We have determined that a quorum has been met.
The downtown Denton tax increment financing reinvestment zone number one board of the
city of Denton, Texas will now convene in a regular meeting at 9.02 a.m. this Wednesday,
the 21st day of October 2020.
Our first order of business is 1A, consider approval and/or corrections of the meeting
minutes from the September 23rd, 2020 downtown Denton TIF reinvestment zone number one board
of the city of Denton, Texas.
Are there any corrections to the minutes as distributed?
Do we have a motion?
All motion.
Do we have a second?
Then motion.
Do we have a second?
No.
Paul is the second.
It is moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as presented.
I will call by name.
Please unmute and give us a word of approval or disapproval.
Paul?
Aye.
Ben?
Aye.
Gerard?
Aye.
Melissa?
Aye.
The motion passes by unanimous vote.
The second item of business is to receive a report and hold a discussion, give staff
direction regarding the downtown Denton TIF reinvestment zone number one study and analysis
being conducted by TXP Inc.
I think I understand that we're going to go through this pretty quickly because it's a
pre-visit of our last meeting and we'll just further discussions that we were started last
meeting.
Yes.
So Travis James with TXP is here with us again to present.
This will be new to me.
I missed the last meeting.
So Travis has kindly agreed to go through the presentation.
Just quickly a refresher of where we left off and then we'll just lead the board in
a discussion on items.
So I'll just turn it over to Travis.
Great.
Thank you, Jessica.
Thank you, Chair.
I will spend about five or 10 minutes going through this and people can jump in and ask
questions.
Nothing has changed in the slide deck.
Where we ended last time was trying to get recommendations from this group about what
projects to fund.
So we'll get back to that point pretty quickly and I'll stop talking.
Next slide.
We will -- I was retained at the end, I can't believe, about a year ago at the end of 2019.
As I said last time, when I was brought in, the focus was on PEC 4, Phase 3 and 4.
Things have changed since then based on the analysis, which is why we are here today and
talk about some broader uses of the TURRS, whether Phase 3 and 4 make sense or we should
look at some other things.
Next slide.
I think you all know this TURRS terminates in 2041.
This TURRS is for 30 years.
It has a decreasing contribution by the city of Denton, its only participant, and has about
a $25 million cap.
A couple million dollars have been raised and spent to date.
There's about $20 to $21 million left that could come in over the next 30 years before
it hits the cap or has to terminate.
Next slide.
This is just the scope of work and what we've worked on in the past.
We're on Task 6 and 7.
Next slide.
To remind everybody, this is the TURRS boundary that was created.
When the TURRS was created, it can be modified as we talked about at the last meeting, but
this is the current boundaries of the downtown TURRS.
On the next slide, as I reminded everybody, when you created the TURRS, you used a different
consulting company who looked at what they called catalytic areas and they identified
five of them, labeled them A through E. Not a lot of activity has happened in any of the
zones.
In area A, you've had the eastern departments near the transit station, that's the closest,
but not a lot of the development that was projected in the catalytic plan or the catalytic
areas has occurred.
On the next slide, you'll see that, based on that original analysis, they projected
about $126 million of new catalytic project activity could take place within those areas.
You see the timeline there on the far right.
Some of them, like D, were getting into that early timeline.
Other of those were sort of halfway through or at the beginning phases of when we should
have seen things occur.
On the next slide.
As I said before, the overall TURRS revenue has been consistent despite the fact that
there hasn't been a lot of catalytic projects.
About $3 million has been collected to date.
That means there's about $21 million that can come in before we hit the cap.
That last bullet point is important that if no new development occurs and we see 2.5%
appreciation, the TURRS will hit the cap right around year 30.
So any new development that occurs will mean we'll hit that cap sooner than 2030.
On the next slide, the TURRS baseline back in 2010 was about $80 million.
The TURRS is about $225 million today, so it's grown about $150 million.
According to the appraisal district, about $28 million has been new construction.
$124 million has been appreciation.
So if you think back a few slides ago, there was over $100 million worth of catalytic activity
that was projected, about $28 million has occurred.
On the next slide.
This is just your annual revenue stream.
Going forward, I think thinking about $900 to $1 million a year of revenue is an appropriate
ballpark.
I think the only expenditure that you have on the books every year is going to be I think
about $100,000 for the downtown grant program that was shifted over as a TURRS expense.
Next slide.
As I said, if we just -- this is a cumulative chart.
I think we're going to hit the cap, assuming no new development, 2.5% appreciation.
About 2038 to 2040.
Next slide.
So this is the stakeholder input that we talked about last time, and I'll go through this
quickly unless somebody wants to stop me.
There was not consensus on a downtown parking or parking garage.
Businesses said they're obviously struggling with COVID, so if we think about a new big
infrastructure project, think about when you would start it so it doesn't impact their
businesses even more than they're already being impacted.
Some smaller projects focused on lighting and sidewalk improvements may be more appropriate
in the short term.
That's what we heard from the tenants and the retailers.
Drainage improvement projects are necessary to create development opportunities in the
future, but the new projects may not occur in the short term.
On the next slide, I'm going back.
Downtown needs more daytime office employment and traffic to balance the nighttime activity.
Tourist rents aren't high enough to justify new construction.
That's where you may need to use an incentive to step in, disperse some of that type of
activity.
Developers told us that they'd like to use tourist funds to incentivize larger economic
development projects.
Think about another funding source for infrastructure, street sidewalks, lighting.
Existing businesses said they'd like to use the tourist funds on programs to improve building
improvements in the facade program.
So two different perspectives based on your individual needs.
And then I think a theme throughout the past year has been downtown lacks an overall vision,
so it makes it hard to prioritize how to spend tourist money.
So it's not clear on what the vision is or how the money should be prioritized.
On the next slide, just as a reminder that as the tourist plan exists today, these are
the kinds of things you can spend money on without having to amend the project plan.
So parking, transportation, streets, grants, utility, drainage, improvements, the bulk
of what we're talking about are eligible expenditures as the tourist is set up today.
On the next slide.
All right.
So this is a slightly confusing graphic and this is where we ended last time.
What you see in red is the existing tourists.
The PEC4 phase three and four you see in red and blue, they are for the most part outside
of the tourist boundary.
So if you wanted to use tourist funding to fund that entire project, you would need to
expand the tourist boundary.
And you see in the black and white hashed line, that was one attempt we had come up
with on how it made sense potentially to expand the boundary if you wanted to fund phases
three and four.
The purple parcels, those are the parcels that get removed out of the flood plain.
So that's part of how we drew the boundary to pick up the parcels where development
would likely occur.
So as a refresher, the red is the existing tourist boundary.
The black and white with the purple parcels is how I would recommend if you wanted to
fund phases three and four out of the tours, you may want to expand the tours.
One to make the project eligible, and two to pick up the parcels that would be impacted.
On the next slide, we'll talk about projects that we've talked about.
Go back, sorry, Erica.
We'll talk about the new streets.
I think you all know where those are.
That was a project that came up for discussion.
We talked about the improvements along Hickory Street, and it might make sense to make those
on oak.
You see oak is outlined there in the pink.
And then another type of corridor improvement we talked about with folks were elm and locust.
So maybe we should focus on elm and locust because it's a long corridor.
Make those improvements, and it brings a lot of parcels into play.
So on the next slide, we had come up with sort of a ballpark for ROI.
So pack four, phase three and four, it's about a $15 million project.
If you funded it out of the TURS, the combination of the $15 million cost plus interest would
consume the $20 to $21 million left.
So if the city went out and issued debt, funded it by the TURS, the numbers look good that
it could be paid for by the TURS, but it would use up all of the remaining funding.
The city did an analysis just on the PEC four parcels, and they found that if you pulled
those parcels out of the floodplain, property values could increase by $15 to $20 million.
So if you looked at comparable properties and development that were outside of the floodplain,
and then you looked at those properties, they projected about $20 million in new value over
time, and that translates to about $100,000 a year in new city property tax revenue based
on the current property tax rate.
Another project is the Mew Streets, that's about a $7 million project.
Has a short term impact, it would likely increase traffic and activities to existing retailers.
I don't know that it would have a dramatic increase on property values.
We talked about the corridor improvements, Hickory Street was about $7 to $8 million
for half a mile.
Down Hickory Street over the past five to six years, those properties have increased
in value by about $50 million.
Now it's hard for the but for and draw a direct link between the improvements and the value
increase, but about $50 million in new value, which translates to about $300,000 a year
in property tax.
We talked about developer incentives last time, those would vary by project.
It's likely those would cost about $5 to $10 million per project.
That's a specific ask by the developer.
Another thing we talked about was expanding the grant program, and I just put $50 to $100,000,
would have an immediate impact, would vary by project, would likely not generate a tremendous
amount of new property value for the tours.
And the last item was general maintenance, folks said, hey, we need to keep more money
into downtown to keep things clean and maintenance and those kinds of things.
So I know I went through that relatively quickly.
So these were the kinds of projects that we were talking about last time, the cost.
And on the next slide, this is where we ended and we're having the discussion about should
the tours issue debt to pay for PAC four phases three and four, or should the tours funds
be used for strategic corridor improvements?
How should the city resolve the request for developer incentives and expanded grant programs?
And then last, under what conditions might the city extend the life of the tours and
or exceed the $24 million revenue cap?
So with that share, I'll stop and try to get input maybe from this group about how the
money should be spent and what kind of recommendations should be made to city council.
Say I'm, I'm leaning again towards the, the drainage project.
I think that has the biggest impact for downtown overall, but it scares me to think that we
would, we would kill this fund with that.
I guess mine, mine hinges on those, those questions of would council be willing to,
to extend the timeline for the tours and extend the cap.
And I think, I think with that, that it might be nice if we can go back and look at the
funding for PAC one through four.
And when that started to be looked at by the city, I know that's kind of far back and we
didn't talk about this last time.
It's more, I seem to remember that we had already funded one through four and then we
ran out of money and had to pull it back to one through two.
Can anybody speak to that?
I mean, I do, I can, I know it was, it was passed in the, in a previous bond package
and then just like a lot of things, it just drags out too long to the point where costs
creep up, you know, faster than we get to them.
And, you know, most of the stuff that we were slated for downtown either couldn't get funded
like this or hasn't been funded like quiet zones for whatever reason, those sorts of
things.
And part of the conversation last time was there was some, some grant funding, potential
EDA funding that the city was going after.
And I think Erica remind me, I think you said there wouldn't be a decision on that for a
year or two.
Yeah.
It's competitive.
So it would take some time.
What are the chances of this being to Ben's point really is instead of a hundred percent
funded out of TERS, that it is a shared cost with TERS having some percentage, the expanded
TERS area that we're considering having some percentages, some percentage in the city having
some percentage is just something that again, to Ben's point, it would be difficult to just
say we created the TERS.
We're just going to get some of our town out of the flood zone through this TERS, but not
what it was intended for by any stretch.
Does anybody have any other input maybe just regarding with regard to the PEC one through
or two through four, three through three.
Well, you know, one thing that Todd has said to me, cause I'm, I'm, I'm a very strong advocate
for that and I share the sense that that is the biggest impact, but he's been reluctant
to put non-TERS funds into it because the value, the increase in property value and
therefore the increase in tax revenue will all go into the TERS.
So that that's a problem.
That's also an opportunity.
You know, I think if there's a solid plan that there would be an openness to, you know,
extending the footprint, extending the timeline, you know, if it all hangs together, you know,
not just like, please give us more, but here's a solid plan that if you do this and you do
that, then we'll get to those things and, you know, and here's what the result will
be.
Is it my understanding though, too, that, I mean, if TERS is funding that we have to
expand the TERS, right?
You would have to expand, but legally you'd have to expand and I don't know if Erica can
pull up the map again, but you'd have to at least expand it to pick up the physical footprint.
I would recommend that you pick up those parcels that are in purple because those, that's what
you're taking out of the floodplain where you would generate the increment.
I think it was about two slides back.
We're working on it, but while we were, yes, you would have to expand the boundary legally
to pay for all projects have to be within the physical footprint.
So we looked up what was approved in the bond program in the 2014 bond program and it only
included phase two of PEC three and four, so PEC four phases three and four were not
included in that bond program.
Wait, can you repeat that please?
So off camera is our finance director, Cassie Ogden, and she pulled up the propositions for
and the projects that were listed under the 2014 bond program and it only included phase
two of PEC four.
Yeah, I don't recall that being the case, but okay.
Well we had, I think, so we have like two different PEC projects, and I think PEC one
had one through four and PEC two had five through eight.
That's correct.
There are multiple ones that have PEC in front of them.
They're the different tributaries for Pocon Creek.
One being south of downtown and two being north of downtown.
As you see that map, thank you Erica, the purple parcels are the parcels that get taken
out of the floodplain and that are impacted by the project.
So I would definitely expand the boundary to pick up those parcels and I think we went
down to eagle just because it made it sort of clean and simple, and so we followed the
street network.
So that black and white bubbled area would need to, you know, you need to expand the
turrets roughly, and so the turrets down in the weeds would have two base values.
The turrets in red has the old base value and if council chose to expand it, you know,
this would have a 2021 or 2020 base value whenever they made that decision to expand
it.
If we were going to do that and use a majority of our funding for fixing drainage, why stop
on the south side?
I guess my question would be for Paul, you know, if you're an advocate for this use and
would be someone advocating for council, I guess Gerard as well, why stop there?
It's an enormous task to fix these problems and Gerard knows we've looked at some other
areas north of downtown around Bell where there's still an opportunity for redevelopment.
If this is a way to fund the fix to the problem, why, if we're going to go through this process
and amend boundaries, why stop with that little section you're referring to?
I mean, since you asked me first, I don't disagree with that.
I think it's sort of, well, okay, you're saying, you know, and do the whole thing.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'll be open to looking at that.
I mean, if I had to pick where to go first, it's just sort of like developed but underdeveloped
now and adjacent, so it looks like lower hanging fruit, but I don't disagree with you.
I think there's as many opportunities north of downtown that probably because the area,
to me, feels and looks better, would encourage better redevelopment, if you follow me.
There are parcels that are closer to TWU, there are parcels that are closer to nicer
neighborhoods that, you know, and maybe fewer use car lots that, you know, a developer might
come in and look, hey, all right, I see something here, whereas they feel like they're taking
a bigger chance on the south side, you know, so.
I think ultimately the policy question, Alex, for is exactly what you're saying for City
Council is any expansion of the TERS will directly impact the general fund, and so that's
ultimately the question that will be posed to City Council, is that an expansion of the
boundaries and the capturing of tax dollars that were going to the general fund will now
be captured by the TERS, and so that is the base of the question.
That is a very good point.
And I would also like to add, just because I'm knowledgeable about the FEMA tax that
anybody who owns property in the flood plain or plans to develop property in the flood
plain, they, you know, the development can't happen within the flood plain because of FEMA
restrictions and the cost of FEMA insurance for any owner that carries a mortgage is exorbitant
and doesn't essentially go back into the city.
It goes somewhere else, and so I think that's a bit of a shame that without fixing those
things that there's money lost.
It's not considered the ROI we're talking about today, but it is return on investment
within the community.
You know, I thought that Alex was referring to flood plain north of the square.
I am.
Oh, you are.
Okay.
I am.
So the floodways and floodplains, the chambers, you know, the chamber and city's building,
for instance, I know there's a discussion of doing something with that property, but
I look at that and think there's nothing to do with that property other than just use
it maybe the way it is, right?
You know, there's the property around Bell and McKinney.
All that stuff right there could be, you know, repurposed.
And so again, I get the point about general fund, but I just see, if you're only talking
about the increment and maybe it's, and this is a legal issue, but if you create a separate
TURZ zone on the north side and there's no question that it's only to be used for drainage
improvements, right?
I just don't, I just know how long these things take and how much dialogue and discussion
and consultants and engineers get involved for us to do this.
We'll be looking up at another 10 years and saying we should have done the north side
too.
I don't disagree.
I think that's, it's, it's worth, it's worth looking at.
You know what really the key is to this whole thing and certainly to getting buy-in it's
slide 13, the last comment, there isn't, there isn't a vision for downtown and that makes
it difficult to prioritize.
And it really, if I had to put our energy somewhere, it would be, and maybe that's,
it's all better now, but it's like, really you need, you need the picture, you know,
you need the artists rendering of what this all ultimately looks like and the people can
buy into that includes, I mean, you may just see lots with dollar signs on them, you know?
No, I certainly have vision, Paul.
I mean, I've been, I'm not saying you don't, I'm saying, I'm saying it's, you can go from
just that, but the broader, you know, stakeholders, including voters, I think they would, they
want to see what is it we're trying to create.
I mean, drainage is about the least sexy thing you can say, but you know, people want to
know are there going to be public spaces in it?
Is it going to be like Sundance square?
Is it going to be, you know, a place where there's going to be live, work, play place?
Kind of like that area around Stoke, you know, what, what are we trying to make?
And I think, I think if we craft that there's going to be, it's a lot easier to make the
money decisions.
You know?
Yeah.
That's hard to do, Paul.
I guess I start, you know, people like myself start to get burnt out after having been here
for, you know, almost 20 years and have sat through so many dang visioning sessions that
never seem to be carried forth, whether it be a change in council or a change in city
management, you know, and so something just takes priority and everybody gets all their,
all their priorities behind things like raise a ranch for the last 15 years.
And, you know, what has that gotten us?
We already had a crown jewel in our city and it, you know, rather than trying to recreate
and put all these, these economic efforts into, you know, making a place, you know,
we could have it and can still, someone just has to lead the vision.
And I think the, you know, you and I've had this conversation, drainage can be more than
just drainage.
It's unfortunate that we're, we're going to go spend millions of dollars on concrete boxes
when we could have made it a drainage improvement slash park, you know, everyone's probably
heard me beat this dead horse.
Drainage improvements can be economic benefits and they can be parks, right?
There's plenty of pictures.
I can just go grab some images of, of Riverwalk type projects, you know, where there's walking
paths next to these, next to these underground boxes, you know, and so there's your, there's
your vision.
You get the parks, people, the trees, the, you know, and just see what happens when people
put in linear parks in Dallas, it's a, they put it over a highway, right?
So y'all are saying that we have lack of vision.
How do we fix that?
Do we, do we hire a consultant to lead the entire thing?
Do we hire a full-time downtown guru?
How do you fix that?
And Gerard also has had his hand raised for 20 minutes.
Yeah, that's right.
We'll just keep talking over.
Okay.
I'm sorry to interrupt you and Alex, but I do have a question for Ben, right?
I think I'm gonna go way back to your point, really my question and the benefit to hear
from this group is, and for those who knew, I don't think council should be here having
a lot of these conversations.
If you're new to the group, we get to talk about it, we'll get the vote on it later.
So I just try to listen.
So I'm just updating the other group that I don't, I think this structure is a little
off.
I think we should hear from you.
We get to vote on it later.
We don't need to be as active in this conversation.
We need to hear you.
And so my question to you, Ben, is what are you hearing and other business owners or people
that are working actively in the downtown area?
So you have a place like where Juice Lab was and Legends Diner that is benefiting from,
in theory, from this, in reality too, down the road, from the PEC project, but they're
shut down for a year, if you will, traffic wise.
Alex, you have traffic outside your front door.
What are you hearing?
So I hear a sidewalk project, it's quick, easy, generates money now for your business.
So Ben, we can make it easy for people to cross the post office, get to your business,
frequent your business, enhance the Bermuda Triangle, make it really nice and attractive.
So and those are quick, easy turns.
You saw how beneficial that sidewalk was in front of Denton County Brewery to connect
to that parking lot.
And so there's opportunities that are quick turnkey, compare and contrast those to me.
So long term, you're shut down for a bit, but the PEC is very to faster, hey, we can
get you customers now, hopefully, if we do this right.
So to that, direct example, personal benefit to me would be to do the Mew Street project.
I think that that's a great, a great way that would expand the walkability around the square,
it would get people off the square, not just circle in the corners.
And I think that's great for yeah, the next 12 months for those individual businesses.
I think that's phenomenal.
I would say it spike in folks wandering down my way and tell me, tell me if I'm thinking
wrong in line with everybody else, though, that this this board is there to make the
bigger impact decisions to make, make the decisions that will change the landscape of
downtown overall for the next 30 years.
And that that's why I lean towards something like the PEC that and Alex, you can also tell
me if I'm wrong in thinking about this, because I think I might be off.
My thought is, if south of Denton, and to Alex's point, north of Denton, if those are
out of the floodplain, we will see more development, we'll see not just more development, more
useful development.
You know, Alex has made the comment about used car lots, nobody wants to put something
in next to that, maybe it's, it's not great.
But I would hope that when the land is more, is easier to develop on, it's a nicer property
that's worth developing on, we'll see more of the growth that we want.
And then council can can help guide that for the next 30 years.
They can urge the office space to go in where El Guapo's was or so forth.
Well, I'll give you I'll get out of the way, but I'll give you two, I'll give you two examples,
Bishop Arts and West 7, those are instances where you had grassroots kind of just smaller
development that has just blown up.
And now, if you look at Bishop Arts, the larger entities, the long term growth came because
of that kind of compartmentalized organic growth.
And I think that is how you get the both you get the short term new street enhancements
that then trigger the organic growth that says some giant comes in and says, Bishop Arts
isn't what it used to be, because it grew to a point to where larger development started
paying attention, and they swooped in and just bought everything.
We should be so lucky.
We should be so lucky as to actually have gentrification.
I mean, there's talk of it here.
It's not happening.
I promise.
And you have gentrification, that means you had success.
And then it moves on to somewhere else, which is, in theory, a good thing.
We just get too many people around here get too hung up on the idea of, oh, it's getting
too expensive.
Oh, no, it's really not.
It's not really.
You're living in your own little bubble, go actually study and experience what those cities
are doing and how they're involved in a TIF zone.
And then it works.
It works.
You have to spend the dollars first.
I think, Councilmember, you touched on something we heard from small businesses.
Do you do short-term projects that drive traffic to existing businesses that may not increase
property values, or do you hold off for these larger catalytic projects?
Those are sort of what we heard.
Local retailers were very focused on, let's do lighting, let's do sidewalks, let's just
drive more traffic to my business.
Other folks said, nope, infrastructure.
And then we heard from developers, nope, keep the money and use it for developer incentives.
Because remember, a developer incentive will also have to come out of the tourist pot.
So if we do PEC 4, 3, and 4, then we don't have money to incentivize projects.
So that's just something to think about as some additional context.
Those are all constituencies that each say, hey, the thing that would benefit me the most
should be the highest priority I notice.
I'm concerned about those constituencies, because what I'm hearing right now is, hey,
the new streets would be great to drive traffic off the square.
And Gerard's saying it would be great to have the organic growth.
My understanding since COVID happened is that really some of the barriers for organic growth
that didn't have on the new streets is now gone because of things like parklets.
Then zero has happened.
So there has been no organic growth now.
We recognize that everybody's scrambling just to keep the businesses open and just do that.
But it does seem a little strange to me that that's something that's been talked about
over and over again for five plus years, and none of that is occurring when the city has
essentially gotten out of the way and allowed that organic growth to happen.
I don't have a problem with new streets, but we did one, and I don't see it's -- other
than it being more walkable and a nice -- and I don't think it's great.
I mean, if I'm going to walk from my office to 940s, I take Cedar Street.
Oftentimes I do because it's a nice walk.
>> But you don't stop at any one of those stores, so what's the point?
>> There's nothing back there with the exception of the Thai restaurant, which really -- there's
just nothing back there.
There's been years for there to be economic development on the alley street, and it's not
really going to happen.
And I think we have to be okay with that.
There's a benefit to doing street improvements, but don't expect necessarily those streets
to have, you know, all this, you know, walkability and -- well, we're going to have walkability,
but to have this vibrant streetscape of retail, it's just -- it's not going to happen.
>> I think it would be better to have more bodies than more space for the few bodies
that we have downtown right now to get places, but more bodies would be better.
>> Right.
>> Which approach equates to more bodies to you?
>> Well, I think you have to make way to allow for development of places -- I mean, I particularly,
because I live downtown, I -- property owned downtown, people beg me for more properties
downtown.
I mean, you can't imagine the number of people.
I think that if we had a bunch of empty nested adults with a one-car garage living downtown,
that there would be more people going to Ben's shop.
>> Are you saying do the drainage to have the housing so those people would be there?
Is that where you're --
>> Or office, housing or office, they both contribute.
>> I think housing is a bigger thing now because office is a little bit iffy with COVID, but
I think bodies is important, whether it's office or --
>> I mean, Paul, this is not an -- I'm not being an advocate for my own project, quite
frankly.
I'm glad that we didn't do it based on what's going on, but we tried tirelessly to redevelop
the gas station next to my building.
Melissa has seen the renderings.
And because of the floodplain and other code issues and inability to be flexible, we couldn't
do it.
We couldn't build a really good-looking urban redevelopment, taking and repurposing an old
gas station, keeping it and adding a new building to it.
We couldn't do it, right?
And the floodplain contributed most, and then as soon as we thought we had a solution to
that, then it was like, oh, you can't have parking in front of the building.
We're only having it there because it exists there today, and we're just trying to repurpose
the old building.
I mean, it's maddening, to be honest.
>> Well, you know, Todd has consistently, on other issues, said to me, tell us clearly
what you want, and we'll figure out a way to bring the resources to it.
You know, if you don't have completely, you know, crazy, wacky priorities, you know, but
just can be very clear about your priorities, we'll bring the tools to bear.
I mean, I've seen it on numerous other fronts, and that's why I kind of go back to if it's
drainage and what it could create, I mean, I think I want to kind of put the question
to Jessica, like, what resources do you think could be brought to bear to flesh out the
picture of literally the picture of what that all could be?
And everything, you know, I'm on board really with everything you said, Alex, and I know
Ben, you were supporting in terms of, like, the linear paths on the drainage.
You know, it's kind of, in my mind, it's office and housing or, you know, live workplace space.
So it's office and housing, probably retail, and it's got to have some very compelling
public spaces.
You know, part of why the square works is it's a designed environment, you know, and
it's not just organic, it's a square with a park in your life.
Sense of place.
Exactly.
So, you know, it should, in my mind, it should somehow feel like an extension off the square
experience that adds to it.
I think often, not to copycat, but just as an example, you talk about Bishop Arts is
a good one, but I think of Sundance Square, you know, where they've got great public spaces,
a water feature, you know, so there's a reason to gather, and then all the stuff around it
is hopping.
I mean, I do live next door to a park that the city bought that has not developed into
anything except for often a homeless space to be, and I'm not anti-public spaces.
I do like the focus in Denton of the square, and bleeding that focus out on a public space,
I'm not an expert in that, but I'm not sure that that's the best thing either.
I would disagree in that a really, really well-planned city, going back hundreds of
years ago to either today, they probably have nice public spaces that are connected with
good walkable connections, right?
Walkable, bikeable.
I mean, Savannah, Georgia, that I spent, you know, it's an old city that I went through
this summer, and they have square after square, not one square, square after square after
square in which the homes surround or the offices surround those squares, and then good
streets to walk to connect those places, and so, you know, sure, we could combine drainage
dollars, but you could do some cleanup by city using park funds to acquire, you know,
parcels that really need to go away, you know, and then create a little pocket park here
and a pocket park here, and then do those along the drainage.
I mean, they're buying up properties now.
They bought one on South, right down on South Elm and Locust, and they're using it right
now for construction staging, but there was a time in which they put a sign on it to sell
it, and I don't think anybody bought it.
I know it would seem really strange, but hey, future public, you know, pocket park, right?
And then there's a drainage channel that connects to the next one, and there's a, you know,
and then good walkable connections to the square, and then just, you know, craft a development
policy in which, yeah, we want to see redevelopment, but we want it to form in an urban manner
around these linear or pocket parks.
I think it's tremendous.
In agreement, but part of why I threw some of that square into the mix is it's an urban
public space that's not green, they're not all necessarily green.
No.
What about, Jessica, what about bringing in just images to this group of other cities
that have examples that might be inspired, that Melissa and Ben and Alex, you know, can
see them and go, yeah, that something like that, but combined with that feels like them.
Sure, we all have that vision.
I don't know that more vision needs to be weighed here.
I think this says there needs to be a expansion of the vision, and I mean, Jessica, please
follow up with what Paul asked for, which is providing images.
I'm not saying don't.
I just don't think that this group or the four people on this board right now that are
here have a lack of vision of what Denton could look like.
So I will remind everyone that we do have visioning plans.
To Alex's point, is there have been many discussions about downtown.
There's the downtown implementation plan, the downtown master plan, the TURS plan.
They all have to work together.
And so if you refer to the project plan and the TURS and its creation, why was the TURS
put in place?
It specifically says to accelerate redevelopment and generate new development.
And that's why the focus has been on the projects that we feel will do that the best, given
the limitations that are put on the TURS.
So the funding cap, the area, and those things.
And that's why the focus of this discussion is specifically on those projects.
It's not to discount the bigger visioning discussions.
I think those are important.
I think that they are valuable.
I think downtown is something that -- you're right, Melissa.
We all have a vision that is, you know, very inclusive of a downtown that is something
more than what it is today, and it's already wonderful.
But speaking specifically to the TURS and the charge of this board and the project plan
as it exists today, now it is able to be amended, it specifically called out to focus on redevelopment
and accelerating growth.
And so what projects does this board feel like accomplishes that goal?
And if it's ultimately not that goal that this board wants to focus on, is there an
amendment to the project plan or to the financing plan that will bring the vision of what this
tool can do to fruition?
And so I want to kind of reframe the discussion around the TURS itself and not just a general
downtown visioning, because I think we can go look at those plans and see those plans
encapsulate the vision that we have.
But what can this funding mechanism do to take the step in that direction?
>> If you don't mind, Melissa and Alex, assuming you all paid for the infrastructure project
and there was no money left, right, it's used up, do you -- what percent of projects going
forward do you think are going to come look for some type of incentive from the city?
So I think one thing to think about is if you pay for this project, that's great, it's
needed, but now there may not be any funding to assist those catalytic projects unless
the city comes up with another source.
So what are your thoughts about the tradeoff between that versus developer incentives?
>> I mean, developers are always going to ask and claim they need incentives, you know.
I am one, so I'll speak to that.
In some cases, it's absolutely necessary.
In some cases, it just helps make the project more profitable, right?
And that can, you know -- but there are some in which you can have all the vision you want,
but the market realities just aren't there, right?
And so if you spend all this money and nothing happened, that would, you know, be unfortunate.
I don't think it would be true, though.
I think there are ways to -- the city can incent without even having to, you know, give
away their tax dollars, so to speak, you know.
They can incent with density bonuses or, you know, be more flexible on a setback or, you
know, those are ways you can incent through planning efforts and not through actually
a shell out of city funding.
So a developer just needs a rate of return.
If you put some kind of limitation on them and then it's like, well, then I can't build
enough units to make that profitable, you know, then they go away.
Again, this is -- I don't have specific, you know, diagram, but I just -- I read an article
in ULI years ago about West Campus in Austin and how they encouraged redevelopment and they
did it through density bonuses.
They got developers to actually pay for some infrastructure that, you know, created the
vision or the streetscape or that they wanted, so the city didn't have to pay for it.
The developer paid for it, but if you'll do this for us, we'll let you go more dense than
what is allowed in the code currently.
So those are examples of incentives that you just need to be creative, you know.
And so -- but if there's a floodplain there, no one's doing anything.
>> Well, I think probably, and Travis, you might already have the answer to this, but
per square foot or per square mile, dealing with PEC 2 and 3 as an economic incentive,
what dollar amount can you allocate towards that?
So like for instance, Alex's development project that didn't happen, he would have had to pay
for X to get it out of the floodplain and X in insurance and X in development costs because
it was in the floodplain.
And what costs are you taking away by using TERS funds to not have a floodplain where
somebody wants to develop?
>> Sure, no, that makes sense.
I was thinking, you know, said differently, is the infrastructure project a sufficient
enough incentive that they don't need something else, which is another way to get at it?
And the second is what about other areas of the TERS that aren't impacted by the floodplain
that may come back and say it's great you did a floodplain, but I'm on the north side
of the square and I need X?
There may not be any money for those projects.
Just was kind of pointing out that trade-off.
>> Yeah, and I understand part two and three of that.
And I just guess I can't speak to it because I, you know, I think that if we made it developable
and got out of the way, then it would develop in a natural way.
Some people might come ask for money, but they won't unless there's a reason to even
start.
>> I guess I could ask Jessica the question of if you can speak to it, I mean, there's
property that's been acquired, I believe, the Trinity property, is there, you know,
it's not in the floodplain, to my knowledge, so I'm guessing they would need incentives
to develop that.
Are there other things that people have come forth and said we need besides drainage improvements
to make?
>> I heard they stopped, Alex, just because of COVID and they didn't want to construct
-- because they had a goal in mind of how much per square foot they wanted for the -- their
apartments and they couldn't get it during COVID, so they stopped.
>> Yeah, I figured that was the case, but I also figured they're probably asking for
some type of incentive, but I bet you they could do it without it.
>> Specifically to that, yes, Alex, there will be an ask, and I've talked to them generally
about a -- and there's some growth there, potential to some other buildings outside
of that footprint that they're looking at to leverage that ask, and I have some thoughts
about -- along the rail trail that I've discussed with them, and I'll take it a step further.
I'm putting this notice out to any developer on the planet.
If you want to start looking at that ready-mix plant in the middle of our city, I'm willing
to absolutely break the bank to get them out of there.
>> That's good.
That's good.
That's good leadership.
>> To Alex's point, yes, we have pretty consistent discussions with developers, though, not just
that project, but other projects that have come to us, and there have been a pretty small
set of consistent issues, drainage is one, both on the south side and the north side
of downtown.
We know that those are clear, so any type of acquisition of property or redevelopment,
those are challenging, and then just older infrastructure, you know, are the -- is water
and wastewater sufficient?
Are existing lines going to have to be relocated because they've been there for so long and
it doesn't make sense for a new layout?
That's certainly an issue that we've looked at.
When we were even talking about redeveloping the parking lot on exposition, there's a wastewater
line that runs diagonal through that, so even when we were going to just reconstruct a parking
lot, that became an expensive endeavor because an old piece of infrastructure is still there.
So we do see consistent themes in downtown, regardless of what type of development it
is, certainly code and trying to be consistent and yet flexible is sometimes a challenge.
And so we hear that, definitely feedback that we can take back and talk to our development
team and say let's start having a bigger conversation about what we can do in downtown.
If we do have a vision for a particular type of development, what can we be looking at
in the downtown standards and where those apply and where those don't apply as growth
occurs?
I think that's valuable feedback that we can take back and start having those discussions
of getting more creative in terms of what we do on the development side.
I think that's not something that had been brought up before directly, so I put two stars
by it, Alex, to go have that discussion of what we can do and get more creative because
we are limited and this is our tool that we're choosing to use for many, many projects here.
So what other opportunities do we have to get creative?
So I think those are all great.
I do want to say the goal today would be to get the board's recommendations that we can
take back to council.
So just to clarify what I'm hearing is there's a preference for the drainage project.
There's a preference to extend the TURS boundary to be inclusive of that entire project, but
there's also a want to consider amending the term or the cap to give the TURS flexibility
in the future to do maybe some of these other projects.
And if I am wrong on any of that, please correct me, but I want to make sure that I get a clear
direction to take forward to city council.
I think to that last point, I think if you, for me, and everyone can call me down on that,
but if we are unable to extend it the amount or the time, then I think that this project
shouldn't eat up all of the money.
And so a shared expense, 80/20, 70/30 expense with the city I think would be appropriate.
I mean, we have to recognize that anything that does happen downtown affects the entire
city.
And to neglect that point I think is not positive.
And just to be clear, now that I see David's on the Zoom, you don't have to extend the
cap to be able to have enough money to pay for PEC three and four.
So to pay for that project, just so everyone's clear, you'd have to expand the boundary and
there should be enough time to generate the 2021 million dollars with interest you need.
You would need to expand the cap if you wanted to have additional funds to be able to pay
for things other than that project.
Is that clear with everybody?
You got to expand the boundary and you have enough time to pay for three and four, he'll
double check.
But if you want to pay for other things, you would also have to expand the cap and potentially
the time.
And I think with that note, if we are going to go to council, and I don't remember who
said it, is it needs to be a clear plan, if we're going to make a request to expand the
term and the cap, I think we need to have a relook at the project plan and specifically
and get more specific about here are the projects we're going to do and here's the funds that
we're going to put towards them.
So that to Alex's point, because I remember Alex saying this, that it's not 10 years down
the road and we're having the same conversation again.
So let's get very specific about which projects and start moving forward.
I did say that it was also about if we're going to do this, why not do the north, whatever
you're calling, PEC Northside, fund it in a similar way.
So next step, we need to discuss with council expansion of the boundaries and then expansion
of the time and the cap.
And that would be the impact on downtown overall, right?
Well, I think Jessica is saying, if I may, that expanding the time and the cap would
be only if there are other things on the list in addition to PEC that you say, you know,
we want to put on the shopping list.
Okay, so not just give us time so we can see what else pops up.
Not that.
Well, yeah, yeah.
If it's just PEC, then it's expand that the geography, if it's other things, we need to
say what specifically you want.
And then that that would be met by expanding time and cap.
Okay.
That's what I'm hearing.
Yes.
Thank you.
I said it like this.
I do think that, and I don't mean to speak for the two council members that are here,
but I do think going to city council with not just a, we want to, we're recommending
extending the term and cap and we don't really have a plan why, it's more effective of an
argument to say, here are the specific things that we think we'd like council to consider
and to move forward with that will help us reframe the project plan and make the amendments
necessary.
It then allows us to do the estimates and the fiscal impacts and economic impacts needed
for the finance plan amendment.
And so the I'm not saying we can't be inflexible in the future, but some specificity on if
it is, we want to continue the goal of developer development acceleration.
Is it public infrastructure with the secondary goal being incentivizing some sort of development
in the future, or is it the incentives we can get there some other way.
So we'd rather reserve some funds in the future for some of these smaller short term projects.
Remember the downtown grants are funded through this sidewalk sliding, those sorts of things
that should development occur in the future.
We can help develop the pathways, the sidewalks, the lighting that gets the pedestrian activity
to those different kind of economic centers.
One that I feel really strongly about is the downtown grants.
That scares me that that's only here now.
I don't know how anybody else feels, but I would like to see that continue.
And that's one of the things that scares me if we spend all this money that there are
no incentives for small businesses to come downtown anymore.
And no incentives for them to fix their drainage or to fix their facade that will only see
big development roll through downtown.
I would also like to ask if TXP, Travis, are helping to sort of craft the finance part
of what we are pitching to council.
Yeah, I think I'm helping work on getting that request to city council.
That's part of my task.
But I think, Ben, therein lies the question, and Jessica said this too, what's the number
we're trying to come up with, which then helps make the financing plan easier?
Because if you remember on an earlier slide, the percent contribution goes down over time
too.
So I think trying to identify the projects you all want to fund helps frame how long
you want to extend or how long the request is to extend the tourist.
And then that helps finance figure out maybe if the tourist is extended in the cat, maybe
they can finance things differently so you have some short-term funding available to
pay for grants and other things.
All that will tie together.
And I saw Gerard had his hand up.
Yeah, I'm going to do it again.
I have a meeting I have to get to.
I didn't expect that.
I mean, I have a lot of thoughts about this, and I'm sorry, but, man, good night.
Yeah, I'm not going to say anything un-port.
I'll just say I got to do it again.
So how close are we?
You need a vote?
Did you get your direction?
There's no vote.
I think you summarized it well.
Yeah.
Okay, so I just need clarification on one point.
If we were going to kind of rank the project, so we want PEC is kind of the priority, then
to raise the cap or change the term, what is the secondary incentives or sort of the
smaller public infrastructure projects?
How would you rank those?
I think there's other ways to achieve incentives, but that's my policy.
That's my position.
Okay.
So maybe the smaller infrastructure projects and then incentives, if possible.
Sure.
It's easier for the public to support you, frankly.
Sure.
Okay.
What about news streams?
I'm curious to know if others are interested as well in Alex's point about looking at the
north of the square drainage opportunity as well.
I'd be interested in, might be sort of outside of the scope of what we can talk about here.
I don't know.
I'd love to sort of say the total tab for laying the foundation for a greater downtown
dentin includes north and south of the square drainage, Jessica, your point, and XYZ infrastructure
that needs to be upgraded, right?
If you did all that, you would have the foundation for the greater downtown dentin.
What's that cost?
And solve for X.
A very large number, but I bet we can try and estimate, we can get with capital projects
and try and estimate some of those project costs just to get a ballpark figure.
Sorry?
Bring in parks to the discussion.
Parks.
It'd be very interesting once you stare that right in the face to then go, well, how would
you finance something like that?
What partnerships would be involved with grants?
If it's compelling enough, this is kind of where it started from before, I wasn't trying
to necessarily take us off in a wacky different direction, especially if it's already done,
if it's a compelling enough goal, you're more likely to try to figure out how to get there.
I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement on the direction as the board has
kind of laid it out, and if so, our next steps, David, Travis, and I will probably regroup,
talk through the work that needs to be done.
Our original plan was to go to council probably in December, and so I'm not sure if that will
require this board to meet again to finalize any of the details, so we'll probably need
to talk about that and then get back with you guys.
But I think we have our direction, at least to get started on, and I think the heavy lifting
of this part of the project.
Are we ready to move on to 1C?
Anybody have anything else to add before I move to 1C?
The next order of business is 1C, consider canceling the regularly scheduled November
25th, 2020 meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday and calling a specially called meeting.
Jessica?
Yes, so as you may know, the next meeting occurs on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving,
and so I imagine in a normal year, many people would have travel plans and may not be in
town, but we definitely wanted to give the board the option of considering either changing
the date of that meeting or just canceling that meeting, and we can certainly call a
special called meeting if needed.
Like I said, I think we'll probably have to regroup to figure out what our gaps in knowledge
are as it related to the previous item, and if we'll need to come back to the board again,
so up to you guys.
We're flexible.
Who is here for that date?
Ben, are you here that date?
I am.
I don't go anywhere.
Alex, are you here?
What's the date?
November 25th.
The day before Thanksgiving.
I won't be around.
So Jessica, if you were to say a date that would be more in line with what you're presenting
to council that you might have to revisit with us again, what would be a better date?
I would just say sometime before the 25th, so if we needed to look at, I know city council
is not meeting on the 24th, so I believe that the room might be available, and then last
year we moved it to the week before.
That's a little bit more of a challenge now that we're limited in terms of one room and
DTV production, so I'd have to double check, but it would probably be the week before.
Would everybody be good with Jessica distributing a couple of ideas for new dates?
Sure.
Good?
Yeah.
The week before might be a little hard for me because we're finalizing the virtual beer
fest that week, so I'm going to be doing what I do and just on conference calls nonstop.
But yeah, early November, that's fine.
Would we do it this way, or Jessica, are you talking about having us all in the same room?
We will be doing Zoom meetings at least through the end of the year, and then we'll reevaluate.
All right, so I think Jessica, if you could just distribute some new dates based on what
you've heard today.
Next order of business is 1D receive staff activity report.
The chair recognizes Christina Davis.
I hope I'll be joining you in November, by the way.
Fair enough.
Just really quick, we'll go through these so that we can finish up on time.
On openings, we did have TB wins.
They actually moved out of their upstairs loft area and into a new retail site, 222
West Hickory Street.
We have a new market in downtown that's called Mashed Up Market, and what they are is a vegan
grocery store.
So if that's something you're into, you might want to check them out.
Circa 77 is closing.
They still have their store closing banner hanging up above their store, so check them
out before they're gone.
And then coming soon, we have H2 Oak.
Last I heard that they are still just finishing up some things and just waiting for COVID.
Caskeys at 311 North Elm did a little searching on that.
They have lots of permits out, but I haven't seen any work, and I'm not sure what the stall
is.
I haven't had any response back from them.
More Fun Toys is moving into the previous Mad World Records, and so you see they have
some covering on the windows.
They're still working on that space.
As far as our downtown grants, I did reach out to Chai Dao, and he's still working on
his building.
I haven't not seen a final CO yet, but last I heard he's still talking about putting in
a burger restaurant there with his son.
On the update for the COVID-19 response and recovery, the parklet and streetlets were
approved, but not directly on the square, so off the square those are allowed.
There's been some interest.
I know of a couple businesses that have inquired, but I haven't seen any permits or anything
issued for those yet and haven't seen anything go into place.
We did have the 15-minute parking installed around the square with a request to go in
some other locations off the square, but so far it's worked out really well, and everyone's
enjoying it and appreciating the convenience of that for deliveries and things.
The city did do a survey, and we held two stakeholder meetings to gather feedback from
downtown businesses and stakeholders regarding improvements or accommodations that can be
mailed made to help them.
We do have weekly emails that go out to downtown, and I do get some responses back and questions,
and it's nice to be able to provide the answers to those.
We're open to other ideas, and we're encouraging everyone to share their ideas and giving us
examples of other things that are successful, so we're always looking to the Texas Main
Street and other cities to see what some of their new practices are and how we can implement
that here.
As far as upcoming events, there are no events.
There were some listed last month, but those have already passed, and Twilight Tunes went
really well, and the Arts and Autos had a new format with drive-throughs, and we just
received an email from them saying that they've been asked to extend that and do a couple
more weekends, so they're working on that right now as well.
Then, of course, we've already discussed the next meeting date, so that's all I have.
Thank you, Christina.
You're welcome.
The final order of business is number two, concluding items.
Is there any business to discuss?
Raise your hand if you'd like to discuss any further business.
This was an exciting conversation.
I definitely appreciate TXP's, Travis's input.
Thank you, Travis.
I should have said that before you sort of blocked out.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
If there's no other business, the regular meeting is adjourned at 1014 a.m.
Thank you all very much.
Bye.
[ Silence ]