Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

ORDER FOR A RAID ZONE NUMBER 1 20 PROTEST STREET IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. UH FIRST ORDER WOULD BE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS FOR. ON PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS COMING.

[Consider/Discuss/Act on the Minutes of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One (TIRZ1) Board Meeting of July 28, 2020]

SING. NONE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA ITEMS TO 0-07 CONSIDERED DISCUSS ACT ON THE MINUTES OF THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER ONE BOARD MEETING OF JULY 2020 20. TO APPROVE THIS METS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. SECOND COUNCILMAN FRANK ONE SECOND. WE NEED TO DO. LOCAL OR DO YOU DO IT ON THE MACHINE? I THINK YOU HAVE EVERYBODY LOVES TO DO. OKAY ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED. EXCELLENT. ITEM NUMBER TWO BRIEFING IN DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TO RESEMBLE

[Briefing and Discussion Regarding Proposed TIRZ No. 1 Project Plan, Policy and Administration Changes]

ONE PROJECT PLAN POLICY AND ADMINISTER SHIN CHANGES, MR DOE. GOOD EVENING, FOUR CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS. MARCONI'S IS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. I AM HERE TO GO OVER OUR TERMS. NUMBER ONE PROJECT PLAN. POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATION DISCUSSION. WE WENT OVER THIS BRIEFLY AT THE JULY 28TH MEETING. BUT DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, WE BRING IT BACK A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH CONVERSATION WITH YOU ALL WANTED TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON SOME STUFF. Y'ALL HAD ALSO GIVEN US SOME KIND OF HOMEWORK TO DO, SO WE'RE BRINGING THAT HOMEWORK BACK TO YOU AS WELL TO TALK ABOUT OPTIONS. SO AGAIN PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING, AND FOCUS ON PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES. FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CHANGES PROPOSED THE TURRET NUMBER ONE PROJECT PLAN. WELL, ACTUALLY, I WILL NEED MODIFICATION. SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PROJECT PLAYING GOALS. EXISTING TERRORS PROJECT CATEGORIES.

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND THEN CHANGES TO THOSE AS WELL. SO WE'RE INVESTMENT. SO NUMBER ONE. WHAT IS THAT? JUST A QUICK. YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW MOST OF THIS INFORMATION IT'S TOULA CAPTURES PROJECTED INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE CREATED BY MEL MEN WITHIN A DEFINED AREA TURNS NUMBER ONE AGAIN IS THE MAIN DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WE KNOW. STANDS UP TO 3 80, BUT THEN ALSO ALL THE WAY DOWN. TEO 75 AS WELL TO INCLUDE THAT AREA, MOSTLY ALONG HIGHWAY FIVE. OUR PROJECT PLAN GOALS IS IN THE PROJECT PLAN AGAIN THERE TO SUPPORT COUNTLESS PROJECTS THAT WILL SUPPORT THE REVITALIZATION HISTORIC TOWN CENTER. LINC TOWNSEND ACROSS HIGHWAY FIVE.

HIGHWAY FIVE IS THE AREA OF CONCERN OF DEVELOPMENT NOW WITH MAYBE FUTURE TRANSITORY INTO DEVELOPMENT, SUPPORT STREET ANOTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEN PROVIDE ANY OTHER SUPPORT IS NEEDED. SO OUR EXISTING TOURIST PROJECT CATEGORIES. WE HAVE THREE WE HAVE CATALYST PROJECTS THESE AIR SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS THAT GENERAL YOU'RE BUDGETED R HAVE $5 MILLION IN INVESTMENT OR GREATER. OUR NUMBER TWO IS VACANT, UNDERUTILIZED SITES AND BUILDINGS. THESE ARE SMALLER PROJECTS. THIS IS USUALLY WHAT YOU'LL DO REVIEW. FOR THE MOST PART THAT I'M BRINGING 40 ALL THOSE AIR UNDER ONE MILLION INVESTMENT, AND THOSE INCLUDE THE ENVIRONMENT, PRE PRE MEDIATION INTERIOR EXTERIOR DEMOLITION FACADE, RESTORATION IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, FIRE SAFETY. ANY KIND OF STREET YOU TILL THE END STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEN LAND ACQUISITIONS AND THEN OUR THIRD SUBJECT CATEGORY IS MIXED.

MIXED INCOME HOUSING, SO CREATION OF ANY NEW, AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE OR MIXED INCOME HOUSING INSIDE OR OUTSIDE. THE TOWN SENATORS. OUR EXISTING TERMS. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT MAYBE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO YOUR ADOPTED BY YOU ON SEPTEMBER 2014. THAT SAID THE A REIMBURSEMENT AND THE GRANT REQUEST ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR Y'ALL TO PROVE IT EVERY EACH MEETING WHEN THEY'RE BROUGHT TO YOU. UNDER THE BAKING UNDERUTILIZED SITES AND BUILDINGS CATEGORY FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS. THAT'S WHERE WE LIMITED EACH PROJECT TO 25,000. OR THE ENTIRE GRAIN REQUEST AGAIN, WHICHEVER IS LESS. THAT IS WHERE THE MAXIMUM OF $100,000 PER FISCAL YEAR WAS SET OUT WAS AGREED UPON AND IS A FIRST COME FIRST SERVED. SO ONCE WE'VE EXHAUSTED THAT $100,000 PER FISCAL YEAR. AND WE'RE OUT OF MONEY. WE JUST WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. TWO HERE. ANY PROPOSALS.

OUR FIRST PROPOSED CHANGES. WE'D LIKE TO CREATE A CRITICAL CRITICAL MAINTENANCE ITEM UNDER THE VACANT UNDERUTILIZED BUILDING SITE CATEGORY. AND THIS WOULD BE FOR STRUCTURAL ON FOUNDATION REPAIRS, ELECTRICAL PLUMBING, MECHANICAL. THINGS LIKE GUTTERS AS WELL, GETTING WATER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW. WHAT WE HAVE IS KIND OF FACADE ENHANCEMENTS FOR

[00:05:02]

BUILDINGS AND WHILE THOSE WERE GREAT, AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT. WHAT WE DO THINK IS THAT IF WE HAVE A CRITICAL MAINTENANCE THIS WILL DEAL WITH MORE PRESSING ISSUES WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WE RUN INTO THOSE AIR, SOMETIMES STRUCTURAL ISSUES THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS THEN AMEND THE TRES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY. TO ESTABLISHING ANNUAL CAP OF $100,000 FOR THIS CRITICAL MAINTENANCE PROJECTS. ESTABLISH IT PER PROJECT KAPPA 50,000. ON THE GRANT WOULD BE A 50 50 MATCH. SO WE WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO FOR THESE CRITICAL MANE IS ITEMS FOR ACTUALLY SPEND SOME MONEY TOE TO MEET US HALFWAY WITH WITH SOME OF THESE REQUESTS. YOU ALL REMEMBER THAT? WE ADDED A NEW SECTION FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION.

WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS KIND OF TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER IN, UM IN THE PROJECT PLAN, TOO. BE INELIGIBLE PROJECT TYPE UNDER THE VACANT UNDERLIE SITES, BUILDINGS AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR GRANTS TO BE AVAILABLE TO UPGRADE THEIR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS IN THEIR BUILDING ITSELF. SO KIND OF ABOVE AND BEYOND THE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS THAT WE HAD ENVISIONED EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL CAF OF $100,000 FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS AGAIN PER PROJECT CAP OF 50,000, AND IT WOULD BE A YOU KNOW A 50 50 MATCH. FOR THAT AS WELL. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. WE'VE BEEN WORKED TALKING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON OUR CHIEFS IS WE WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY CONDUCT A STUDY TO DETERMINE A UNIFIED PLAN FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION OF PARADES AROUND SQUARE. YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE A KIND OF A UNIFIED PLAN AND IT WOULDN'T MAKE ME BE A KIND OF A PIECEMEAL WAY THAT IT WOULD BE BE DYIN. SO IF LIKE THERE WAS A.

A GROUP OF BUILDINGS THAT WE KNEW NEEDED A RISER OR SOME KIND OF FIRE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL THESE BUILDINGS THAT WERE SIDE BY SIDE, WE COULD ADDRESS THOSE ALL AT ONE TIME. PERHAPS WITH THESE GRANTS, INSTEAD OF ONE BY ONE COMING IN. AND DOING IT KIND OF THAT WAY.

LIKE TO ESTABLISH A PROBE A PROGRAMME CAP OF $300,000, THOUGH JUST SO THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW. TAKING ALL OF THAT MONEY AND HAVING A HUGE POT OF MONEY, UM, YEAR OVER YEAR. UM AGAIN, HAVEN'T I'VE BEEN HERE A FULL YEAR? HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEING ISSUE SO FAR FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. BUT WE WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO BE AN OPTION. SO AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION. REGARDING WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A CRITICAL MAINTENANCE REQUEST THAT EXCEEDS THE PROJECT CAP. THAT'S ESTABLISHED IN THE TRES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY. SO. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT SHOULD WE ENCUMBER FUTURE ALLOCATIONS? OR COULD WE FRONT LOAD THOSE AMOUNTS FOR THESE PROJECT FOR THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUESTING MONEY AGAIN? THAT KIND OF OUT OUTWEIGH. ARGO ABOVE ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR YEARLY ALLOCATION, SO STAFF WENT BACK TOOK A LOOK. WE'RE BRINGING TWO OPTIONS FORWARD TO TODAY, AND WE'D LIKE YOUR FEEDBACK AND THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. ON BOTH OF THESE SO OPTION NUMBER ONE IS KIND OF WORK ON THE FRONT LOAD OPTION. SO WHAT IT WOULD BE IS IF COUNSEL DEEMED IF SOMEBODY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION. IN COUNCIL DEAN THAT THAT TYPE OF

[00:10:02]

PROJECT WAS EXCEPTIONAL ENOUGH. WE COULD FUND THAT OUTSIDE THE CURRENT POLICY PARAMETERS.

ENTREATED MOHR IS KIND OF A LINE ITEM REQUEST SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF A ONE TIME REQUEST ITEM OR APPROVAL. YOU THINK THAT'S A FEASIBLE OPTION, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATION AND LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES WE THINK MAY COME UP WITH THAT. ONE CHALLENGE COULD BE KHALID'S A PRECEDENT FOR THAT, AND MAYBE EQUITY CONCERNS AS WELL. WE'D BE CONCERNED THAT IF SEVERAL PROJECTS. CAME ALL IN A ROW THAT WANTED ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE HAD, THEN WE COULD EAT INTO OUR YEARLY CAP EVERY YEAR, AND SO WE'D BE TAKING MONEY FROM EVERY YEAR FORWARD. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR. CHALLENGE WITH OPTION NUMBER ONE OPTION NUMBER TWO. WE WOULD WE CONSIDER THIS KIND OF OUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION OPTION WHICH WE JUST FIND OUT RIGHT AS WELL.

WE THINK THIS IS A VIABLE OPTION AS WELL. WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO FOR THIS, THOUGH, IS ESTABLISHING ANNUAL LIMIT IS THAT IF YOU HAD ONE OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS. THAT THEY COULDN'T ASK FOR MORE THAN 50 SAY $50,000 WOULD BE OUR LIMIT FOR THAT. IT WOULD BE A GRANT PROGRAM SO IT WOULD BE A 50 50 MATCH. SO, UM. AGAIN, SOME I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE SKIN IN THE GAME HAVE SOME MONEY THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND BEFORE WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, MATCH THAT FUNDING AS WELL. AGAIN. WE THINK THAT A REIMBURSEMENT WOULD STAY IN LINE WITH OTHER CRITICAL MAINTENANCE. CATEGORY THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE AS WELL. WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO ALSO, IF WE DID, THIS IS STIPULATED IN ANY AGREEMENT THAT THEY COULD NIGHT REQUEST FUNDING FUTURE FUNDING FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL THEY EXHAUST THAT MONEY IF THEY ASK FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT. ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE USUALLY DO. WE'D ALSO LIKE THAT CERTAIN MAYBE FINDINGS ARE PART OF THE DECISION TO DO THIS. IS IT A MAINTENANCE? NEED? UM, IS IT IMPACT BUILDING INTEGRITY? DO WE THINK THE FRONT FACADE IS GOING TO FALL INTO THE STREET? OR MAYBE. THE ROOF IS GOING TO FOLLOW HIS AIR, STRUCTURAL THINGS THAT MAY THEN BECOMING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. YOU KNOW WE WOULD WANT A PROJECT FUNDED TO USE FINDS THAT WOULD KEEP THAT FROM BEING A DANGER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. PROBABLY OUR ANSWER CITIZENS AS WELL. SO THOSE A COUPLE OF THINGS OPTION OPTION OVER ONE OPTION NUMBER TWO. THAT AGAIN. WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION. FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL ABOUT SINCE THAT WAS DIRECTION GIVEN TO US AT THE LAST MEETING. AND IN CONCLUSION AGAIN WITH OUR PROJECT PLAN TYPES. WITH CALLOUS PROJECTS, NO CHANGE VACANT UNDERLIE SITE BUILDINGS UNDERNEATH THAT WE WOULD JUST INCLUDE THEIR AD. THE CRITICAL MAINTENANCE. I DON'T ANY MORE IN DEPTH FIRE SUPPRESSION IDOL. AND IN OUR ADMINISTRATION POLICY CHANGES WE WOULD AGAIN. ADD AN ANNUAL CARRY OVER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOLITION FACADE RESTORATION.

AND THEN ADD A CRITICAL MAINTENANCE WITH 100,000 CAP 50,000 PER PROJECT. 50 MATCH WITH NO CARRY OVER IN WITH A FIRE SUPPRESSION, WE WOULD HAVE 100,000 AS WELL. 50,000 MAXIM PROJECT 50 50 MATCH WITH NO CARRY OVER. SO WITH ALL OF THAT I AM HERE FOR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, FEEDBACK. STEVE, WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH THIS OR IF WE'RE COMPLETELY OFF BASE. MR DODIE IN QUESTION. IF LET'S SAY WE HAVE A PROJECT. IT MAY BE A BLOCK LONG. IT INVOLVES DIFFERENT OWNERS OF DIFFERENT BUILDINGS. OR EACH ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS 8 $50,000. I CAN'T. IS IT HER OWNERS IT FOR PER PROJECT. IT WOULD BE PER PROJECT SO IT WOULD BE PER ADDRESS. SO IF YOU HAD. TO BUILDINGS AND IF I'M GETTING THIS WRONG, I'M LOOKING AT JENNIFER AND KIM, IF I'M TELLING YOU SOMETHING WRONG IF IT'S TWO OWNERS THAT HOME TO SEPARATE BUILDINGS HE COULD APPLY FOR THOSE TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES. IT WOULD GO WITH ADDRESSES, NOT WITH THE PROPERTY, SO IT WOULD BE 50,000. HER PROPERTY FOR PROPERTY. WE WOULD NOT YES. IT WOULD IT WOULD RUN WITH WITH THE BUILDING ITSELF. NOT WHO OWNS THE BUILDING. WE DO REALIZE THAT THEIR SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT OWN LARGE, YOU KNOW SECTIONS OF DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY AND SO WE WOULD. YOU WOULDN'T LIMITED TO WHO WHO GOT IT RIGHT WITH THE BUILDING. ANOTHER QUESTION. HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE IN THE TERRORIST AND WE HAVE ABOUT 7.1 MILLION RIGHT NOW, OKAY? MARC, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TOP HAT HOW MUCH IS BEING ADDED EACH YEAR? I DON'T KNOW. I SHOULD. BUT I DO NOT SAY IT'S CLOSE TO

[00:15:04]

A MILLION A YEAR. IT'S. BUT MORE THAN THAT, MAYBE I CAN CHECK THAT AND GET THAT INFORMATION TO USE IN HEAVEN IN FRONT OF ME WHEN I LOOK YEAH, I DON'T EITHER. FOR MY APOLOGIES, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE IT EITHER, BUT I DO KNOW AT THE NEXT TEACHER'S MEETING AND TWO WEEKS WILL BE PRESENTING THE ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH WILL HAVE THAT ITEM LISTED FOR YOU.

ACCORDING TO THIS THAN WE WOULD HAVE. THREE DIFFERENT FUNDS WITH A CAP OF 100,000. CORRECT WE WOULD LIMIT IT TO 300,000. AND WE'RE NOW SPENDING CLOSE TO MILLION. THAT'S SPINNING, WHERE THE INK THE INCOME INTO THE TERSE FUND IS OVER A MILLION A YEAR MILLION HERE, OKAY, SO YOU'RE NOT EVEN SPENDING. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE LIMIT. WE HAVE PROJECTS IN MIND. YEAH. NET NET INCOME LAST YEAR FOR 2020 18 FISCAL YEAR WAS 2.6 MILLION. SIX LITTLE ONE YEAR PRO TEM HAD QUESTIONS FOR TOURS. WANT HAVING QUESTIONS TOWN? YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT IF THERE WAS IF THERE WAS A PROPERTY THAT WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT. AND TO ME, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN A PROJECT LIKE THAT, BECAUSE TO ME, IT'S THE BUSINESS. IT'S THE BUILDING OWNERS. IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY. THEY CAN'T SAY. WELL I'M I'M APPLYING FOR A THIS MEANS SO THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD I DON'T WANT ANY PART OF THAT LANGUAGE. I WOULD THINK I MEAN, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M IN THAT THE BUILDING OWNER IS RESPONSE 100 PER CENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING. THAT'S A THREAT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY AND NOT WAIT FOR SOME SORT OF. FUNDING POSSIBLE THROUGH THROUGH THAT, AND SO THAT WAS THE THING THAT JUST COMEDIES STILL GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE. I MEAN, BUILDING OWNER STILL GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE. HE'S JUST ACTING CITY FOR. ASSISTANCE. SO IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE BUILDING, IT'S ULTIMATELY THE BUILDINGS. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY. WE'VE BETTER GET UP ALL OF A SUDDEN. WE HAVE ANOTHER LANGUAGE WAY DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, IMMINENT THREAT. AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED AND THEY AND SO TO ME THAT THE CITY IS ALMOST KIND OF ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMINENT THREAT THAT WERE WILLING I MEAN, SO THAT WAS MY ISSUE IS I JUST. I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A SPECIFIC FINDING YOUR YOUR YOUR COMFORTABLE IF YOU ALL SAYING THAT'S A FINDING, RIGHT? I MEAN, SO IF THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. SO CAN WE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A REIMBURSEMENT THAT HEY, WE TOOK CARE OF THIS. CAN WE GET REIMBURSED? TYPE OF THING FOR, YOU KNOW FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT. IF IT'S AN IMMINENT THREAT, THAT THING IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SOONER THAN LATER.

CHESTER DODIE AREN'T LOOKING TO US FOR A DECISION BETWEEN YOUR OPTION ONE OF FRONT LOADING AND YOUR OPTION TO SPECS. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YES, I WOULD LIKE SWEAT WITH OPTION TO QUELL MISTER ROGERS CONCERNS, WOULD IT NOT? WELL, I MEAN, WITH OPTION TO. WE WOULD LIKE THAT'S PART OF OPTION TWO FINDINGS, BUT ONE OF THE FINDINGS IS NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. THAT'S AN IMMINENT THREAT. THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ONE OF THOSE FINDINGS. THAT WAS THAT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE THROWING OUT FOR DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOUR OPTION NUMBER TWO AND I THOUGHT, THAT'GHS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING. YES, I AM LOOKING FOR A DIRECTION ABOUT WHICH OF THE TWO OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, OR IF NEITHER OF THEM WORK FOR Y'ALL OFF ME TO COME BACK AND TRY AGAIN. WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON OPTION TOO LOCAL ADOPTION TO ONLY OTHERS JUST NOW. WHAT HAVEN'T OPTION TWO IS, I THINK THE AMOUNTS WE ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE THEM HIGHER OR MORE AVAILABLE BECAUSE. THE FUND BALANCE HAS BEEN GROWING YEAR EVERY YEAR OVER YEAR AND AT THE END OF 2018, IT WAS 9.2 MILLION, SO. WHERE THERE'S BEEN LESS THAN A TOTAL OF MILLION DOLLARS SPENT PERIOD FOR 2013 TO 2018. AND ONLY ONE YEAR WAS SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE 100,000. HERE. HERE'S THE OTHER THING IS WERE THE BODY THAT MAKES A DECISION? EVERYTHING STILL HAS TO COME THROUGH US. AND SO YOU KNOW, WE CAN CHANGE THAT AT ANY TIME. WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT JUST BECAUSE.

SOMEBODY SUGGESTS WE DID OR YOU CAN IMPROVE LESS MONEY AS WELL. BUT ONLY BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I GUESS I THINK TO THE POINT WHERE. MR DODI'S POINT. HOW MANY APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE HAVE WE HAD IN THE YEAR THAT YOU'VE BEEN HERE? AND HAVE WE EXCEEDED OR HAVE WE NEEDED MORE MONEY IN THAT COFFIN? SO WE'VE HAD FIVE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU ALL REVIEWED LAST YEAR, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY UNDER THE $3100 MARK. SO THESE WERE THINGS WE HAD.

[00:20:02]

YOU HAD THREE THAT WERE 25,000. AND THEN WE HAD TO THAT WERE UNDER THE 25,000, BUT IT LED UP TOOK COMMISSIONER HELL. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT HAVING AN ISSUE IN THE FUND BALANCE BECAUSE OF THIS PROGRAM. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PROGRAM, SO I THINK WE'RE ALREADY RAISING THE BAR NOW TO AN ADDITIONAL $200,000 IN THIS PROGRAM TONIGHT. IF WE'RE APPROVING OPTION B. DON'T THINK WE'RE BEING HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING, NOT CONCENSUS FOR OPTIONS. JUST CONSENSUS, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA BRING BACK THE RESOLUTION. AND HAVE YOU ALL VOTE ON THAT. SO THE THREE THINGS THREE THINGS WE REALLY NEED. CONSENSUS ON. WE'VE BEEN THE OPTIMUM VERSUS OPTION, TOO. SO WE HAVE THAT LIKE TO THEN, UH, CRITICAL MAINTENANCE $100,000 ITEM. ANY SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IN THE GENERAL CONVERSATION THAT WE JUST HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GO WITH THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT WE MAY RECEIVE IN ANY ONE YEAR AND HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GO UP ABOVE AND NOT PUT ANY PRE SET LIMITS OUT THERE. WE MIGHT HAVE ONE YEAR WHERE WE'RE WANTED HAVE 10 BUILDINGS WHO WANT TO PUT IN FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, AND THAT'S THE ONLY 10 APPLICATIONS WE HAVE, AND WE CAN FIND IT. I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I GREW UP THAT LITTLE. SO THE CONSENSUS SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE THESE TWO CATEGORIES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY. UH, MONETARY LIMITS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME YEARS WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS. CORRECT I THINK LIMITED LIMIT PER PROJECT THAT WE CAN CLEAR. GREAT VARIANCE OR WE NEED TO BUT NOT STILL THE $50,000 LIMIT. 50 50 MATCH PER PROJECT. SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF SO LOOK AT THE NUMBER TWO. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF WHERE IT KIND OF SPELLS OUT EACH THING AND YOU'LL CAPSULE JUST TALK ABOUT THE STORY. OH THE ANNUAL CAP. OKAY, SO WE WANT TO KEEP THESE THINGS. YEAH, ADDING DKNY. AND KEEPING THE $50,000 PER PROJECT CAPTAIN, THE 50 50 MATCH. JUST NOT A ANNUAL LIMIT ON THE MONEY TO BE EXPENDED FOR CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND OR FUR AND OUR SUPERVISION VIRUS PERSON, OKAY? RED KNOBS ON EVERYBODY. AND I MEAN, JUST, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE IN NEW YORK, WHERE YOU KNOW WE DO HAVE SOME PRETTY BIG PROJECTS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE THAT ARE GOING TO BE USING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THIS. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY STAFF IS BEING A LITTLE. PROBABLY LITTLE OVERLY CAUTIOUS WITH THIS FINE. WE APPRECIATE THAT. SURE. RATHER, YOU DO THAT. I UNDERSTAND. ANYTHING ELSE. YOU WOULD NEED CONSENSUS ON. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO. IT'S FOR YOUR GOOD BYE. LET ME LET ME CHECK WITH KIM AND.

LITTLE GOING ON, WHICH IS ALWAYS SCARY. VERY LITTLE SIDE FROM STATION ON DH. I DO. I WAS OVERHEARING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FUNDING OF ANY PROJECTS THAT COME FORWARD. I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE TO NOTE THAT THE PROJECTS THAT MARKED LISTED OFF THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. OUR BACK WHEN WE HAD THEPROJECT TYPE. SO SOME OF THE REASONS WE DON'T SEE AS MANY PROJECTS OR BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY LIMITED, TIO UM. THIS CATEGORY HERE, WHICH IS THE THAT ARE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, INTERIOR, EXTERIOR DEMO AND HISTORIC FACADE. SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE HER HISTORIC FACADE IMPROVEMENTS. THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE IS A STAFF MEMBER WITH ELIMINATING THE CAP COMPLETELY WHEN WE'RE OPENING UP THESE NEW PROJECT TYPES FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION AND CRITICAL MAINTENANCE. I DO THINK IT'S GOING TO OPEN A BIG DOOR FOR. THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO REQUEST MANY MORE PROJECTS, WHICH IS A WONDERFUL THING. BUT ONE OF THE REASONS THE POLICY EXISTS, AND THE TRES IS TO HELP GROW THE FUND BALANCE AND NOT INCREMENTALLY SORT OF NICKEL AND DIME.

SEEMINGLY SMALLER PROJECTS AT THE EXPENSE OF POTENTIALLY LARGER PROJECTS THAT WE WANTED THAT WE HOPE THAT THE TOURISTS FUND KHUN SUPPORT, SO WE DO HAVE ABOUT $7 MILLION IN THE COFFERS RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO GROW THAT. THAT MONEY CAN'T CONVEY USED NOT ONLY TO FUND BIGGER PROJECTS, BUT IT'S ALSO CAPACITY THAT WEAKEN BOND OFF TO HELP SUPPLEMENT AND EXPAND EVEN MORE. THE FUNCTION OF THAT TERSE, SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PARTING THOUGHT I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE I RESTED WITH THIS TOURIST BOARD BEFORE WE ACKNOWLEDGE HER MOVE FORWARD WITH REMOVING THOSE CAPS. I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK ATT ELEVATING THEM, BUT TO REMOVE THEM ALL TOGETHER. I THINK WE COULD END UP IN A. POSITION IN A YEAR OR TWO WHERE WE HAVE THESE NEW PROJECT CATEGORIES AND NO CAP WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START SEEING A LOT OF PROJECTS COMING FORWARD, ALL WITH A LOT

[00:25:03]

OF GOOD MERIT. THE ONLY CHANGE I WOULD MAKE HER WHAT SHE SAID WAS, IS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY FUNDING ANY PROJECT BROUGHT FORWARD. IT WOULD BE THE ONE CHANGE. I WOULD MAKE WHAT SHE SAID. I DIDN'T HEAR WHICH I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. NO, NO, NO. YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU'D BE WORRIED ABOUT US FUNDING ANY PROJECT THAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD. WE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY AUTOMATICALLY FUNDING ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AND I AGREE. MR CHAIRMAN IS AT THESE PROJECTS. WE GET A BUNCH OF APPLICATIONS, THEN WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THESE APPLICATIONS AND SEE WHAT OUR BALANCES AND. NO IT'S REALLY MADE MAKES DECISIONS, BUT I ALSO THOUGHT SOMEWHERE EARLIER IN HERE THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LOOKING AT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION AND ASSESS THE NEEDS OF THE SQUARE.

AND THAT WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THE NEEDS ARE AND MAYBE STEP BACK AND LOOK AT. POSSIBLY WHAT COULD BE COMING FORWARD DOWN THE PIPE, ACTUALLY, AND WE COULD CERTAINLY TAKE IT. KIND OF SEE, SEE HOW IT GOES APPROACH AND IF WE END UP WITH HUNDREDS OF APPLICATIONS, AND WE'RE FEELING THE BOARD FEELS HAND STRONG ON WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER WEAKEN, CERTAINLY REVISITED, BUT. I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE CHANGES IN THE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT GONNA BE ELIGIBLE WITH THESE CHANGES AND THAT THE GENERAL. NEXUS BEHIND THAT POLICY FOR THOSE THOSE SORT OF PROJECT CAPS TO BEGIN. WITH, SO IT WAS A SLOW. EIGHT I THINK THAT YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK THAT WILL INFORM US ON. NO. YOU KNOW WHAT OUR RISKS MIGHT BE OUT THERE? DOWNTOWN'S A HOME. OKAY? MISTER, DON'T YOU MISS DODI CALVARY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU, JENNIFER AS WELL. WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT. SO, UH, STEP WITH THE MOTION TO ADJOURN, SO MAYOR A SECOND CHANCE MENTION. WELL, SECOND FAVOR. I. AND I THINK PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL NEED FIVE MINUTES. MAYBE 10 MINUTES TO SHIP THE SYSTEM BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START THE CO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.