𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐗𝐀 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐈𝐋 — 𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝟒⁣
⁣
*** There is lots to unpack from this packet and 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 we have reviewed this one is the 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 from an accuracy and transparency stand point… Give it a read and let us know your thoughts in the comments! ****⁣
⁣
Tuesday’s City Council agenda is fairly light, but the packet raises several real transparency concerns… especially around a proposed $42.5 million industrial revenue bond and 10-year property-tax abatement.⁣
⁣
The project is a 471,869-square-foot warehouse/distribution facility near College Boulevard and Britton Street. The proposed abatement begins at 88% and declines to 55%, averaging approximately 71% over 10 years.⁣
⁣
The City highlights the $1.81 million the project would pay through PILOT payments. What it does not plainly state is how much would be abated.⁣
⁣
Using the City’s own table, the project would generate approximately $6.2 million without the abatement—meaning roughly $4.39 million in property taxes would be forgiven over 10 years.⁣
⁣
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝. Residents cannot review the projected jobs, wages, public costs, economic assumptions, or benefits to area schools.⁣
⁣
Even more concerning: the resolution authorizes the mayor to sign a PILOT agreement “in substantially the same form as Exhibit A.” 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐱𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐈𝐋𝐎𝐓 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠.⁣
⁣
That leaves the public unable to review performance requirements, enforcement provisions, transfer rights, default remedies, or whether there are consequences if the building remains vacant. No tenant is identified, and the packet alternately describes the project as office/warehouse/manufacturing and warehouse/distribution.⁣
⁣
𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔–𝟐𝟎𝟑𝟎 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝. Residents have no way to review project delays, cost increases, funding changes, or remaining unallocated money before the meeting.⁣
⁣
𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 $𝟔𝟑𝟗,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬-𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 $𝟑.𝟔𝟒 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧. The packet says the agreements are available at the City Clerk’s office, but they are not available for residents reviewing the online packet.⁣
⁣
The quarterly financial report is much more detailed. It projects year-end reserves of:⁣
⁣

• General Fund: 39%⁣
• Debt Service Fund: 51%⁣
• Stormwater Fund: 31%⁣
• Rec Center Fund: 99%⁣
• Tourism and Convention Fund: 173%⁣
  ⁣
  𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝟑𝟓% 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟕 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 $𝟏.𝟏 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐞.⁣
  ⁣
  𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫—𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞—𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬:⁣
  𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 “𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟏” 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟏 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐱 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟐𝟏 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬.⁣
  ⁣
  𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞: 5/10⁣
  ⁣
  The routine infrastructure items do not show an obvious substantive red flag. The bigger problem is what residents are not being given before Council acts…. particularly the missing cost-benefit analysis and PILOT agreement for a project receiving an estimated $4.39 million tax abatement.⁣
  ⁣
  𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤:⁣

1. Why wasn’t the cost-benefit analysis included in the packet?⁣
2. Why does Exhibit A contain only a title page instead of the PILOT agreement?⁣
3. Does the project have a tenant, and are any jobs, wages, or occupancy requirements enforceable?⁣
4. Why were no materials provided for the CIP update?⁣
5. When will Business from the Floor be included in the meeting recording video?⁣
   ⁣
   ⁣