We'll call this meeting to order.

We have a quorum and um the meeting was duly advertised.

We have our minutes before us from October 6th meeting, and so I will um open for a motion to accept the minutes.

I make the motion with the uh amendment that the date be changed October 6 instead of October 10.

Uh the minutes, uh the agenda reflects October 6th, but the minutes themselves, my copy at least is October 10.

Thank you.

Mine says October 10th as well.

Any other corrections or changes to the minutes?

We have a motion.

Is there a second with that change?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh before we get started with our agenda, I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the loss of one of our board members, Mr.

Ray Atkins.

I had the pleasure of sitting next to Ray right here for many years, and it will take us some time to get used to him not being in this very seat.

Um he was not only a decorated veteran in the United States Army, but also a steadfast servant leader.

Um, and his contributions to the Chattanooga community um will be remembered for forever.

Um he served with distinction on this board, um, the IDB board for over 20 years.

I know he was here long before I joined, and so over 20 years is just exceptional.

Um his tenure was marked by um thought leadership, a deep commitment to the public service, and passion for ensuring Chattanooga's growth was inclusive and sustainable.

As a board member, Ray played a vital role in shaping the city's economic landscape.

He was actively involved in approving key infrastructure projects right here with us, supporting public and private partnerships, and advancing initiatives and a lot that aligned with one Chattanooga and Chattanooga Climb's higher strategic plan.

His voice was one of reason, of experience and integrity.

Ray always was focused on what was best for the community.

And as we reflect on his extraordinary life, we were reminded that true leadership is measured not only by the titles one has, but by the lives they touched.

And I think we can all say that Ray has touched many of our lives throughout his service, always kind and his unwavering commitment to Chattanooga.

So we are just grateful for his legacy and we honor his memory.

We will miss him deeply, and um just wanted to take a few minutes to say that about Ray.

Anybody else have anything to say about Ray?

Thank you for saying all those kind words.

He was also my my neighbor here.

And uh we'll definitely be missed in his attention to making sure that the veterans were um specifically represented in all of our um meetings was was something always um remember of him.

Yeah, absolutely.

Ray was always looking out for the veterans' preference issues as much as he could in in cases that he had.

He also served on the board of zoning appeals with us for a long time as well.

So a lot of civic involvement.

Absolutely.

Next, we'll recognize any um persons willing wishing to address the board.

Is anyone here wishing to address the board today?

Yes.

Sure.

My first name is Kyle, and my last name is Nichols, and I see a showellos.

I grew up uh in Middle Valley, and when I was a kid, my friends and I would go to Northgate with my papa every day after school.

Northgate was where your mom dropped you off for hours with your friends.

I bought all my Christmas presents at the Dollar Tree specifically.

Um Hickson had a center, and that center was Northgate.

It's been over 50 years since Northgate first opened.

But I do know that me and all of my friends that grew up in this area are ready for the Northgate area to be the center of Hickson again.

We can see it all over town for it right now.

In the last two weeks, if you're on the internet, you'll see pictures of equalization tanks on I-75 with people constantly asking why we're building building swimming pools off the side of the highway.

I know this body is no doubt aware of the historical as still will come challenges from the city owned city cities own it sewer infrastructure overhaul coming.

By my reading, CBL were the ones putting up the money to and taking the risk with this project.

The city doesn't cut a check unless the work's done and verified.

If they don't do the job, they don't get paid back.

It's as simple as that.

To me, that's a prime example of partnership to get something important fixed.

It's the kind of common sense deal that moves the community forward instead of keeping it stuck.

We've seen this work with the new lookout stadium and exit one in East Ridge.

These are areas that are not just gonna grow, but they will and have been transformed.

So my thought is simple.

When someone steps up to fix a longstanding problem in a way that the public is protected, and but if it's a community, we gotta say yes.

Because not doing nothing is always the costliest choice in the end.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have some comments relative to the Northgate TIFF.

Would you like them now or at the public hearing?

Well, the next agenda on the item is the public hearing.

So we'll is there anyone else just with wishing to address the board?

Okay, the next agenda item is the public hearing on the economic impact plan for the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project.

So we will have the public hearing.

And you might want to raise the resolution.

Okay, so the resolution of the Industrial Development Board of the City of Chattanooga approving an economic impact plan for the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project and authorizing the submission of such plan to the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Good morning, board.

We have two presentations.

I will quickly go over the city presentation, and then we will call CBL up to to follow up with their presentation.

When you want the public to speak.

Would you like for public to speak now?

That's what I was wondering.

Do you want the public to speak first or do you want them to speak after the presentation?

Maybe helpful.

Yes.

Perfect.

There we go.

Perfect.

Phil, if I may, I would actually prefer the other way.

That way the um Sharita and the CBL could respond to the public communists and to the extent they felt necessary.

And I guess the only issue is they may not know exactly what's being proposed until this presentation goes forward on there.

Fair enough, too.

I have no objection to the Sharita and their folks being able to come back up at the end on here to respond on that invo, but at least that way at least everyone will know what we're talking about on the front.

Okay.

Okay.

How would we like to proceed?

Okay.

Here we go.

Okay.

Um members of the IDB, uh, Shere D Allen, Senior Advisor for Economic and Workforce Development, City of Chattanooga.

Um, most of you will have seen this presentation.

This may be the sixth time for some of you.

Uh so for consistency, we're repeating it as well.

I will quickly go over just roughly six or seven slides here.

So this is a proposed Northgate Mall Hickson infrastructure tip.

It's different from our other TIFFs in that there is not a vertical construction component to it against which to weigh the incentive.

And so as we look at this, we're looking at it from the city's vested interest interest, looking at preserving public health, accessing private capital.

Again, it goes back to the earlier comment from uh our our resident Hickson resident, middle valley resident who said, you know, this is a developer-backed TIFF, it's not a city back tip.

The city's not bonding this.

Um, the developer is handling the financing, and then the increment will reimburse the developer for the construction.

Again, it's accelerating project timelines.

It's a private system.

Were this to be a public system, the city would have to put it in its capital budget and plan for this redevelopment.

Again, uh accelerating project timelines.

This is a developer who's able to do a project quicker than the city would be able to do it.

Uh shared risk, public-private partnership.

We've done these before.

There's an economic development component, which is preserving the existing property taxes, preserving the existing sales taxes, and putting infrastructure in place to lead to future growth.

And again, enhancing future revenue streams.

Um this is a proposed tip boundary area as we look at it.

And again, we're looking at replacing and upgrading outdated infrastructure.

The infrastructure currently it's currently operational again, but it's restrict restricted as far as the type of additional development that could happen because it is aging.

So again, it's currently working.

But if we want additional highest and best use development, the system would need to be replaced.

Achieving a vision of town center, as the developer will speak to you shortly.

We're in a situation where we've had roughly five or six malls across the state of Tennessee that have looked at using TIFFs and approved TIFFs for redevelopment of their secondary enclosed mall.

So again, if you think of Hamilton Place as our primary closed mall, uh enclosed mall, this would be a secondary mall that's proposed for redevelopment, which would make it more of a town center format.

And again, new um the newer sewer and infrastructure would be dedicated to the city upon completion.

Public private partnerships, we've done these types of TIFFs before.

If you look at Blue Goose Hollow, which was the expansion of ML King, Martin Luther King Boulevard across Riverfront Parkway into the river, into the Blue Goose Hollow Trailhead.

Again, this was a situation where a developer was working on a project, it went to the land development office with plans for approval, and someone in our technical department of transportation, CDOT basically saw it and said, hey, just so you know, would there's always this vision to prefer to preserve access for the public to the riverwalk?

Would you consider a public-private partnership where the city would gain access to a portion of this road to preserve access?

So again, that was roughly a $3.3 million TIFF that paid for the infrastructure to preserve public benefit.

Again, access road TIFF.

I think this board heard about this TIFF at the last meeting.

And again, this was private developer working on a project.

Project happened to coincide with an intersection where the city knew it wanted to have some improvements made, but it was not in the capital budget.

So part of that project was hey developer, while you're developing this project and you're doing some additional signaling, would you consider straightening Soccer Road, adding additional signals so that folks that are using public amenities can make a left turn out of the complex safely using sidewalks and intersections.

So again, another public-private partnership.

And it only works if it's a win-win for both parties.

Project alignment, typically, um, and we did have someone from the application review committee ask us, you know, why this project, why not some other project, what prevents any developer coming to the table and saying, I hey, I want a tip.

One of the first things that we do in the Department of Economic Development, along with our economic development partners in our ecosystem, is we look at approved plans that have been put together by Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce put together by our local regional planning agency.

Again, if there's an approved plan where the community has provided input, the community has pointed to what it would like to see happen in their respective areas, and those are adopted by a council or adopted by a legislative body, those types of projects rise to the top when it comes to looking at and and reviewing proposed public financing for for infrastructure.

So again, looking at the proposed Northgate Mall TIFF, it appeared in a 2003 regional plan, and then most recently is appearing in a draft 2024 plan for the Hicks and Red Bank area that specifically spells out facilitating redevelopment of Northgate Mall and surrounding commercial areas into a compact walkable town center.

So that's kind of why this has come come to the table for us.

And then again, here are some other malls throughout the state of Tennessee that have utilized TIFFs to redevelop some of their secondary malls.

Again, uh different different um when I when I say different use of the TIFF increment.

So one of the malls had already been abandoned, was acquired by a developer, and the TIFF was used for demolition, straight demolition.

Another one was looking at an existing mall and putting in additional vertical construction.

That that increment went for that.

So again, we're talking about TIFF increment for this particular project, that would be only for infrastructure.

And then again, let's look at the the discretionary piece when we talk about the TIFF increment piece.

So if you look at this particular graph, the green is the baseline.

So all current property taxes that are being paid will continue to be paid.

They will continue to be remitted to the city and the county.

As development happens, that incremental growth, those new taxes that come in, that's that orange piece.

That's what's at play here.

That's a discretionary piece where again baseline taxes will remain to be paid, but it's looking at that incremental piece.

Like it's is this project, and I you know, I'm using the word worthy here.

Is this project worthy of public investment of that incremental development?

And so that's what's at play here.

This is the timeline.

If you were to look at sort of this seven-step process, we're currently at step five, and then we have two steps remaining.

Um this was a project that was put this was a process that was put in place years ago to provide full transparency and clarity around how TIFFs get approved.

And so it involves again, this board has heard this.

This will be the third time coming to this particular board.

City council will have heard it two times and we'll hear it again.

And so again, it's that looking at the application.

Is the application complete, moving the application forward, reviewing the application, looking at the EIP.

And so where we are today is this step that is the public hearing by the IBB and uh comments from the community on the uh economic impact plan and what that what that looks like.

And again, we went through a process where when the application was made, the developer asked for three waivers.

Two of those waivers were granted, and the third waiver was for the butt four.

The developer asked for a waiver of the butt for uh requirement on this particular tip.

Staff recommended that waiver only because the butt for as we have historically used it in the city of Chattanooga, the butt for has been used on TIFFS that involve vertical development.

So if you're looking at a hundred million dollar project and the TIFF is only allowed to be 15% of the total amount of that project, you've got something against which to compare it and do that ratio.

Because this did not involve vertical, we were asking for a waiver of that because this is straight infrastructure and it's a little different.

And how we calculate sort of the the internal rate of return is a little different on a straight infrastructure project.

We asked for the waiver, it was not granted.

Um, and we did go through the process of securing a butt for agreement.

That was emailed to all the members.

We received it 4 30 on Friday, maybe.

Um, and so we have that, and and our goal was to have that by this public hearing.

So we did distribute that.

We do have copies in case members would like to see a hard copy of that.

And so I will have our um outside TIFF attorney speak to the butt for agreement as it relates to this economic impact plan that this board will be reviewing and voting whether to move forward to city council for consideration.

So if I'll have attorney Mark Mamentoff come up, he will speak to the butt for agreement, and he has a couple of slides that he will present as well.

Can we go to my slides?

Not that one, Maria.

I don't there's a there we go.

There we go.

There I am.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mark Mamentoff.

I know most of y'all.

Great to see you all.

Great to see uh your new member, Mr.

Colbert, who is one of the first folks I started working with here in beautiful Chattanooga.

And um, it's always real pleasure to come in front of this board and really enjoy it.

We've been helping the city work their way through this TIFF request.

Um I'm gonna cover, I'm gonna talk about the butt for analysis, but I'm gonna talk a little bit about the plan because that's what you're actually voting on today, whether to submit that to city council.

Um so the plan was in your agenda package.

It is uh fairly straightforward uh um in many ways, but um it is the legal document, it's like the constitution for TIFFs, it's the main legal document that you all have to approve it, and city council has to approve it if you don't if if either of you don't, there is no allocation of tax increment revenues.

I'll try to talk slowly, I know it's hard.

For me, um, and uh you have to identify the plan area, you'll see the map, it's basically what you think of historically as Northgate Mall, plus the adjacent out parcels that are benefited from this public uh not public at the moment, but the sewer system and the water system.

And um what's a little bit unique about this uh project, this this economic impact plan is this past legislative chest, and we amended the law.

And when I said we, I helped other couple other people, we drafted an amendment to state law that basically says public infrastructure in of itself is now project.

Before I would have to come to you like on the bin and say, hey, here's the project, uh, they're gonna do this and this.

You no longer have to do that.

Public infrastructure standing alone is a project.

So the project here is this sewer system, water system, and stormwater improvements.

Stormwater is explicitly, even though it's some of it is privately owned, it's also considered public infrastructure under the applicable statutes.

So the um that that's a little bit different than anything we've done here in one of the first ones in the state like this.

Um the um, and I know um Helen's gonna speak a little bit to this.

This this you typically discuss the economic impact of the project.

Here, the project is public infrastructure, it's kind of hard to say how many jobs does a sewer system create.

Um it's all ancillary, right, to the sewer system, so that's why you don't have a long economic impact analysis, such as we had with the stadium where you had a younger report with hundreds of pages of projections.

We just don't know.

We know there's several hundred jobs in the ring retail center that surrounds the mall.

If the mall fails and the sewer system fails, those jobs obviously would be in jeopardy.

We know that.

We also don't know you know the exactly what kind of retail uh will be developed in the future.

It likely will be a mixed-use development, much like Bellevue Mall became.

Um it's probably the best analog.

All four of those projects I work on either did or are working on right now.

So if you have any questions on about those, glad to answer them.

But the um it is uh um multifamily housing would certainly be one aspect of this project, and um it's sort of one of the goals um to make it more of a mixed-use development, which is what most malls of this nature are turning into, and um that obviously does not create a ton of jobs, but it's a great benefit to the community.

Um so um that's why it's sort of uh as Helen describes it, and I think fairly this sort of light on on economic impact because of the nature of the project.

And by the way, Helen Helen's very kind, she gave me her talking points, and so I assume y'all she'll go over those and they're they're very good.

Um the um what are some other unique things about this?

Well, another change in the law that we did earlier this year is you now can agree on a fixed amount of the increment.

Before you had to um you the city always got its debt service component, which is substantially less than 25% right now.

So, in other words, if 12% of your tax revenues were used to pay debt service on the city bonds, that was always withheld.

So, what we worked out, and when Germain and I were working on the TIFF policies and then working with Sharita, basically you all saw the 75 and 60.

Basically, you they the the city council approved waiving the 60 percent for the last 10 years.

So it's a flat 75% of the increment for the entire 20-year period.

And consistent with that, you now can just agree on that.

That 25%, even if if don't no matter what the debt surface thing goes, doesn't go up and down.

It will always be a 25% discount, excuse me, deduct, which what that means is if it if it won't happen, but if the debt service portion of your taxes went to 27%, which would be astronomical in Tennessee, you would only get 25%.

But despite it being significantly lower than 25%, you will get the full 25% for the life of the deal.

Um the 20-year allocation period per parcel, which is fairly typical.

Um, and this is also very important.

How long do they have to quote trigger parcels at the stadium?

We had three years.

Here it's a long project.

They've got several paths, they've got a long life of redeveloping them all into a new multi-use uh uh development.

And it would be um they have till 2033 basically under this plan to develop parcels and to quote, as I call it, trigger them.

In other words, that's when the allocation, because if you tri if you start all in one year, it's not worth anything, right?

I mean, because you're not getting any increment in the early years.

So this gives them a period of time to ramp up.

You almost always do this, certainly with new greenfield development, and this is sort of a hybrid between greenfield and a traditional redevelopment plan.

And as all of you all know, the county chose not to participate in this, which is different, I think, from every one we've done so far.

So but for so um, and Helen and I've had long discussions.

I know she's been a big proponent of this.

I just want to be really clear.

I'm actually a big proponent of this as well.

Um, in fact, I've sort of started this process in Knox County, and we've done I've probably done 30 or 40 of these but four analyses, largely they've been done in Knox County.

Very, very few of them have been done elsewhere across the state.

Most people think that you get the economic impact analysis that like younger does, which they do a great job, tells you, okay, you're gonna get this amount of tax revenue.

That has nothing to do with the but for analysis.

Economic impact is important because it tells you, hey, is this project something that'll benefit financially our overall community?

But it doesn't tell you whether the developer actually needs the incentive to make the deal work, right?

I mean, you don't want to incentivize something that doesn't need it.

And so the it's a very imperfect way of basically kicking the developer's proformas and looking at them and saying, will they get a reasonable return even if we don't give them incentive?

Are they already motivated to do this?

And because there's lots of developers.

I don't believe CBL is one of them, they've been really professional throughout this entire project.

But some developers just say, hey, I hear that there's an incentive program in your community.

I'm gonna stick my hand out and see what I get.

Um and so this sort of kicks the tires to try to avoid providing incentives when they're not really needed.

I also, though, was supportive to say, guys, look, you've got to understand here, this is really a speculative about four analysis because you know they're selling parcels.

The the core of the mall being redevelopment is probably four or five years off.

And so you've got a lot of work to do.

You got leases that are still in place, you've got some great tenants out there that they're gonna have to work with.

And so you you know you you you you're projecting things will happen in a market that we don't know.

You know, you were doing the best we can, and the CBL guys were great.

They projected what they thought was the case.

And I we hired the same guy we've been using in Knox County for a long time, and he kicked the tires.

I'm sure CBL would tell you he kicked them a little too hard.

Um, and um, because he's very he's totally on your side.

He's not on their side at all, and it gets quite antagonistic as you go through this process.

Not like anybody was calling by names, but they just get really like going at it.

And um, and so they both, you know, have it went back and forth, and they convinced Thad that some of the assumptions maybe need to be tweaked a little.

He convinced them that he wasn't gonna do that on certain things.

And the the bottom line is that basically you're looking, okay.

If they sell, if they redevelop the mall and sell pads as they anticipate for some multifamily housing stuff, what kind of return will they get based on their current best estimates?

Well, basically, Thad estimated that if we gave them a 7.7 million dollar incentive, present value, in other words, basically a grant right now.

That um that's not the borrowing, that's essentially the principal amount that you would borrow.

It doesn't include the interest because the interest is really separate.

What if if they got a grant of 7.7 million, that'd get them to a 12.7% return.

Now, if if you look carefully at that report, he'll readily acknowledge that um his firm's name is Water Street, by the way, but I've known that for years, so I'm gonna call them that.

And then the that there's basically a range, uh, you know, I go to a lot of these things and developers stand up and tell me, I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't get out of bed for less than a 25% return.

Um, and Thad says, no, I think a 12 to 20 is sort of what a reasonable real estate investor can pick.

If you went on the higher end of that range toward 20, it would be significantly higher.

It'd be much closer to the 9.2 million that they've asked for that's in this plan that's in front of you today.

Um and we didn't change it down to the 7-7 because we need your all's input and your advice on this, and this is a key decision you're gonna need to make.

And I'm sure that uh John from CBL will explain sort of uh why he thinks that it should stay at the higher level, and I'm sure Sharita can comment on that as well.

But there are just so many assumptions in this, and again, it's so far out that we had to guess a lot more than if you had a typical deal where somebody comes to you and says, okay, I'm ready to build a Costco and therefore I need this incentive, and I'm gonna be out of the ground next year.

It's just a whole lot easier to give you guys a reasonable but for analysis.

We did the best we can.

I think it has a lot of good information in it, but it it certainly is uh is uh a little bit more speculative than would be normal.

And I sort of went through all this already.

Sorry, I got ahead of myself.

Um briefly, because I know this question keeps coming up.

Phil and I even talked about it this morning.

There's a lot of discussion, and they requested some support.

The what's been in the papers and stuff is support through sales tax.

There's a separate statute, totally unrelated to TIFFs that allows the city to support public infrastructure projects with non-advilorum tax revenues.

It's very similar to what we did with the sports authority in the stadium.

And so that is a that is not, I just want to emphasize, not in front of you today.

That will be an agreement between you all in the city at some point, but we would take that to the city when this plan goes to the city to see if they support it.

If they don't support it, the economics of the deal probably don't work to CBL and we'll have to retrench.

But you all are at this juncture not being asked to consider whether that's a good idea, whether you're voting on it, but you need to understand that's sort of probably gonna be part of an overall uh uh package.

This pro this statute largely came out of Memphis.

We've used it a little bit across the state.

I think my friend Betsy was telling you all is telling not you all, but the city council about my Bucky's project out in West Tennessee where I use that statute to do the sewer and stuff to get to a bucky's, but it is not the law, basically like the at the same time it was rewritten to include public infrastructure as a project.

We believe that you cannot use it for the stormwater.

It's got to be publicly owned assets, so you cannot use this to support the stormwater portion of this project, but it might be the water in the sewer.

Um that will be coming later, you all, and I know I know, and I think Helen mentions it in her talking points.

You know, we we've special assessments of the new hot thing in Tennessee.

We have developers all over the state, and you're gonna see them here wanting to self-assess themselves to pay for largely residential improvements.

And we're seeing a lot of requests in the ring communities around Chattanooga, so I'm sure we'll see that here in Chattanooga.

Well, often it's in the more suburban areas because they have larger tracts of land available for residential mixed-use development.

It's super super the statutes that we recently drafted to allow this don't fit this project because it's uh they don't work uh for existing development.

They're really not intended to, they're intended for greenfield development.

Could you theoretically do a special assessment?

Yes.

Could you get the consents from all the parties that would be specially assessed to pay for this?

I don't I from the experience working, I think it highly, highly unlikely.

The folks that are not, you know, the parcels controlled by CBL, they might consider it, but the the other ones.

And what happens too is when you specially assess a parcel, it's just a tax on that parcel, right?

So the value of the parcel just went down, which would then change the butt for analysis, which would say they need a bigger incentive to make it work.

So there's sort of an inverse effect between special assessments and TIFFs.

I think they're very important, and something I know Helen will discuss with you, but it it to me it doesn't fit this particular project very well.

Um those are my talking points, I believe.

Um today, what you're being asked to do is hold this public hearing, and I'll shut up.

And actually, you might hear from the public, but uh then you'll be asked to adopt a resolution if you choose to do so to submit this plan on to City Council.

And the law, we also sort of clarified it.

If you get to City Council and they say, nope, we don't like the amount, we want to lower it, they can lower it there.

You can lower it right now, and they can amend the plan.

If they amend it at their meeting, it would come back to you to approve it as amended, but there's you don't have to hold another public hearing, the process doesn't start all over again, which is something we clarified in in recent legislation.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Hope that was helpful.

And I will you can maybe help me.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mark, thank you, Sharita.

Um, John Michelle, work for CBL properties.

We are the owner of the Northgate Mall.

Appreciate the opportunity to present to you all again this morning and to take a few minutes to clarify some of the key points of the proposal.

There's been some confusion about what this project is and what it isn't.

First, the proposed partnership is not an investment into a dying mall or an investment into the current mall structure.

The enclosed mall in its current format is unsustainable, and that will be true regardless of today's outcome.

The highest and best future use for this property is a mixed-use redevelopment informed by community input.

This proposal is about building a foundation that makes that future possible.

The highlighted areas on this plan represent future redevelopment opportunities, with the area in yellow representing an immediate opportunity to activate the campus to improve the campus for the community once the infrastructure project is complete.

Without this public-private partnership, the inside of the mall will continue its negative trajectory and redevelopment opportunities will be limited by the existing infrastructure to low-intensity uses such as self-storage that add little value to the community.

The reality is, the but for is the mall and the related land cannot be redeveloped to its highest and best use without new infrastructure.

In addition to being a catalyst for future redevelopment, the proposed public-private partnership fixes a critical public infrastructure problem.

The challenge is that the mall, parcel number 13 on the plan on the screen, services the other 13 properties, maintains private lines and services, the private lines that service the 13 other property owners, including 20 businesses that collectively employ approximately 400 people and serve the community, including the businesses inside the main mall, those numbers are much, much higher.

Because of when the mall was constructed, the infrastructure system was built and has been owned and maintained by the mall.

Even as the campus has grown, the mall has continued to own and maintain infrastructure that services the city customers.

Over the last two years alone, CBL has invested nearly a million dollars to repair sinkholes, stormwater pipes, and wastewater lines to ensure continuous service for customers that rely on these pipes to operate their businesses.

This system is inadequate to support meaningful redevelopment.

Parcel 13 cannot economically support an infrastructure project for the other properties.

But for this public-private partnership, the property cannot be elevated to what the community deserves.

We are ready to partner with the city, fund the upfront costs, and complete the work.

The economic risk will be our responsibility.

As the city described, none of the existing taxes will be used to fund the reimbursement.

The city retains the baseline as Sharita described.

As Mr.

Mamintov stated, the Water Street Public Finance Report establishes that public-private partnership is necessary, sets a baseline for that partnership, and establishes a range of acceptable return.

We want to note that the Water Street model is highly speculative.

I think Mark did a great job of explaining why.

We initially asked for a waiver because the valuation model typically used for TIFFs assumes vertical development, and this is an infrastructure only TIF as Shireita described.

The Water Street analysis clearly demonstrates the need for an incentive and the allowable range within the incentive calls for a minimum of 7.7 million and up to over $9 million.

As the city stated, due to the speculative nature of the report, they continue to support the full amount referenced in the EIP.

In addition to the model being imperfect for this type of TIFF, the model uses a sales transaction timeline that is considered highly aggressive.

Based on the more realistic development and land sales cycle, the 2029 and 2030 sale transactions should or could be moved by one to three years.

Doing so drops the rate of return well below the report's minimum threshold.

We appreciate that the report illustrates the need for public-private partnership.

And while we generally agree with the inputs used in the model, we urge the board and the city council to consider the sensitivity of this analysis to allow us, with city staff support, to pursue the amount referenced in the EIP.

This project clearly meets the butt for test, and I want to close with a positive because we believe that this is a positive, a true positive for the community.

This is an investment into the community, an investment into the existing businesses and jobs outside of the main mall, and an investment into the future of the corridor so that the site can be redeveloped to better serve the community.

Thank you for your time.

Happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

Mr.

Michelle, if I may, Madam Chairwoman.

What was the reason the county chose not to participate in this?

Okay.

I'm just asking if you know, but Jarita, do you know?

Yes, sir.

I do know.

So as um city staff responsible for this project, I did not brief the county officials officials in a timely manner.

And so what happened is when we got ready to put our items on the agenda, because I had not proper properly briefed them, they did not have time to get all of these overviews that the IDB had been receiving and that city council had been receiving.

So for them, the 1.5 million that the county in property taxes would have contributed to the project over the course of the 20-year TIF, they decided not to pursue it because they had not been briefed properly, and we were on a time schedule where we needed to start the TIFF in order to set the baseline in place.

So I take full responsibility for not having brief them and enough time to allow them to digest the information before simply adding it to their agendas.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we'll move into the public hearing now if anybody from the public wishes to speak on this subject.

Good morning.

My name is Helen Byrne Sharp, representing accountability for taxpayer money.

I've handed out a copy of my comments, and I'll try to stick to this script to make the best use of your time.

You're considering this request, obviously, to fund for a resolution to fund infrastructure improvements at Northgate Mall.

This is this key site is important, but it also raises key fiscal and policy questions about timing, fairness, and impact on city taxpayers that need to be addressed.

Key points to consider number one, budget priorities.

This TIFF district would divert future property tax revenues from general city needs, such as public safety, infrastructure, and parks towards private reimbursement for up to 20 years, effectively prioritizing one development's needs over the city's broader obligations.

Number two, due to previously approved tax incentives, approximately 30 million dollars annually in city and county taxes are currently not collected.

Number three, the city recently approved a significant tax increase, committing new revenues to a developer immediately afterward could appear tone-deaf to taxpayers.

Number four, budget impact.

The city's budget, which was just adopted a couple of months ago, assume new tax revenues from the SEER site redevelopment.

If this TIFF is approved before this year's end, those gains would instead flow to the developer and not to the city.

County opt-out.

Hamilton County declined to participate in this project, although it participates in the six other TIFS.

In the case of Northgate, city taxpayers would shoulder the full cost.

Number six, limited independent review, the consultant's analysis explicitly excluded assessing whether the project needs or deserves public assistance.

While that was beyond the scope of their study, it is a key question for city officials to consider when making a responsible public investment decision.

Number seven, sales tax expansion, because the projected property tax increment won't cover the $15.2 million cost, the developers also want to tap into sales tax revenues normally reserved for state designated brownfield sites with this set of precedent.

Economic impact plan light.

State law requires estimates of jobs and tax benefits.

The plan does not provide either, claiming precise figures cannot be provided.

Given the developers' experience, the lack of projections is surprising and limits accountability.

The the company representatives did did address that issue today.

A better option if the city wants to support infrastructure at Northgate, a special assessment district could be explored to ensure those who benefit most, mall owners and adjacent parcels, help pay for it rather than relying solely on taxpayers.

Mr.

Mametov, who is an expert obviously on all of this kind of stuff, said that maybe that concept does not work here and that the out parcels would probably what to use the big word remonstrate against it, they would not be keen, probably in participating.

So good point, but I think it warrants exploration.

Let me comment on a couple of things that came up earlier.

Number one, clarify, I want to clarify that when a new development goes in, whether it's a subdivision or a shopping center, it is the developer's responsibility to pay for the infrastructure.

Okay.

When the predecessor to North Gate, I believe was Arlen, uh, kind of kind of related family-wise, when they did this mall, they chose to do it before this property was in the city.

So they put in a private system.

And probably it's not necessarily to city standards.

Also, an interesting wrinkle in this is that the waters, the city of Chattanooga is not in the water business, and they want to replace the water lines.

Well, those are owned by the Hickson Utility District, which apparently is a great utility district serving the north part of the county.

But it seemed to me like when we're trying to do a fair distribution of costs, has anybody suggested or asked that maybe they contribute?

That was one another one of the reasons I thought this assessment district might be an interesting concept to explore.

I want to say a little bit about the company in terms of if the question were do you like CBL and are you proud that they're headquartered in Chattanooga?

I would say yes, yes, immediately and throw in a little personal comment, and that is when my older brother, his best friend in high school was Mr.

CBL himself.

So I I feel a particular uh connection to these folks, and I'm very very proud of all the success they have had.

So this has nothing against anything against them.

I ran across a quote a long time ago that it stayed with me, and it it was uh it is that the we we need to find the the wisdom to know and the courage to defend the public interest.

I ran across a quote a long time ago that it stayed with me, and it it was uh it is that the we we need to find the the wisdom to know and the courage to defend the public interest, and you know, we kind of focus on the courage to defend, but the wisdom to know, I mean, these questions are not easy, and that's why my hat's off to you folks and to elected officials.

I mean, this this is not easy.

I mean, you hear lots of good points from what they've said earlier.

Hopefully, maybe some of what I've raised, you know, makes you kind of think or whatever.

So, anyway, thank you for your service and trying to come up with the right answers.

Before approving this TIFF, consider does the proposed project need or deserve public assistance?

If so, how much?

Is the public return clear and measurable?

Are we protecting core city revenues and priorities?

And is there a fair tool to achieve the same goal?

Northgate's future matters, so does fiscal responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Sharp.

Good morning, Charles Wood with Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce.

Just want to touch on a couple things.

Uh one, there's there is a little bit of irony in kind of this project.

So and as Helen mentioned, the mall was developed before it was in the city limits.

Um that includes the infrastructure, some of which normally would be owned today by the city.

If you think about the sewer infrastructure that's there, city annexed the property, city has collected significant sales tax off of the property, property tax off of the property.

Um, and typically that infrastructure would have been dedicated after development back to the city for maintenance for sewer.

Um, and not necessarily for all of it, um, as Helen mentioned, right?

You have Hickson utilities on water and that kind of thing.

So, but there's been a pretty significant amount of revenue that's been captured as part of this development by the city after they annex the property, but during that entire time the infrastructure is actually continue to be owned by the private sector, so that it's a little bit interesting to kind of see how this has played out over time.

Um, and in this case, um I think there's there's kind of two pieces to this.

One is bringing it back to a point where it would be a it would operate a bit more like we're used to in other parts of the community where infrastructure gets developed and then it gets turned back over to the public entities that would own it.

And then the second is kind of a defensive play, right?

So there's a risk around this property if we do nothing.

And so I think those are kind of the two pieces to think about.

Um usually when when this body sees me, um, there's something really flashy that comes with it, right?

There's a there's a new company that might locate here, there's in the case of the stadium, there's a really incredible adaptive reuse project that goes with it.

But sometimes economic development, frankly, isn't flashy.

Um sometimes it's stormwater and it's sewer and it's it's other infrastructure that you don't see, right?

It exists under the ground, and and that's just reality.

And in this case, that's kind of the way this project is.

So uh I would just say I think as as we look at this, um, there's some risk in what could happen on this site if if there isn't investment that happens in the infrastructure, and there's certainly I think significant potential.

Um, and I think the first gentleman who spoke who who lives in the area kind of recognized that there's a significant amount of potential of what can happen on this site.

It's a it's a very large piece of property in a in a pretty suburban area with you know, I don't know, six-lane highway out front, and so certainly some some opportunity there to create really an entirely new experience from a community standpoint, and and I think rebuild a center of economic gravity in the region.

So we're excited about the project.

I've I've got had the opportunity to learn a little bit more about it.

Um I think certainly if you look at um if you look at mall redevelopments around the country, which is a pretty common theme right now around the U.S., um this is a good example of kind of a path towards redevelopment for for an existing shopping center that's faded over time.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

My name is Janice Gooden.

Um I have a couple of perspectives.

For one, um, I work with Caleb, which is a nonprofit.

Uh I'm one of the co-chairs for the economic mobility task force.

So we had the opportunity to work along with uh Miss Helen Burns Sharp to have input to the uh TIFF and uh the pilot policies.

So I appreciate the process and having the opportunity to uh make comments.

But my other perspective is as a community member.

I grew up in Riverside Amnicola area, which was also annexed in the early 70s, and it's a little alarming to know that in Hickson, the infrastructure is as it is.

I mean, it was really a shock to me.

Um, but I know that this is a good opportunity, you know, for the upgrades.

Um the Northgate Mall, you know, that has been my go-to place, even though I lived away for a number of years, but when I moved back 10 years ago, it was okay, but I've seen the decline.

So I would appreciate it being able to thrive.

But on the other side, I do have some concerns.

Um it does need to have this project, it does need to have benefit for the community.

So is it in line with the Hickson Red Bank plan?

Um, there needs to be some uh benefit for the community, but another factor would be are the boundaries, the TIFF boundaries broad enough that it would be able to cover any other development that would be coming.

Will there be another request in a month or so of another developer requesting the same thing?

So those are some of the concerns that I have.

But I would like to see that area thrive again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Uh, my name's Chris De Manorino, and I live in the Stewart Heights area.

I served on the TIF application review committee as a I guess private citizen and learned a lot about this project.

I grew up in Chattanooga and attended Hickson High School in the 80s.

Yes, I'm old.

But back in those days, Northgate was the only entertainment we had.

We shot, we hung out with friends, and we were thrilled with the addition of the very first Chick-fil-A in Chattanooga.

Keep in mind this was before the North Shore, it was before downtown and other popular gathering places that we're fortunate to have today.

But I do have concerns about if we don't go forward with this.

I tend to work, I work in the Brainerd area, and Easttown Mall has really um or Eastgate Mall has changed so much.

Um and and I realize it does provide office space and it's great, but as a cultural kind of hub for Brainerd, it is no longer that.

So Northgate is um heading that way at this point in time.

I it's a shadow of what it once was.

So I'm grateful to uh CBL for taking on this project and in partnership with the city, and I do appreciate the comments of uh my fellow citizens and um hearing their standpoint and and concerns, but I do think that this project is uh a good investment, and it could help us see a revitalization in the heart of Hickson in the Northgate Mall area and surrounding businesses.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is uh Greg Taylor, and I want to express my support for this project and partnership, and I also served on the TIFF committee.

I learned a great deal about kind of the history and the problems and potential remedies, and uh uh again was uh express my support.

I serve as the president of the Valley Brook, Wimbrook and Tuskegee Place Homeowners Association.

This HOA has about 278 homes and over 600 members, and uh of course Valley Brooks always been an extremely important part of the Hickson community for many many years.

I'm also the president of Friends of Hickson, which is a 501c3 organization that serves as a neighborhood association really for the Hickson community.

Uh I'm also president of the Hickson's Aquinas Club, and in these capacities, uh I hear from tons of people all the time, every day.

Of course, one of the biggest questions I'm always asked is what's going to happen to Northgate.

Everybody's concerned about that because it's obvious, you know, that it's not what it used to be.

And as previously stated it was such a vibrant part of our community.

The private utilities serving them all in nearby businesses need upgrading to meet current public standards.

The infrastructure urgently requires improvements.

We know this because we drive by it all the time and see uh and hear about water outages at the mall.

We see the construction going on where the sinkholes and uh which cause traffic delays and all kinds of problems like that.

We see the utility repairs.

So, you know, it's pretty obvious that things need to be fixed and repaired for this mall to survive.

It's my understanding that CBL is willing to provide the support needed to upgrade all of this infrastructure to it to current uh standards.

Uh this partnership that we're talking about today will facilitate these updates, benefit local businesses and lay a foundation for future development at this site.

Many Hickson residents want the year to be again the heart of the community with a bright future, and this will not happen, frankly, without these upgrades as discussed this morning.

I'm David Queen, and I have a CPA in investment practice in Hickson.

I'm a resident of Hickson.

Uh we started Friends of Hickson to make our community a better place to live, where it can play.

And we try to encourage business owners, political people, individuals to step up to do that.

And I see that here that we do have a problem that pre-annexation, this property, you know, was not part of Chattanooga.

So therefore there's a private system.

The point was made that we've been paying property taxes for sewer improvements and maintenance for I don't know how many years.

When we were when was Hickson annexed?

73, I believe.

73 or 74.

Yeah.

So all this money, you know, I've been paying as a business owner, as a resident, has not been going into improving or fixing the system is to go into other parts of the city, which is you know, I am a city person, but all again, those resources were not used for Hickson.

And I I feel like this is a good partnership where CBL is going to step in, improve this, take that risk from future property increases if they improve the property.

Um, and I I just think that's a better thing for our Hickson community.

I think um bringing in better businesses, a better quality of life.

I mean, I just think it's a great idea.

So again, friends of Hickson, I think a lot of people I know are very supportive.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak during the public hearing?

Okay, great.

We will close the public hearing.

I'll read the resolution again.

Um, a resolution of the Industrial Development Board of the City of Chattanooga approving an economic impact plan for the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project and authorizing the submission of such plan to the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

So anybody on the board have any comments?

Okay.

Chairwoman, I would I would be curious if if you'll permit um from Jarita to maybe step back up.

Um I did want to ask, I appreciate your candor very much.

What I'm confused a bit by is based on what you said is why the rush in the sense of why don't we give the county the opportunity now to step in and participate?

The reason why we're moving forward with this particular timeline is to set in place the base sales that the base property tax year.

And so that's why we we are moving with we started in October, and the final the proposed final vote will be December, is to lock in the tax base year for this particular tip.

So if we move to twenty if if we delay it and move into a next year, we're moving into a different base year, which then reduces the available increment.

And so that's why we're looking at this year.

Okay.

What about to um thank you for that?

And what about uh what's the administration's thoughts on uh specifically Ms.

Sharp's budget uh impact concern number four?

We did have our finance department look at the budget impact.

It was roughly 89,000, as I recall, as it related to that Sears property.

So there would be what are you saying, a loss to the city of 89,000?

The 89,000 would be a loss to the city.

That would go that increment would go towards repayment of the infrastructure, correct.

Okay.

And what about the the last Madam Chairwoman I I had for interviewing?

Oh no, I appreciate the questions.

Thank you.

The lack of involvement here from what I hear from Hickson Utility District.

What's what's their take on this?

I I did reach out to the Hickson Utility District.

And so, as with all capital projects, for instance, the city of Chattanooga has a capital budget, and that capital budget is composed of proposed projects for future investment.

That planning takes base takes place years ahead of time.

And so typically what happens is, for instance, we have a capital budget.

If a TIFF project comes forward, the first thing we do is check to see whether the proposed infrastructure is already included in the capital budget.

If it is, we move forward with the capital budget and do not pursue a TIFF.

So that for instance with the ML King project, that was not in the capital budget.

So we move forward with the TIF.

With the proposed project that was access road with the signaling and the straightening of soccer, soccer road, that also was not in the capital capital plan.

So again, we move forward with the TIFF.

It's the same with the Hickson Utility District.

So when I called and spoke to the general manager, the director, and asked whether they were aware of the project, briefed them on the project, brief them on the timeline, brief them on the associated cost for the water, the proposed water line upgrades, and then ask them what was in their capital project for that plan.

They did not have Northgate Mall water lines in their capital budget for the next three to five years for improvement.

So again, if we're looking at a time-sensitive project related to a developer that's already at the table, that was not in their capital plan, which meant they were um supportive of the project, willing to do whatever they needed to do on their side as far as assisting with drawings, assisting with meters, all of those other things, assisting with the any approvals, but they did not have it in their budget to participate fiscally in this particular project.

And lastly, if I may, what what is what is from what you know about this project?

Why uh the maximum 20 years versus let's say 10 or 15?

Why why would a lesser term not be more palatable from the city's perspective?

It's to capital, it's to capture that increment because we're dealing with such a small, because we're dealing with a smaller district.

It's it's we're dealing with a smaller district, which means we want to capture that increment, but we're taking a longer period to capture it, as opposed to drawing a bigger district and capturing more property taxes and doing a shorter term.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the questions.

Madam Chair.

Uh Sharina, if you could help me with a couple things.

Um one of the early slides that looked like there was an outline of this of the sewer map.

Is all of that being replaced, or is it just bits and pieces?

And then follow up who will own all of that at the end, and then what about future maintenance of those lines?

Okay, three questions there.

So the core of the infrastructure, and I'll have CPL correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, but the core of the infrastructure, which is at the heart of the ball, that is going to be replaced.

There are that drawing showed some laterals.

Some of those laterals are newer and will not require replacement.

So that's on that one.

On the other piece, it's related to the develop the redevelopment or replacement.

Once that's complete, that would be dedicated to the city, and at that point, the city will maintain those those improvements.

But again, they will be maintaining improvements, improvements on a new system.

There was one other question.

I think I missed it somewhere in there.

Okay.

Good job.

Thank you.

So I know we had two members of our IDB board serve on the review committee, so any comments you all have.

Um no, I um I did make a note that we have had five folks uh comment in favor of the project today, so that's encouraging to hear, um, especially from the friends of Hickson.

Um I really appreciated the one comment from Ms.

Goodon today about the TIFF boundary idea.

That was something that came up in the commission in the committee meeting over to review this was um just incorporating green spaces and perhaps the library, since they're in such close proximity.

Um so I didn't know, you know, again to that TIFF boundary.

It looks like it it really it is right on that roadway that's there.

So we it it does include it does include the the Northgate library.

Okay.

Um I think that was my my one question there.

So thank you.

Uh it was a good review with the commit the committee, and it was extremely productive.

Um I think you know, a lot of the items that were discussed today were reviewed there.

So I think uh I think this is a very good thing.

Okay.

Any other comments?

And and I think more so, Madam Chairwoman for the city attorney.

Um my question is in part based on what I'm hearing as far as the plan not incorporating a discussion of the jobs creation.

Does that comply with what we're supposed to do under state law that says we shall, the plan shall discuss expected benefits, including jobs created.

Does this plan meet that requirement?

Uh yes, insofar as if we do not have this structure in place.

I thought there was discussion about 400 jobs that would be lost, and there would be the maintenance of those jobs if this is continuing.

If there's a different type of structure going forward here that does not continue to result in jobs at this as a mall area, that could be an issue.

Okay, I will entertain a motion if there's no more discussion.

Well, I make a motion that we approve the resolution approving the economic impact impact plan for the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project and authorizing that submission of the plan to the city council.

There is a motion.

Is there a second?

I can second.

Great.

There's a motion to properly second.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Next, we'll have a quarterly project update number two by Wastewater Department and Jacobs Engineering Group.

Um W 20027 101 MBEC Class A Power Progressive Design Build.

This is also in reference to North Gate Law Infrastructure.

Sharita, are you speaking of that?

I don't see anybody here.

I don't see anybody from Waste One.

I don't see anyone here.

This may have to defer that.

If we could if we could skip and come do we have that one taken care of?

Um it's supposed to be a uh uh just uh an informational item on the agenda, but there's no one here to explain it.

Wastewater consent decree program.

How about a motion to defer to the next meeting?

I'll second that all those in favor?

Aye.

Great.

Okay, next is River City Company pilot termination.

A resolution authorizing the industrial development board to convey and transfer certain real and personal property and to take further action in connection with the termination of a certain lease agreement and agreement for payments in lieu of adolorium taxes and connection with the river city company for a property located at 311 Broad Street.

Board, this item is related to the um end of a pilot agreement, and so we have seen a couple of these come before the board uh specifically at the end of the year, and so what happens is once a pilot has met all of its um terms and its agreements.

Uh the property which was held under the ownership of the IDB during the time of the pilot, the property then goes back to the company.

But but this is a formal, this is a legal way of turning returning the property to the property owner.

So it's an administrative item.

Yeah, it's a good thing normally to get things back on the tax role here.

Yes, yes, yes.

Just one question on here, Sharita.

River City is a non-taxable entity.

Will we getting taxes from the lesse from this point going forward?

I see Rachel nodding her head.

That's a good thing.

And that will be after there is a new uh movie theater built on the property that hopefully is still showing movies to people, right?

Okay, that's a good thing.

It's a very popular theater, yes.

Yes.

Uh Rachel Ruiz is the attorney who has been sending all these nice documents to us here in connection with this, including the quick claim deed for this property, and it will go back to them.

IDB, as you know, holds the title to the property while it is involved in uh some type of pilot arrangement, and then it will go back to the property owner and they will pay the assessed value as it exists now at this point.

Well, thank you, Rachel.

Madam Chair, I just want to make sure the record reflects I'll abstain from this vote.

I'm a corporate director for River City Company.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

Um is there a motion for this one?

I'm making the motion.

We approve.

All those in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

The next uh purchase of civic serve software, a resolution authorizing the purchase of civic serve software from the IDB TIF admin fees designed to automate the entire life cycle of economic development incentive management for local governments and addresses all business and technical requirements from application intake and workflow to compliance monitoring, financial management, and public reporting and the amount of 44,000.

Terrific.

Thank you, board.

This item is being brought to you by city staff.

We have been looking at economic development software to help us with tracking and tracking and monitoring of projects.

There's also a feature which would cover briefing elected officials, so that it's documented that we have gone through the entire process of providing proper notification for projects before they start to hit agendas.

Um we are currently looking at we have roughly seven TIFFs.

At one point, we had 15 pilots.

We typically in any given year will have 20 plus small business grants and/or incentives.

Um we have 43 loans that are currently at the Southeast Tennessee Development District.

We're tracking all of those manually and all of them in different spreadsheets.

We would like incentive software that would help us monitor those.

I think what's important is the we examine three different software programs.

We looked at the one that has the features that allow us to do everything from intake with our own sort of public-facing portal.

So our website, if you went to the Chattanooga.gov forward slash economic development website, it would come up with a page that's specifically designed for economic development where you could apply for incentives.

Um you could upload documents related to it, and then behind the scenes, that that relational database behind the scenes would allow emails to notify the appropriate appropriate folks to say, hey, an application came in and it's being vetted in the next 30 days, you'll get flagged when we're ready to move forward with it.

So again, we've been looking at this.

Um we do have the funds in the account to cover this item, and so essentially all of the TIFF and uh admin fees that have been coming in from our previous seven TIFFs, those have been going into a fund that's been sitting the current balance is roughly 167,000.

Those those that fee comes in every year from TIFFs, so it's it will build upon itself.

And again, we've never utilized any any expenditures out of that fund, and we'd like to ask the board if it would consider uh approving the 44,000 for this particular software.

Any questions?

Uh several questions.

I've only I've been going through a software change for the past year.

Is the 44,000 a one-time purchase or is it an annual license?

That is a great great question.

It is an annual license, it will be renewed annually with a cap of eight percent on top of that, and we're looking at currently having a three-year agreement to be re-examined after the three years.

But this would just be the upfront cost.

This this would be the upfront.

This would be the upfront and first year cost.

So this would include um the installation, it would include the team that would help help us migrate all of our data into the program, get it working, first year, and then the second year we would do in renewal.

How many how many users or administrators are on this?

And does this include tech you know, service or or training to use all of this?

It does include tech training, and I do believe the licenses were at one point we had 15 licenses, and so again, we're looking at uh the Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce would have a license, Southeast Tennessee Development District would have a license, the county if so that if they were to choose, they could pick a number of licenses for it too.

And so, again, for us, we're looking at how do we get our partners in our ecosystem to help move all these projects forward?

How do we make sure that we're all on the same platform and that we all have access to the same information?

And again, it's just sort of that continuity of the information and the tracking and the systems and making sure everybody is aware of where a project is in the process.

And this includes a user support.

It does include, it does include user support.

Customer service team to call.

Okay.

Madam Chairwoman, if I may.

Madam Chairwoman, if I may only question Sharita is with all these involved parties, why why is the city IDB being asked to front the whole cost as opposed to the city itself, the county, the county IDB?

Why are why are we not sharing this cost?

We're not sharing the cost because mainly staff wanted this for the tracking of TIFFs because we have TIFFs that have hundreds of parcels.

We have TIFFs that have 15 parcels, we have TIFFs that have four parcels.

And because it's being primarily used for TIFS, state law allows us to have to fund this through that TIFF admin fee, which is where we're keeping it restricted.

And what is that fee generating annually?

You said there's 160 in the fund, but what's what then I don't think we've sent it financials or anything?

But what are we pulling in annually for that?

I do not have that.

The last time we checked, it was 30,000 annually.

But again, we have other TIFS that are that have not taken off, so to speak.

And so as they do, that TIFF admin fee is larger.

And are you looking to sign a three-year agreement?

So should this amount be times three?

Are y'all looking to come every year or what?

I think at this point I will ask Winston.

I think we're not signing a three-year agreement.

And we're having discussions around a three-year.

I think we're signing a one-year agreement.

Um with a proposal to renew it for the year.

And then you'll come next year to okay.

Any other questions?

As the as a former city finance officer, I strenuously move to approve.

I know it's um it's desperately needed.

With that strenuous motion, I'll I'll uh second.

All those in favor, uh opposed.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will still keep our spreadsheets for a year or two until we're we're comfortable letting them go.

Um the next agenda item is other business, and there's a few discussion items, FYIs listed here.

Um any discussion we do have on those.

So I'll start with the first one.

So the county auditor um created and submitted a report on the status of our existing TIFS.

Um there were a couple of items in it, and so we did receive notification before the report went out.

We had a couple of corrections that we made.

Um, and again, it is just an overview of the existing TIFFs.

Are they compliant?

What's going on with them?

What's the status of them?

Um there were some recommendations for policy changes that we will take a look at.

We agreed with some of those recommendations for policy changes, so we will be working with uh both the county and the city council, and then we'll come to the IDB as it as it relates to any recommendations for policy changes related to TIFFS.

And as a side note, the county will be putting in place their own TIP policies to to be determined what those will look like.

But those would be for TIFFs that are outside of outside of the city of Chattanooga.

Has the county actually uh approved any TIFFs so far or not?

No, they have not thought Madam Chairman, if if I may, I would suggest on be on we have the IDB that we put this as some kind of follow-up date.

I don't know what you're reading.

Four months, six months, is that enough?

I I wouldn't want to put it too far off, but I think at the same time we need to have something down the road on our agenda to where we come back to this because I do think it raises some legitimate concerns.

It does, it does.

Um let's say January, January, February, come back to this board with follow-up related to this report.

By then we will have had conversations with the county.

I'm saying maybe February because of the holidays.

February.

I know I'm not sure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

February and the next two months.

Okay.

And so between between now and that meeting, I will have conversations with the county, with the city, with the county auditor, uh, and then come back with some recommendations.

Okay.

And the second one.

Second agenda item.

Uh Mr.

Knoblett on here.

Yeah.

Yeah, we we actually, and we put in your bucket on here a uh letter from uh uh the Morgan and Morgan law firm here wanting us to preserve evidence in connection with an injury of a lady uh who was uh a worker at the plastic omnium plant here, plastic omnium OP mobility.

That property uh the reason that this board is involved is because it's in the midst of a pilot right now, and so they're giving notice to us in order just to keep records or provide uh records and the spoliation type letter here for anything we might have, and we don't have much here because we're not operating the the plastic omnium business on there on a day-to-day basis.

I did get uh Maria to provide me with a copy of our agreement with Plastic Omnium, and they do have the responsibility to um at least uh protect the the city and uh this this board and any of the board's off officers from any liability in connection with this process going on on there, and uh we will uh we've sent that on to Plastic Omnium here to get them to direct and uh preserve any evidence that they might have in connection with this this comp injury claim.

So that that's what's going on on that one.

And lastly, uh we have one other item in the uh bucket inner on here because of a receipt of a uh non-payment of issue involving the property that is actually owned uh at this point in time of the electric power board, but it's actually subject to a uh an agreement with the IDB here or for I believe a pilot project going for the EPB operations center at Volkswagen Drive.

And uh one of the subcontractors on that project has not been paid to this point and has got a claim for a hundred and four uh thousand eight hundred dollars.

We forwarded that on to the plastic uh to the EPB attorneys, and we'll let them resolve that claim on here, but that's not anything for this body, and y'all are protected as well under the pilot agreement that we have for that.

Just good to think we have it on the record.

And Madam Chamberwoman, if if I may raise a question or or comment.

I know we heard back to um uh the North North Gate um matter uh discussion about the differing amount between what was it, 9.5 and 7.7 or something.

Um, in my mind, I thought personally that was more of a matter for our elected budget legislative leaders to decide what would be best and appropriate, and then if they want to amend it, you know, we they could it would come back to us with the amended value.

That was my personal thought.

I just wanted to share that with the public.

That was my thought, and why I voted and didn't raise an issue as to it.

So Therita's it's it's the process sound right there.

The process does sound right, so thank you.

Okay, because at the end of the day, this board could have amended it, and then the city council could have also amended it.

And so again, it's a the process was put in place to allow each board to have uh a voice in the process.

So and the then the fiscal impact plan.

I was looking at that on the the page on here said 9.2 uh million dollars plus interest on any debt over a 20-year term.

So that's that's what's in the economic impact plan.

This amount not to exceed 9.2 could be less.

Okay, yes.

And the estimated cost was 8.6 roughly.

Yes.

All right, anybody else?

I have one last piece.

In my absence last uh previous meeting, I was I was traveling for work, but in attempting to log in and find this meeting to watch it live.

I had a lot of difficulty finding the link.

I actually had to text Mr.

Ledford who was able to find me something, but there I went through the IDB page, the city page.

Nowhere could I find click here to watch.

Um I knew it was coming at 11.

I just couldn't, I did not know where to find it.

So wanted to bring that up for our IT.

Whoever can look into that.

Thank you for that.

We're we're currently working on that, and in the meantime, we are directing everyone to the YouTube channel to be able to find it.

But but uh oh Gordon, you're in trouble.

Our software, our software program will fix some of that as well.

And I can I can say um so the thing with the YouTube channel is it's there are a few different ones that were formerly youth, but we are directing everyone to the YouTube page if it's Chattanooga City Council and count and uh city boards.

So okay.

Is that something a link can put I mean just from an IDB page or from the city page of just something that's very easy to click here for live meetings or we will work on that for the very next in in time for the very next meeting?

You're not alone in that.

We have staffers that have had trouble finding it as well.

I think you should click to it to the city council website, but I wouldn't have known to go to look there.

No, it wouldn't be easier.

I was on the IDB page, the city page, and I just bring that up.

But DTS to see if we can get it moved higher up the page because if you go to one of the pages you have to scroll to the very bottom, it's not in bold.

It's not underlined.

So thank you for bringing that to our attention.

We'll try and address that before the next meeting.

All right.

Anything else?

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.