[00:00:01]
GOOD EVENING. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER FOR THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD MEETING
[A. CALL TO ORDER]
FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON. MONDAY, JUNE 8TH AT 5:45 P.M..FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ROLL CALL. MISS DAVID-GRAVES.
HERE. MR. JOHNSON. HERE. MISS TODD. HERE. MR. WASHINGTON. HERE. MAYOR ESCOBAR. HERE. MR. LONG.
HERE. AND I'M HERE. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST ITEM IS CONSENT AGENDA IS AN AGENDA.
[C. CONSENT AGENDA]
ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A BOARD MEMBER SO REQUESTS IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. ONLY ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS C1-2026-TIRZ-008.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM C1 2026-TIRZ-008.
I'LL SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED BY MR. WASHINGTON.
MOTION CARRIED SEVEN ZERO. REGULAR AGENDA D1 2026-06-08 TIRZ3.
[D. REGULAR AGENDA]
CONSIDER ENACTED A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER THREE.CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROJECT PLAN AND FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER THREE, CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. TONIGHT YOU ARE BEING REQUESTED TO AMEND THE FINANCE PLAN FOR TIRZ NUMBER THREE, AS EASTRIDGE GOES THROUGH THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS, THERE'S PHASES OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN WITH THE RESPECTIVE TIRZ. THIS BEING TIRZ NUMBER THREE, THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR AREA SIX A AND 6B, SO WE ARE CREATING A SUBZONE WITHIN THE PROJECT FINANCE PLAN CALLED SIX SUBZONE 3-6.
MUNICAP IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DETAIL OF THOSE FINANCIAL IMPACTS.
I'LL PASS IT ON TO MUNICAP YOUR PID ADMINISTRATOR.
AFTERNOON DIRECTORS [INAUDIBLE] WITH MUNICAP YOUR PID TIRZ ADMINISTRATOR.
THE PLAN THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE YOU IS THE SIX AMENDMENTS TO THE TIRZ NUMBER THREE, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED TO WORK IN COLLABORATION WITH THE EASTRIDGE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. LET ME SEE. THE PID AND THE TIRZ WERE ESTABLISHED BACK IN JUNE 14, 2021 FOR ABOUT 568 ACRES. AND THEN THE IDEA WAS THAT THE INCREMENTS THAT ARE GENERATED FROM THE DISTRICT WERE GOING TO BE USED TO OFFSET THE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE TIRZ WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED, AS I MENTIONED, TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE PID. THE CITY HAD COMMITTED 45% OF THE INCREMENTS THAT ARE GENERATED FROM EACH SUB AREA TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST BASICALLY SUB AREA AND THEN 45% OF THE INCREMENTS THAT WILL BE GENERATED FROM THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN SUB AREA 6 WILL BE USED TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT, AS WERE THE PREVIOUS FIVE SUB SUB AREAS.
IN GENERAL THIS SUB AREA SIX CONSTITUTES PHASE ONE AND PHASE EIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
ACTUALLY THE TOTAL PROJECT COST IS ABOUT $33.49 MILLION.
ONCE IT'S BUILT OUT THE SUB AREA IS EXPECTED TO BRING IN ABOUT $155.6 MILLION IN VALUES WHICH WILL TRANSLATE TO APPROXIMATELY $516,569 A YEAR IN TOTAL CITY TAXES GENERATED, OF WHICH 45%, APPROXIMATELY $232,456 WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT BURDEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PID AND THE TIRZ.
THAT AMOUNT TRANSLATES TO ABOUT $696 PER YEAR AS AN OFFSET FOR 60 FOOT LOT PROPERTY OWNERS AND ABOUT $536 PER YEAR AS A PID ASSESSMENT OFFSET OR REDUCTION FOR 40 FOOT 40 FOOT LOTS.
[00:05:05]
THIS BASICALLY THE AMENDMENT THAT IS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU IS BASICALLY THE LEGAL PROCESS EVERY TIME A PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN IS AMENDED FOR A TIRZ, IT HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE TIRZ BOARD AND ULTIMATELY TO THE COUNCIL. SO THIS WILL BE THAT ACTION ITEM FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN. HOPEFULLY, YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO PULL UP A MAP SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THIS TIRZ IS LOCATED, SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE CONTRACT WITH EASTRIDGE.SO WITHIN THE PID ITSELF, THESE ARE THE FINAL TWO PHASES.
PHASE ONE SOUTH, LIKE THE VERY SOUTH CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN PHASE EIGHT IS LIKE ON THE NORTH EAST PORTION OF IT.
SO THE LAND THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THEM WITHIN OUR CONTRACT IS THAT LOCATED WITHIN THESE TIRZ AREAS? CAN I CLARIFY THE QUESTION? WHEN YOU SAY LAND, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DEDICATED THREE ACRES? YES. IS IT IN THE SPACE ITSELF? IT'S NOT IN THE SPACE, BUT IT'S IN THE, TIRZ.
IT IS IN THE TIRZ. OKAY. HE'S STATING, BUT IT'S NOT IN THIS PHASE.
OKAY. SO IT'S WITHIN THE WHOLE TIRZ. OKAY. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE VERBIAGE FOR THE TIRZ AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE TIRZ CAN BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION.
SO, MISS TODD, WITH THE DA AMENDMENT THAT WAS DONE SEVERAL MONTHS BACK.
I BELIEVE WE LOOSENED THE STRINGS ON THE DEDICATED LAND SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST FIRE.
IT COULD BE USED FOR ANY CITY SERVICES. I KNOW THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PART OF THE CIP PLAN THAT WE WOULD PRESENT DURING THE BUDGET, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE FUNDS UNLESS THIS TIRZ AGREEMENT INCLUDES THAT THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS FOR A FIRE STATION. SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE HAVE IN TODAY'S LIKE AS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT THAT BE INCLUDED IN TODAY'S APPROVAL SO THAT IT'S AN OPTION? YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IF THAT CAN BE DONE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO I KNOW WE HAVE A NEED FOR A FIRE STATION UP NORTH.
IF WE, I'M NOT SURE IF I KNOW THAT WE KIND OF CONTROL THE TIRZ AND WHERE THAT MONEY GOES AS FAR AS THE CITY AM I CORRECT? SO CAN WE AS A CITY SAY A PART OF TIRZ AGREEMENT NOT JUST TO PAY DOWN PID ASSESSMENT.
CAN IT GO TOWARDS A STATION AS WELL? SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO BASICALLY EARMARK THE PID OFFSET COMPONENT AND FREE EVERYTHING UP FOR THE CITY TO BE USED IN A IN A MANNER THAT THE CITY SEES FIT.
SO THAT MONEY ACTUALLY WAS NOT COMMITTED FOR THE PID OFFSET IS GOING DIRECTLY TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND FROM THERE IT CAN BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT THE CITY SEEMS. AND THAT'S JUST A 55% THAT'S LEFT OVER. NOW, PART OF 45% OF THE TIRZ MONEY CANNOT BE USED TO GO TOWARDS FUNDING FOR THE STATION.
CORRECT. THE 45% IS EARMARKED TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR THE. SO CAN WE AMEND THAT? SO IT GO TO NOT JUST FOR THE PID, BUT CAN IT GO TOWARDS A STATION TOO.
THAT WILL TAKE AWAY THE FUNDS THAT THE CITY HAD ALREADY COMMITTED TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT? IF YOU RECALL, WHAT WE DID AS AN AMENDMENT WAS WE'VE CAPPED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOING TO GET AS AN OFFSET, BUT ANYTHING THAT'S NOT NEEDED FOR THE PID OFFSET IS MEANT TO GO DIRECTLY BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND SO THE CITY CAN USE IT FOR ANY AUTHORIZED USES.
SO WE DIDN'T RESTRICT IT. WE MADE IT FULLY AVAILABLE.
YEAH, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE 45%.
I KNOW THE 55% IS, IS FREE FOR GENERAL USE, BUT THE 45% CAN IT GO TOWARDS TWO CAUSES.
SO THE PID ASSESSMENT AND, A BUILDING. I THINK THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE IS PROBABLY THE BEST OPTION BECAUSE WHEN IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND, WE CAN THEN MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT CAN GO TOWARDS.
BUT IF WE EARMARK IT NOW, IF THE CITY NEEDS FUNDS FOR IF THEY NEED THOSE FUNDS FOR SOMETHING ELSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN AND CHANGE IT.
SO I THINK FOR NOW, WE COULD LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
[00:10:06]
WE NEED FACILITIES FOR THEM. WE NEED PUBLIC SAFETY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.AND AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE TAKING MEASURES TO PUT PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS ARE OPTIONAL AND AVAILABLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS NECESSARY.
THERE'S LIKE 6,000 HOMES GOING OVER THERE. IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT OF WAYS.
WELL, THAT'S NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SAID OPTIONAL BEFORE THAT WAS NOT USED.
SO IT'S AN OPTION. YEAH, ONCE IT GOES ON THE LIST.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, MISS TODD, YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE'RE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE 55%.
YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE 45%, AND YOU'RE ASKING IF WE CAN SOMEHOW AMEND THAT TO ALSO INCLUDE BEING ABLE TO USE THAT 45% TOWARDS A FIRE STATION. IF THAT'S CORRECT HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER? BECAUSE THAT MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO GO BACK, BASICALLY BACK TO THE BUILDER. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ALREADY GUARANTEED THEM THAT THEY'LL GET 45% OF THE TOTAL.
AM I TRACKING THIS CORRECTLY? YEAH. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE OUR BOND COUNCIL FOR. SO [INAUDIBLE] THE BUILDER, THE MONEY, THE 45% HAS BEEN AGREED TO BASICALLY BE USED TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO THE BUILDER OR THE DEVELOPER.
IT IS OFFSETTING THE PID ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND THAT'S THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE 45%. NOW, WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE VERBIAGE IS ANY FUNDS THAT ARE NOT NEEDED FOR OFFSETTING THE PID ASSESSMENT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER [INAUDIBLE], INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE THAT IN THERE. BUT WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THAT 45% IS SPOKEN FOR.
IT IS MEANT TO OFFSET THE PID ASSESSMENT BURDEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS EACH YEAR.
SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE AMENDMENT NOW? BECAUSE IF WE'RE AMENDING IT, CAN WE NOT AMEND IT FURTHER THAN WHAT THE AMENDMENT? I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'RE CHOOSING TO AMEND THIS, CORRECT? YES. WE'RE ACTUALLY COMING BACK TO YOU IN JULY WITH SOME ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING AND CLEANUP ITEMS FOR THIS PARTICULAR TIRZ.
AND THEN WE CAN BRING IN THE VERBIAGE WHEN WE DO THAT ONE.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS JUST ABOUT AREA SIX TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 45% IS EARMARKED AS IT WAS FOR THE PREVIOUS PHASES, BUT WE WILL COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW.
SO CAN WE AMEND THE WHOLE TIRZ ITSELF AS FAR AS NOT JUST THE SUBSECTIONS OF EACH ONE, AND JUST KIND OF BRING BACK THE WHOLE TIRZ BACK? AND KIND OF WE WANTED TO, LET'S JUST SAY COUNCIL WANTS TO SAY, HEY, OUR PART IS 45% PART OF THAT CAN BE USED FOR A FIRE STATION THERE.
SO LET'S JUST SAY WE HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE TERMS IN IT.
AND WE WANTED TO USE PART OF THAT TO FUND A FIRE STATION.
COULD WE DO SO? SO IF IT'S WRITTEN IN THE THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
YES. BUT WE HAVE TO THE VERBIAGE WE CAN USE IS ANY FUND THAT IS NOT NEEDED FOR OFFSETTING THE PID ASSESSMENT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES, INCLUDING FIRE SAFETY. OH GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL, JEFF GOLDBLUM.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THE TIRZ DOESN'T HAVE OTHER THAN THE INCREMENT FUND, WHICH IS THE 45%, ALL OF THE OTHER INCREMENTAL REVENUE DOES GO TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND TO BE SPENT FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE.
THERE'S NO CASH SEGREGATED OR EARMARKED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.
IF YOU'RE ASKING TO AMEND IT, WE'RE KIND OF SHOOTING FROM THE HIP RIGHT HERE UP AT THE DAIS.
I'D PREFER TO TRY TO GET THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE IN THE AGREEMENTS AND ALL THE OTHER PRIOR BOND OFFERINGS, IT IS STATED THAT THE TIRZ INCREMENT AT 45% WILL BE USED TO KEEP THE PID ASSESSMENTS DOWN.
SO WE COULD FIND OURSELVES IN A YEAR IF WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF AMEND ON THE FLY HERE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE, OR MAYBE WE'VE USED UP SOME OF THAT 45% AND WE'VE ACCIDENTALLY SAID, OH, WE CAN'T BUY DOWN YOUR ASSESSMENTS IN ANY YEAR.
SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA, AS YOU ALL ARE SAYING, MAYBE I DON'T.
I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY IS ARE WE TRYING TO TOUCH THIS 45% WHICH WE'VE SOLD NOW OUR SIX SERIES OF BONDS, SAYING WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THESE ASSESSMENTS LOWER USING THAT 45%.
[00:15:01]
THE OTHER 55 IS IN YOUR GENERAL FUND FOR POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, WHATEVER YOU LIKE.I LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO BRING IT BACK WITH A BETTER PROPOSAL WHEN WE COME BACK TO DO THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I DO WANT VERBIAGE INCLUDED. AND IF THAT IS TAKING, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE 55%, IF THAT IS TAKING 5% OF THAT AND MOVING THAT STRICTLY TO PUBLIC SAFETY, THEN I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
THEY DON'T GET PERCENTAGES FROM STUFF LIKE THE EDC AND CDC DO.
SURE. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO CARVE OUT A MEANS OF REVENUE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY? AND TIRZ ARE SUPPOSED TO GO BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
SURE. THEY'RE NOT USUALLY DONE THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE THEM HISTORICALLY, LIKE IN MCKINNEY, IT GOES BACK INTO LIKE THEIR DOWNTOWN. MY THOUGHT IS USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO START ADJUSTING.
I MEAN PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY HAVE SO MANY NEEDS.
RIGHT. SO IF WE CAN TAKE THIS AND EVEN IF IT'S LIKE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN LIKE THE 2 TO 5% OF THE OTHER OF THAT 55%, IF WE CAN LOCK THAT IN INTO A FUND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, THEN WE ARE FINALLY PUTTING SOME FUNDING TOWARDS PUBLIC SAFETY.
SURE. SO THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
BUT WHILE WHILE IT IS LAUDABLE TO PUT FUNDS ASIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, WHENEVER A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMES BEFORE COUNCIL, WE HAVE NEVER REALLY TURNED IT DOWN.
SO IF WE MAINTAIN THINGS AS THEY ARE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER WAY TO GO THAN TO HAVE RESOURCES SPENT TO JUST BRING SOMETHING BACK AGAIN, WHICH REALLY WOULD NOT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE WE NEVER REALLY DENY PUBLIC SAFETY ANY FUNDS, WE KNOW HOW CRITICAL IT IS FOR THIS CITY.
WE'RE ALL VERY AWARE OF THE NEEDS. AND WHENEVER THE NEED ARISES, WE'VE ALWAYS PROVIDED THE FUNDING.
THAT'S REACTIVE BEHAVIOR. WE ARE CONSTANTLY REACTING TO THEIR NEEDS.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. THEY'RE ALREADY COMING BACK TO US. THEY SAID IN JULY, RIGHT.
SO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO FROM BEING REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE.
AND YES, WE HAVE THE FUNDS THAT GO IN THERE. BUT WHEN WE SEE GENERAL FUND WHERE IT'S ALL THE MONEY TOGETHER, WE'RE TRYING TO THINK OF MOVING ALL THE PIECES.
WE KEEP FORGETTING THAT PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS SO MUCH.
WE ARE CONTINUING TO GROW. WE HAVE 6000 HOUSES COMING FROM THIS.
WE HAVE TO TAKE PUBLIC SAFETY INTO CONSIDERATION.
ESPECIALLY THEY NEED A FIRE STATION UP THERE BECAUSE THE WAY THE ROADS ARE GOING WITHOUT HAVING RIGHT OF WAYS, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE OUR RESPONSE TIMES AND PUT OUR RESIDENTS AT RISK.
IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE OF US TO NOT TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
MISS TODD, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL. I THINK THAT AS MISS DAVID-GRAVES SAID, THIS BODY HERE ONCE THE BUDGETING PROCESS STARTS AND EACH DEPARTMENT LAYS OUT WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE, RIGHT, BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS AND SO FORTH.
AND IT WOULD BE UP TO US TO PRIORITIZE THAT ACCORDINGLY.
BUT MY QUESTION I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DID HEAR YOU CORRECTLY.
WHATEVER IS LEFT OVER OF THE 45% ALSO GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY OR NO? NO. SO THE 45% IS USED TO BUY DOWN THE ASSESSMENTS.
AND IT'S GETTING USED. OKAY. THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY MONEY LEFT OVER.
IT'S YEAH OKAY. AND I THINK I THINK THAT SORRY, I KNOW BEN.
BEN'S BEEN WAITING. SORRY. I'LL LET. I JUST HAVE IF WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY HAVE YOU ALL BRING THIS BACK FOR, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS? THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT NOW.
SO IF WE TAKE MONEY FROM THAT, THAT MEANS THEIR ASSESSMENT GOES UP.
WE WOULD. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ALSO SIDE EFFECTS.
[00:20:03]
SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THOSE SIDE EFFECTS THE BEST WE CAN.IF WE LOOK AT THIS ANY FURTHER, RIGHT. AND JUST TO EMPHASIZE JEFF GOLDBLUM OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SHOOTING OFF THE HIP HERE, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN FRONT OF YOU SO THAT YOU'RE MAKING A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION AND BEING EQUITABLE AS WELL, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THIS ALREADY FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES WITHIN THIS TIRZ.
YEAH. AND I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST SORRY, I THINK, MR. JOHNSON, I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE RIGHT NOW IS THE NEED FOR A FIRE STATION UP NORTH.
AND IT CAN'T WAIT FOR 30 YEARS UNTIL THIS TIRZ AND WHATEVER'S LEFT, LEFT OVER.
HOWEVER, WE NEED TO DO IT. WE'RE NOT SAYING TO DO IT RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. BUT SINCE WE ARE IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE TIRZ, WE'RE TRYING TO SEE WHAT IS THAT BEST METHOD TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. BECAUSE IF WE CAN FIND FUNDING OUTSIDE OF OUR GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD A NEW FIRE STATION OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND, I MEAN, IF THEY BROUGHT IT TO COUNCIL RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T GOT THE MONEY TO APPROVE A NEW FIRE STATION. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT TO BOND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO TRY TO SAVE A BOND ELECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO GET A NEW FIRE STATION UP, NORTH. THAT DOESN'T AFFECT OUR GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THESE TIRZ ARE AFFECTING OUR GENERAL FUND, RIGHT NOW. SO WITH THE 45% THAT'S GOING OUT, THAT'S TAKEN AWAY OF WHAT WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE USED TO GET A NEW STATION OR TO GET A NEW TO HIRE MORE STAFF, WHATEVER IT IS. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET CREATIVE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE ARE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT A LOT OF IT, WE'RE STILL LEARNING AS WELL WITH THE TIRZ. I THINK EVERYBODY HERE, WE'RE SHOOTING OFF THE HIP LIKE LIKE YOU SAID. BUT IF THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS AND THIS MIGHT BE A MECHANISM, LET'S SEE WHAT WHAT HAPPENS.
AND WHATEVER THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE, WHETHER IT BE WE DO SOMETHING OR EARMARK THE 55% OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THIS, AMENDMENT OR THESE CHANGES TO THESE TIRZ WOULD APPLY TO FUTURE HOMEOWNER.
IT DOESN'T IMPACT CURRENT HOMEOWNERS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THIS AMENDMENT ITSELF IS FOR FUTURE HOMEOWNERS WITHIN THAT SUBZONE.
SO THESE AMENDMENTS DO SPECIFY THAT THESE THIS INCREMENT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR THIS NEW SUBZONE.
SO EFFECTIVELY WHAT THAT WOULD DO, WE WOULD EVENTUALLY NEED TO COME BACK, HOPEFULLY BEFORE YOU ALL.
BUT IT MEANS THAT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN INCREMENT FOR THIS OR BUY DOWN FOR THIS SUBZONE.
RIGHT. OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A BUY DOWN FOR THIS SUBZONE.
WELL, THE PRICES FOR THE HOMES ARE GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME.
PLEASE? I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT A NEW FIRE STATION UP NORTH, WHICH IS NEEDED BUT WASN'T DISCUSSION ALSO HELD THAT THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS DONATED IS NOT REALLY A VIABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR A FIRE STATION? NO, SIR. WITH THE WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT, IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN, AND IT WOULD COST ROUGHLY AROUND 3 TO $4 MILLION TO BRING THAT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, EVEN TO START BUILDING IT.
SO IF WE DO AMEND THE TIRZ AND WE USE FUNDING THAT, WE'RE ACTUALLY END UP HAVING TO FIND ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY UP THE NORTH END THAT WILL BE MORE VIABLE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR RESPONSE AND BE A LOT SAFER AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE.
YES, SIR. WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LOCATED AT, IT WOULD BE JUST NOT A REALLY GOOD AREA FOR THE TRUCK TO PULL OUT AND PULL BACK IN OFF OF THAT'S THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF WRECKS THERE AND.
SECOND. ESSENTIALLY, WE GOT USELESS LAND OUT OF THE DEAL WHEN THEY MADE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
[00:25:04]
WE ACCEPTED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR USELESS LAND BECAUSE IT'S FLOODPLAIN.MY UNDERSTANDING LIKE THAT'S THAT'S THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL AND APPROVED.
AND IT'S ALSO THAT MS. TODD THAT WE'RE ABLE TO USE THAT LAND FOR ANYTHING WE WANT TO.
THERE'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY. SO NOW. IT'S VERY LIMITED.
SO SO WHAT WE'RE GOING BACK TO NOW WE HAVE HANG ON JUST A SECOND.
I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING THIS IN AMENDMENTS FOR THESE PARTICULAR SITES.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION AT RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S BEEN A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF THAT WE APPROVE THIS.
IN THE BUDGET HEARINGS OR WHENEVER WE COME UP TO THE BUDGET TIMES, IF WE NEED TO REDO THE TIRZ AND ACTUALLY PUT SOME WORDING IN THERE TO, FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAT'S THE TIME TO DO IT.
TONIGHT'S NOT THE TIME TO DO IT ON THIS. AND JUST LIKE YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE ALL THAT. THAT'D BE GOOD, BUT WE NEED TO DO THAT AT THE RIGHT TIME, AT THE BUDGET TIME TO COME IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT IDEA THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
WE'RE GOING BACK EXACTLY GOING BACK ON OR GOING BACK AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD THE CITIZENS.
SO WE'RE AT A QUANDARY HERE. SO WE'RE DISCUSSING TAKING SOME MORE OVER LIKE IT'S 45% MOVE IT TO LIKE 50% AND PRESERVE SPECIFICALLY THAT FUNDING.
SIDE NOTE, CHASE, I HEAR YOU JUST GOT SOME LAND FOR PARKS AND REC.
I THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN USE IT. SO.
WOW. IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY D12026-06-08 TIRZ THREE.
OH, DID WE TAKE A MOTION. DO WE TAKE ACTION NOW ON THIS.
YOU CAN BUT I'LL BE THE ONE ASKING IT. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD.
IT'S ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. OKAY. THAT WORKS.
SO MAYOR'S MADE A MOTION TO DENY. THE AGENDA DOES NOT ALLOW FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW FOR OPEN MEETINGS ACT IT DOESN'T SAY. IT SAYS CONSIDER AND ACT. OKAY. YEAH.
YES. IN THIS HE CAN. SO I SECOND THAT MOTION.
MOTION BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO DENY.
DOES THAT MEAN IT PASSES? NO. NO, IT JUST MEANS MOTION TO DENY FAILS.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. THE A DIFFERENT MOTION NEEDS TO BE MADE TO APPROVE.
OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM D1 2026-06-08 TIRZ THREE. I SECOND.
I JUST WANT TO SAY I CATEGORICALLY OPPOSE THESE TIRZ AND HOW THEY'RE USED.
THEY ARE INCENTIVIZING DENSITY. WE HAVE ENOUGH DENSITY TO LAST US FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS AND CONTINUOUSLY TO APPROVE THESE TIRZ AND HOW THEY'RE USED IS IRRESPONSIBLE, IN MY OPINION. I AGREE. DID SOMEBODY NOT? I'M NOT SURE. STILL NEED SOMEONE TO CAST A VOTE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ALLOWING ME TO. IT'S NOT ALLOWING ME TO CAST MY VOTE ON THIS ONE.
OKAY. LET'S. YEAH, WE CLOSE AND OPEN IT BACK UP.
[00:30:09]
YEAH. MY AGAINST IS NOT WORKING. I THINK I CAN VOTE.LET ME JUST SEE THIS. YEAH. IT'S NOT, BUT I MEAN, I CAN JUST SAY I'M AGAINST THIS MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. FOUR THREE. I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.