING TO USE THESE THINGS. THIS PROJECT AND OTHER PROJECTS SHOWS THAT COMMITMENT. I MEAN, I THINK OUR COMMITMENT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN FOR RENTAL PRODUCTS BELOW 50% AM I AND AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP PRODUCTS. THAT WE HAVE NOT CREATED A MECHANISM TO BRING ABOUT. CAN YOU HAVE MORE OF THAT THAN ANY OTHER CITY AROUND? YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO MAGISTER CITIES THAT AROUND US WHO HAS MORE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE. I MEAN, DOES. THAT'S THE ANSWER. THAT'S NOT THE ANSWER WRITING HIM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMEOWNERSHIP PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN AFFORDABLE PRICE RANGES. AND THAT WE HAVE NO WAY TO MEASURE THAT YOU'RE MEASURING A LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT RATE.
WHICH, YEAH, WE HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF THAT. BUT WE ALSO DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER OF
[00:20:05]
VOUCHERS. WE DON'T HAVE THE PRODUCT THAT WAS BUILT. IN IN, UH, PRIOR DECADES, THAT HAS HAS REDUCED PRICES LIKE IT'S NOT A MEASUREMENT OF AFFORDABILITY. THE TECH IS JUST A MEASURE OF THE LIGHT. IT'S NOT A MEASURE OF OTHER REPORTERS. SO IT'S NOT A THAT'S NOT A MEASUREMENT TO SAY YES, WE HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE PRODUCTS THAN ANYWHERE ELSE. AND A LIGHT TECH DEAL. A STANDARD LIGHT TECH DEAL LIKE THE INDEPENDENCE OR LIKE THE OTHERS THAT HAVE COME ABOUT LIKE THE 3 80 VILLAS OVER HERE. TYPICALLY DON'T ADDRESS THE SUB 50% AM ARE BRING ABOUT A 50 TO 70. WHICH IS THE PRODUCT WE NEED, BUT IT'S STILL IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE TO A FAMILY THAT MAKES $15 AN HOUR.NO, MY EYES. I HEAR YOU. UM BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH WHEN YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. WE ACTUALLY HAVE DONE SOMETHING. THIS IS WHY WE'RE TALKING TODAY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PFC THAT WE JUST CREATED LANTOS COMPANY THAT WE JUST CREATED. UM, SO WE ACTUALLY ARE DOING THINGS FOR THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN 80% OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN 80% FOR THIS FOR THE PFC. AND A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IS WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRIVATE DEVELOPER COMMITMENT AND PRESENT THAT TO US, UM, COURSE DON'T DICTATE THAT THEY DICTATE THAT. AND ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT HERE IF WE HAVE A SALE EVENT ON A PROPERTY, UM AND I'M NOT WILLING TO, BY THE WAY DIE ON THIS SWORD ON THIS HILL BECAUSE WE CAN CHANGE IT WITH A SINGLE MEETING. UM, BUT IF I'M IF I'M THINKING IN TERMS OF JUST BEING MORE PRAGMATIC, I WOULD SAY THAT THE IDEA OF TWO YEARS. BLESS YOU. TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS. WHATEVER IT IS, IF THERE'S A SALE EVENT, AND THERE'S A LARGER CASH WINDFALL TO THE TO THE CITY. IF WE'RE IN THAT IF WE'RE AT THAT PLACE IN TIME, AND THERE ARE NO DEVELOPERS IN WITH A AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEAL THAT WORKS FOR THE PFC THE YET WE'RE IN ANOTHER 8% INFLATIONARY PERIOD, AND WE'RE FACING ALL KINDS OF ISSUES AND LOOKING AT PROPERTY TAXES. UM IN THE YOU KNOW UPWARDS OF WHERE OUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM TO NOT HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. I JUST I DON'T AS A BUSINESS GUY. I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO, UH UM. TO ANSWER THE MARKET ANSWER WHAT CONDITIONS EXIST THAT MOMENT THAT DAY THAT YEAR THAT TIME, SO PUTTING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND DOESN'T PRECLUDE US AT ALL. FROM USING IT FOR A AFFORDABLE PROJECT. IF THAT IS WHAT'S ON THE TABLE AT THE TIME. ALSO IF THERE'S NOT ONE ON THE TABLE AT THE TIME, AND IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO SAFER, EASY. JUST COMMUNICATION BY DOWN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT BENEFITS ALL THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. I WANT THAT FLEXIBILITY. AND I MEAN YOU, YOU ALL KEEP YOU KEEP SAYING FIRST OF ALL I SAID, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN THE SUB 50% RANGE IN ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WE'VE SET OURSELVES UP TO THIS. CREATING THE PFC IS THE VEHICLE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA. DEAL WE HAVEN'T DONE NOT ON THIS DEAL LIKE PFC IS HARD TO GET INTO SOME 50% AM I LIKE I MEAN, IT'S JUST EVEN IF WE DO IF WE GOT WHAT WE ASKED FOR YOUR TALKING ABOUT 5% OF THE PROJECT, WHICH ENDS UP BEING LIKE 15 UNITS LIKE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TO BE SUFFICIENT, BUT BUT WHAT? PFC CAN ALSO DO A COULD COULD BE A PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP WITH THE 4% TAX CREDIT DEAL AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S IN FRONT OF US THAT'S BEING PRESENTED RIGHT NOW. BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN A 4% TAX CREDIT. PRODUCT WHICH WHICH IS A FURTHER, UM, PROVIDES A FURTHER ABILITY FOR A LESSER AM I THEY'RE THEY'RE GETTING READY TO PRESENT TO US. THE THAT PRODUCT THAT, UH. OBVIOUSLY THAT PRODUCT FOR THE PFC TO ENGAGE IN A PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP. YEAH I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE DOING THE PFC. AT THAT POINT BECAUSE OF LIGHT TECH DEAL WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE A YOU KNOW WHAT I WOULD NOT HAVE A TAX RESPONSIBILITY. AND WE CAN DO THEM TOO. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION OR SOMETHING. SORRY, I GUESS I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW THAT. THAT PROJECT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? THERE'S A SALES TAX, BUT THERE'S SOME OTHER BENEFITS THAT THE PFC CAN OFFER.
I MEAN, OKAY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF. THE FLEXIBILITY OF YOU KNOW , YOU ALL HAVE YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE. IF WE PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO PUT IT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WELL, IF WE PUT IT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE HAVE THE SAME FLEXIBILITY TO PUT
[00:25:03]
IT IN THE GENERAL FUND. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS ONE HAS TO HAVE ANOTHER RESOLUTION PASSED THE OTHER DOZEN DIFFERENCES. IT'S POLITICAL POLICY CHANGE, RATHER TO MOVE IT. DO NOT MOVE IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING VERSUS SHOWING A WHEN IT'S IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. TO MOVE IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND SHOWS THAT YOU'RE NOT COMMITTED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SO IF IT'S JUST ABOUT PASSING RESOLUTIONS, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME. BUT I THINK I SAID RESOLUTIONS, THE BYLAWS OF THE CORPORATION CORPORATION.AMENDING BYLAWS, 11 WOULD REQUIRE A BYLAW AMENDMENT. THE OTHER WOULD NOT I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A DOABLE THING. ONE THING I IT'S YEAH, I DON'T INSTANCES WHAT'S THE CONSENSUS? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A VOTE, RIGHT? THIS IS A CONSENSUS UNLESS YOU WANT TO CHANGE AND THEN WE NEED DIRECTION TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU. MR IS THERE A GENERAL STATEMENT OR A MISSION STATEMENT CONTAINED IN THE BYLAWS THAT IT'S AIMED TOWARDS FUTURE ATTAINABLE HOUSING. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, MR MAYOR, THE HMM. THE REVENUE LINE ITEM THAT THIS IS NOW CREATING BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A PFC. WHEN MR HOLLOWAY BRINGS YOU YOUR ANNUAL BUDGET, YOU NORMALLY HAVE YOUR REVENUE SOURCES SALES TAX AT THE LOWER UM THIS WILL PROBABLY APPEAR ON THAT LIST. SO YOU'LL SEE IT EACH YEAR. IF THE BYLAWS AREN'T CHANGED, IT WILL SHOW US A NEW REVENUE SOURCE THAT HERE BEFORE YOU DIDN'T HAVE AGAIN. IT DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU ASKED. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT JUST IN THE YOUR THOUGHT IS BECAUSE GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO IT. NEITHER IS IT. THEY WE HAVE THE ABILITY EQUALLY THE SAME IF WE LEAVE THE BYLAWS THIS WAY IS IF WE CHANGE THE BYLAW TO REFLECT THE OTHERS IDENTICAL.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS TO YOU. IT'S A PERCEPTION THING. IT'S A IT'S A PERCEPTION, SO WE'RE GONNA MAKE A WELL, WE'LL TIE OUR HANDS. BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE PERCEPTION. NO I THINK IT I THINK IT SHOWS THAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THESE OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERCEPTION SHOWS THE PERCEPTION I MEAN, PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND SHOWS A PERCEPTION TOO. IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, THEY BOTH SHOW A PERCEPTION OF OUR INTENT. BUT I THINK WHEN, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE A POLICY WE HAVE WE EVER STUDY THAT SHOWED US WHERE OUR GAPS ARE. WE HAD TOOLS THAT WERE PRESENTED ABOUT HOW TO HOW TO FILL THOSE GAPS. AND IN THAT 2.5 YEARS WE HAVEN'T FILLED ONE. UNIT. BELOW 50% AM I FOR ONE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT AND WE ARE NOT CLOSE TO DOING THAT. WE ARE CLOSE. TWO. CLOSING ON A DEAL OR WE JUST PASSED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN 80% CHANGE DOESN'T CHANGE THAT MATERIALLY IN ANY WAY, BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT SAYS HERE IS MONEY THAT WE ARE DEDICATING TO BRING ABOUT THAT PRODUCT. AND IF WHEN IT SITS OUT THERE, AND WE HAVE YOU KNOW, A MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT INTO THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, AND WE TAKE OTHER PROCEEDS AND PUT THEM IN. TO TRYING TO COME UP WITH THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTS THAT FULFILL THOSE NEEDS. THEN WE START LOOKING AT, I THINK A LITTLE MORE ARDENTLY FOR PRODUCTS THAT FULFILL THAT NEED. AND SO WHAT? WHAT WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THOSE PROJECTS. AND SO WE JUST DECIDED WELL. WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THEM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN LEFT THERE. WE HAVE A COMMUNITY LAND TRUST THAT THERE'S NO MONEY IF WE MAKE THE DECISION TO USE THE MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED AS A GREATER NEED AT THE TIME, I GOT TO BELIEVE IF I HAD 1000 CONSTITUENTS IN HERE RIGHT NOW, AND I SAID, I'VE GOT TWO CHOICES. EVERYBODY WE HAVE THIS. WE'RE DOING THIS PFC. AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING IT FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE RIGHT NOW. AND THESE ARE THE PROCEEDS OF THE REVENUES THAT WE CAN WE CAN ANTICIPATE ABOVE AND BEYOND PROPERTY TAXES AND WHATNOT IN THE SALE EVENT, AND OUR INTENT RIGHT NOW IS TO USE THAT MONEY FOR FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, HOWEVER, NOT KNOWING THAT I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND KNOWING THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN THROUGH EIGHT OR 10% WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS INFLATION AND WE'RE GOD KNOWS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN OUR NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THAT MONEY BE ABLE TO BE FLEXIBLE IF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IS THE PRIORITY AT THAT TIME. UM THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'LL USE THE MONEY FOR IF WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION, AND THE SAME KIND OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WERE IN TODAY, AND THAT MONEY COULD BE. WE DETERMINED THAT MONEY IS BETTER SPENT AGAIN TO SHORTEN THE CONVERSATION EFFECTIVELY BY DOWN A PROPERTY TAX RATE. I GOTTA BELIEVE THAT MOST MOST OF MY CONSTITUENTS WITH CONSTITUENTS WOULD SAY LET'S KEEP THAT FLEXIBILITY. I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT YOUR THAT YOUR YOUR YOUR GOAL, AND THAT'S AND THAT WILL BE YOUR INTENT. BUT, UM IF THERE IS A GREATER NEED AT THE TIME OR
[00:30:05]
THERE'S NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT THAT TIME FOR US TO INVEST THAT MONEY? YEAH, BY GOD.MY PROPERTY TAX RATE. GOTTA BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE I INTERJECT. LET'S SAY WE'VE GOT $2 MILLION SITTING IN THIS FUN TWO YEARS FROM NOW, AND ANOTHER PANDEMIC COMES ALONG, AND WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE FOLKS WHO REALLY, REALLY NEED IT. WE'RE GOING TO BE HAMSTRUNG FROM DOING THAT IF WE START OUT PUTTING THAT VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE INTO OUR BYLAWS, AND I WANT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE IT. I THINK IT'S EVERYBODY'S INTENT ON THIS COUNCIL AND ON THIS BOARD. TO USE THE FUNDS FOR FUTURE ATTAINABLE HOUSING, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SEE HIS HAMSTRUNG FROM THE VERY START. THAT'S WRONG, PUTTING IN VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. I DON'T THINK IT HAMSTRINGS YOU TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT TO YOU ALL ARE WELCOME TO VOTE ON IT WITHOUT ME, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT. WE DID THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PROMOTE AFFORDABILITY, AND WE DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH ANY ANY AFFORDABILITY WITHIN THE ROOT POLICY STUDY THAT WE IDENTIFIED NEEDS FOR, BUT WE DO PRODUCE MONEY THAT CAN BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IF WE DON'T PUT THIS IN HERE, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL SAY WE'RE DOING A REAL ESTATE DEAL THAT PRODUCES EXCESS CASH FLOW THAT REDUCES TAXES. IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT DOESN'T PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE'RE NOT USING THE PROCEEDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I THINK IT JUST IT CONTINUES TO LEAVE A GAP. LIKE AGAIN TO DISMISS IT. 80% AMY PRODUCT AS NOT LANGUAGE IN THIS THING RIGHT NOW, IS IT? IS IT GENERAL FUND OR IS THERE A SPECIFIC ON I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION? THAT WE, UH ASK THIS, U.
THERE'S NO CHANGE, NO CHANGE. IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE A MOTION TO CHANGE. IT SAID. WELL ARE YOU COULD YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO KEEP THEM THE SAME. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POSITIVE, WE'LL JUST KEEP THEM KEEP THEM BYLAWS, AS WRITTEN ORIGINALLY I WILL. SECOND THAT. MOTION BY AMERICA PRO TEM ROGERS AND A SECOND BY MIRROR FULLER. ALL IN FAVOR, I SUPPOSE. MOTION PASSES. WAS ON
[MEMBER AND MANAGER COMMENTS]
TO MEMBER AND MANAGER COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY FROM ANYONE? I WILL. FORGIVE EACH OF YOU FOR NOT RISING WHEN SHELLY SANFORD ENTERED THE ROOM, THE SHELLY SANFORD, UM, BUT THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISCUSSION, SO PLEASE PARDON US WITH THAT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SO MOVED.THANK YOU. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF PUBS. QUESTIONED FRANCE'S WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 3 44.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.