Action for tonight's work session is about our big grants and building improvement grants.

And I'm gonna turn it over to our assistant city man.

Nope, I'm gonna turn it over to our economic development coordinator, Miles Glowacke.

You're welcome.

No.

Oh no.

Can you guys hear them?

Maybe just have to hold it.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, next.

Yes.

Um the agenda for tonight is we'll go over the purpose, the background, uh program objectives and scoring rubric, talk about a minimum minimum scoring threshold, program eligibility requirements, and then take questions and comments.

The purpose of the work session tonight is to discuss changes to the building improvement grant program.

Um we heard feedback at the last um urban renewal session, and so we're bringing changes before the board.

What we heard was to create a clear connection between the big scoring criteria, the 2040 vision plan, and the URA plan.

Consider using a scoring rubric to incentivize projects that create housing in the town center increase increased assessed value and create a scoring methodology similar to the RFU process that assigns higher weight objectives of importance.

And then EDC also had a comment that they'd like to see some kind of financial viability for the project on the applicant's part.

The statement of purpose in the urban renewal plan is to further eliminate blight and bleding influences, improve the utilization of land within the area, encourage private investment and job creation, and increase the taxable value of the of the property.

These are the objectives of the URA plan related to the building improvement grant.

Um read them up there.

Um create a program to reduce development costs, assist business retention expansion efforts, and encourage a mixture of land use, um, including retail office and housing along the corridor.

Oh I have to take any test test.

Okay.

And next slide, please.

I'll turn it over to Kim for this portion.

Thank you, Miles.

Mayor members of council.

Uh so tonight we're going to talk a little bit about an overarching framework for how the objectives can then tie to the URA plan and then the 2040.

And then we'll be going through each objective and how it can be measured in some detail.

So at this stage, thinking about that overarching picture, and then we'll go into detail um later on.

Um, and so what we had done what we worked through and Miles and Jesse and I is linking all of the statements that Miles just went through.

So all of the statement of purpose and all those objectives that are related to the building improvement grant and creating program objectives that link up to those.

And so that's what you'll see on the right hand side is if it's a statement of purpose or a specific objective and how that ties into a possible proposed program objective on the left-hand side.

And so we have seven program objectives.

Next slide, please.

Next up, we went into the vision 2040 plan and identified all of the 2040 actions that are related to the building improvement grant program.

There were six.

Next slide, please.

Oh, thank you.

Sorry.

So and then we went, oh no, previous slide.

Oh, there.

So then we went and did the same exercise.

So attaching each of the vision 2040 actions with the proposed objectives.

You can see that some actions tied to multiple objectives and some objectives didn't have an action that directly ties to it.

Next slide, please.

And then we combined all of these together into one total slide.

Wait one second for it to get pulled back up.

So on the left hand side, you'll see again that we have the objectives.

The middle is the URA statement.

And then on the right hand side, the 2040.

And then we did reorder these objectives.

In the ones that tie the closest to the URA or 2040, is in say the first item encouraging construction of housing mixed use development ties to three different sections in the URA plan and three different actions in 2040, down to the bottom of encouraging private development, encouraging preservation that ties the URA, but don't necessarily have a strong connection to vision 2040.

And next slide.

So these are the policy questions we're going to ask at the end of this particular section, but want to have these in mind as we're going through is do these proposed objectives meet the goals of the board?

And are there any uh proposed objectives the board would like to remove?

So those we'll come back to at the end.

But as we're working through each objective, we're gonna be talking about the metrics and the measurements that are involved in it, and we're gonna ask for comments on each of the proposed metric or each of the metrics that are proposed for each of the proposed objectives.

A lot of me using the word proposed in one presentation.

Uh next slide.

So here we talk about encouraging construction of housing and mixed use development.

It's measurable in a couple of different ways.

And so this would be the criteria that would be given to both the EDC as well as the URA board when asked to score on this particular item, the number of housing units, as well as if it includes a conversion of upstairs or other vacant spaces to housing.

And this is where we go back to that third policy question of if there are any comments on the proposed metrics.

There's anything that you would like to add, remove, or amend on this objective.

Great.

Next slide.

Looking at retaining and expanding business.

This has several different ways that it could be measured.

Oh, previous slide.

There we go.

Uh so number of permanent jobs created if the project adds commercial space, um, increases business capacity.

And there's two different ways I want to acknowledge that business capacity could be increased.

One is by increasing employment, but two is by increasing production capacity.

The idea of you get a better, faster oven, maybe you can produce 500 of something instead of 50 of something, doesn't necessarily add employment, but does expand the business potential, as well as if the project could retain a business that might otherwise consider leaving forest growth.

Any comments, questions on this objective and these metrics.

Great.

Next slide, please.

Next one being to increase taxable assessed value.

This was an item that came up during the last work session, measurable by whether the improvements are likely to increase taxable assessed value or in the percentage of the amount of improvements that are likely to increase taxable assessed value.

We've seen in past projects that they include a number of different maintenance investments, repairs to a structure.

Some of those may increase taxable assessed values, some of those may not.

For example, if you're replacing a roof, windows, but then you're also doing a structural remodel, the structural remodel, likely to increase taxable assessed value, replacing roofs and windows, not as much.

And here we've included some of the ways that you're likely to increase taxable assessed value as well as improvements that are unlikely to increase taxable assessed value.

Questions, comments, or suggestions.

Council.

I think it'll come up again where if a beatification may not score an accessment, but it would be likely to, yes.

And so this is to the idea around kind of this metric and these scoring rubrics is that all projects would be scored on all criteria.

And so even if a project maybe scores very low in this particular category, because they might score very high in some other categories, it may offset their scoring.

So it's an opportunity for a variety of different projects to all achieve comparable scoring.

Does that answer your concern?

Correct.

Um, next slide, please.

Uh, another goal of the URA to stimulate private investment, two ways to match uh to measure one being just a city to other investment match, so thinking about that ratio.

So thinking about that ratio.

Uh, we did see that with at least one project in the latest round where their match percentage was greater than one to one because they were stimulating so much private investment, but then we would still require that one-to-one match.

Um, another measure would be the dollar value of total investment.

So higher investment is creating a higher private investment, higher dollar project is creating a higher dollar investment.

And so thus it would score higher in this category.

Next slide, please.

Eliminate blight and blight influences.

And here I just want to make a note that a lot of jurisdictions are moving away from the language around blight.

It is specifically called out in the ORS, it's used in our urban renewal plan, but many jurisdictions, and you'll start seeing this in some of our future communications is moving towards a more positive making improvements, making building improvements rather than reducing blight, removing blight.

So just a change of language that you might expect to see in future iterations of this proposal.

Um, and this would be measurable in a variety of different ways, and these are the things that are defined as blight regarding ORS.

So safety, deterioration, inadequate facilities, any project that addressed some or all of these categories would score higher in this category.

Would we add, would we consider adding maybe um reduces vacancy?

I think that yes, absolutely.

And I think we could even add that under building utilization.

Yeah.

Thank you, Council.

Yeah, that's a good point because to expand on that, because it it's just because a bunch of boxes are being stored in there that I guess it wouldn't be considered vacant, but it's not very active.

Right.

And we want to improve that activation of these businesses.

Absolutely.

And next slide.

The next two are areas that we'll go into a little more detail in that they're kind of more yes-no questions, um, but still important and still things that come up in our URA plan.

One being encouraging the private development of public amenities that support residential uses.

Uh, and this is this idea of creating a public walking path, a bench, a green space, or other sort of public gathering area as part of our project that is being stimulated by private investment.

So, what is this doing as a community?

What else is this project doing for the community outside of what it's creating for the property owner?

And next slide.

And the follow final uh proposed objective is encouraging the preservation, conservation, adaptive reuse of historic resources.

This is if a project improves a building register to recognize as a historic resource resource or if a project improves a building of a certain age or older, is how that could be measured.

Again, more yes-no categorizations rather than on a scale, like many of the other ones are great.

Next slide.

We go back to these policy questions from eight slides ago.

Uh, do these proposed objectives meet the goals of the board?

Does this overarching framework meet the goals that were set aside set out in the last work session?

And are there any objectives that the board would like to remove from this proposal that you don't believe meet the current goals of the URA board?

I have a quick clarification question.

Did we instead of saying eliminate blight and blighting influences?

Do we want to change that word?

I mean, we had mentioned you had mentioned that earlier that the objective maybe, and then piggybacking off counter.

Counselor Falconers, like activating you know, building usage or yeah.

So if there's council consensus, I'd be happy to um both change the eliminate blight and blight influences to a more positive objective, as well as adding reducing vacancy or um increase activation of spaces to that criteria.

Okay, is there council consensus to do that?

Yes.

Yeah, cancelled.

Go ahead.

On um the encourage of construction of housing and mixed use development.

Is there any way that we can, or does it even belong here?

Um like 10% low income something so that we make sure that we have both low income and affordable housing.

So this is an interesting question for the board.

Is we did particularly not include any vision 2040 goal related to affordable housing because that is not an item that's called out anywhere in the URA plan.

So that would if we wanted to start prioritizing something related to affordable housing, we would need to make an amendment to the URA plan.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any wish from counsel to do that?

Council Falconer.

I I guess my would just make the remark that um I think affordable housing is definitely a very important part of the mix.

I don't think that I would be interested in requiring it in the criteria yet without a very robust conversation about how that impacts the goals of the plan because I think that market rate as well as you know subsidized housing are as a mix, those things, those things are important.

I think there's a whole lot of study out there in Portland just sort of learned this lesson the hard way that you know like inclusionary zonings, you know, requiring 10% or some some some required you know percentage can actually backfire on a city um and and and you end up getting less housing and less affordable housing when you do that.

So I think that that bear I I think it's a really valuable conversation we need to have.

I think it's a big conversation we need to have.

Okay.

Go ahead, Counselor Schummel.

I'd concur, and we have affordable housing and as part of our priorities.

And I I think that where I would align with counselor guesses is that it in that separate strategy, there's some approximation and not and not separate priority necessarily.

What I'm hearing, I I think Councillor Gutson said it too.

It's like just making sure when we're discussing this, it's a it's a separate thing.

This is a priority, but we're right now, it's not part of this plan for these grants.

Okay.

Thank you for that direction.

But yeah, yeah, understood.

And I I know when um Councilor Falconer mentioned great backfiring, I know it's actually been successful in other areas, so it might be regional as well, whether how it's just successful it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, any other comments on the objectives, or is Council direction to move forward with these seven objectives?

And we'll move into how we would define the scoring in the next step of the presentation.

Is there can go ahead, Counselor Falconer?

Order or the order of slides.

So I just want to come back to something real quick on a previous slide.

Um the chart where you have everything combined, you've got the the objective, and then you've got this one.

Thank you, the URA in the 2040.

I was looking, I wanted 2040 under private development of public for potential uses.

I want I was wondering if we might consider including um action 22 under 2040 or the connection.

Um which is explore opportunities.

It doesn't specifically mention private investment, but it also doesn't explain it.

Um, and so I would like to as much as we possibly can, you know, interpret the wishes in the in a way that can because I think that you can probably find and I would prefer just for sort of I bet we can find verbage as perfectly fine if we can we can fill out so that they can that sort of feedback okay.

This is how we're doing absolutely thank you for that feedback.

Sorry, my mouth is full of counselor got this in regard to the 20,000 um minimum amount, and forgive me while I was off, you guys might have already discussed it.

But there's several um building and business owners who have expressed that that is too high for them to match.

Um has there been any thought?

Has have any of you thought about maybe um bumping that down a little bit so that match isn't so difficult to reach for people.

Counselor, I think you're um just a little bit ahead of our our slides, um, but we will definitely come back to that eligibility.

Sorry, okay.

No worries.

Thank you.

Um any other comments on the objective.

All right, moving into the scoring rubric.

So we received direction from council to look at doing a weighted RFP style scoring rubric.

Um, using that framework or a usually about a hundred possible points.

And the primary scoring concept is this idea of waiting in that some um items that we consider more to be must-haves receive a higher point total than items that we think of as nice to have.

Um saying it.

Um, so but if the board has particular items that they want to target, we can add more points to that to hold that objective a higher weight.

Next slide.

We're coming back to this idea of preference points.

So in honest all honesty, staff considered whether or not to bring this idea forward, but this idea that there's nice to have that are um a lower priority from council, but are still important items that serve the purpose of both the URA and the 2040 plan.

And we would it would still be nice to maybe reward those projects with a small number of preference points, similar to something like how we might use veterans preference or how we might rate COVID firms and an RFP scoring process.

This idea of it's a yes-no qualification and it's a five additional points.

So something that we consider, and we'll have an example on the next slide of how this might work.

So these are the seven objectives.

They're listed in the same order as they were on the previous slide.

This total is up to 100 points, 25 for the first, 20, then 15 for the next three, and then those two bottom categories that are a little lower priority, have a fewer ties to both the URA plan and the 2040 plan, and are more of a yes-no criteria, would each be five points.

This is an example and would love council feedback and discussion.

Counselor.

Go ahead.

Uh well, the only thought is uh other outside sources to assist the property owner in the match, for example, there's main street money of different varieties, maybe half a dozen different programs at the state and national level that have that may mirror some of this, particularly on the preservation side.

You know, their their scoring would be high on preservation in particular, but but that lends itself to a business owner having supplementing their match.

So that that's just I don't know what how that translates to that's just the outside, you know, catalyzing outside money is gonna lose the project.

And I think that falls in even under the idea of this idea of project feasibility, financial feasibility, in that we can and that's where that eligibility requirement can kind of come in.

I might be able to add counselor guffs is in.

Oh, I'm sorry, hang on one minute.

Counselor Schummel and Counselor Felkner done.

So I don't know.

You're fine.

Okay, go ahead.

But also Yeah, I was acknowledging I I don't know exactly how it fits in here.

I I think this is an exceptional spit award just when say the downtown association uh partners to catalyze some outside money or or the business owner does that directly that there's there's that criteria that factors in so I'll I'll just have I guess what when we go through the next cycle.

He's dying the time.

That's okay.

I might be able to provide an example.

So if you look at the stimulate private investment, in this particular example, it's 15 out of 100 points.

So let's say that you have three proposals and you are scoring the private investment, and one of the measurements for private investment is the city money or the URA money compared to the other investment money that may come in.

If you have a project that's leveraging five dollars to the $1 that the city's putting in, they may get a 15.

If you have one that's leveraging three, they may get an eight.

And they if you have one that's one to one, they may get a four or something to that effect.

But that is where that calculus would be done, is in that weighting criteria.

I think what we're asking as part of this kind of rubric is we would have those terms defined based on those previous slides that we kind of went through.

I think what we were looking for on this was just generally speaking, how many points do you want to assign to each category?

And then within that category is how many points you would give to each proposal, if that makes sense.

Okay.

Are you counselor guys?

That's us then.

Um I was just wondering if we wanted to add a line for that.

I I mean, I personally don't think we need to.

Um that whoever is filling this out has applied elsewhere or has obtained a grant from another another um organization or grant process.

Is that going to give us any value?

Go ahead, counselor.

Anyone I do think that I I agree, Counselor Gustafson.

I don't know if we need to add another line, but I do think under each of these, you know, when we both when the applicant is filling out the application and then also when the EDC is is evaluating it and then when we are as well.

I do think it's helpful to have it sort of like spell, you know, what what those either those examples or specific like specifically what that means because I think a lot of times like something like that statement is sort of left to interpretation of the applicant, and then we get an application that I don't think we you know could sort of be argued, you know, both ways, and and I don't think we've really done that, but I think we could if we had to.

I completely agree, and I think we're we're a victim of how many slides I can fit on a PowerPoint.

Um so this would not be the final rubric, but I think what we would have designed in the final is all of those metrics that we just went through in each of these boxes, so you know exactly what you're being measured against.

So your application the applicant is like required to check a box.

Yes.

Required to show yes, I just yeah, I agree.

I feel like it's a rubric, like yeah, rubric like I in my classroom, right?

You have the measurable things, and just and I think it doesn't need to be like but 25 the max points is like this is an exceptional project, right?

This is like maybe above average and then average and then does not meet, but um for me I really really like this.

I think that I like the weight of it.

I think that you really listened.

I think staff really listened to what council said and brought back a really good product.

So I I think you know, I really like all of this a whole lot.

Are there any um amendments to any of the point scoring?

Thank you.

Um and any amendments to any of the scoring or any of the weights.

Um other than more clearly laying out what the metrics are in the final trap.

I'll just say let's let's drink it through another round the next round and I I do also think too on the scoring rubric that they like when they fill out the application, they should self-screen.

And then there's always it can be like, is there anything else that about this project that you think the committee or the board would need to know that would help us score?

Like is there any additional information?

I think that's kind of a catch-all for if someone does have matching funds or this is why it came to be like because at a certain I would uh imagine we haven't been in a situation where we've had to tell somebody no.

Um, but I think that that's gonna happen.

And so I just want to make sure that we can stand on business of like this is all the work we've done, and this is how we came to this decision.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think that's a really great transition to the next slide.

As long as there were no other comments on the scoring rubric, moving into this idea of a minimum score.

So we have not had the issue yet where we've had um less money than we've had requests, but as this program becomes more popular and is taken advantage of more, that is something that we are trying to get ahead of is this idea of well then how do we set a uh a floor, so to speak, um, for point value for what types of projects we want to fund, um, both as we receive more projects than we have funding, but also if we have another year where we have less projects then we have funding.

For example, staff recommendation would be to score uh to set it at 50, set it at the halfway bar um of points.

So the question first counsel is do you think there should be let's just start.

Do we think there should be a minimum score that a project must score to be considered?

I'm gonna start.

I mean, since people are thinking, I think yes.

I think that now that we have the measurements, the objectives, the measurements, um, and we want to improve like our downtown or this urban renewal agency area.

I I think it's important that we know it's gonna meet these objectives.

And I think that by saying there's a minimum score basically tells us that it's gonna do some of the objectives.

I think that if something doesn't score at least half the points, to me, that score represents a question of if it's gonna improve, if it's gonna increase taxable income, if it's gonna be doing the things in our plan that we want it to do.

And I would rather wait, you know, even if we don't fund a project one year because n none of the applications scored and be able to have that money for a project that would score better.

So that's that's my take on it.

Counselor Schummel.

I I I can agree.

So I'd say yes, and I I think my experience with the ADC is the quality of the application isn't always commensurate with the the value of project.

Does that make sense that the the applicant needs help to with with articulating it so that it scores rightly as opposed to scoring the the quality of the application?

So I guess there's the maybe a tangential thing that there's a workshop where business owners could participate in to help them out, or you know, if we do an RFP for architects, you know, there's there's a series of architects who know the area and such that they could be referred to just or the design grants become maybe we pump the design grant maximum up so that they get a better uh design proposition to put into 5,000 doesn't do it to an application and so it'd just be something to supplement the the minimum for to improve the business owner's experience and opportunity counselor and we will definitely consider how we can better engage with the business community going into that next grant cycle.

So is there consensus on having a minimum score?

I haven't heard some, but yeah.

Okay.

So there is consensus on that.

If council does have any direction on a specific, yeah.

So the first question was are we in agreement that there should be a minimum minimum score?

And I heard yeah.

So now the next question is what do you think that minimum score should be and you already have uh you're you were gonna going to use a scoring of a hundred?

Is that what it was?

It's a hundred total points.

Okay.

And that's my rubric.

Okay.

I just wanted counselor gustison.

I think I don't I don't really know if I have a preference, but I think whatever we do if between say fifty uh twenty-five and higher or fifty or higher, um, we should err on whatever side we think is preferable or if in the future we need to adjust that.

So if it's easier for us to adjust it down if we find that 50 is too high, that's great.

If it's easier to go the other way, maybe we want to start at 25.

So it's just a thought.

I don't know if it would make any difference.

For me, I just think uh I think 25 points is pretty low, and the point of having a minimum threshold is like elevate the return on investment, just to be blunt.

So I'm happy with 50.

I I mean, I think that's a fair I don't think that's too high at all.

I mean, 50 is a not even a passing grade on a paper.

I mean, in all reality, and we're looking at getting money from the city to help.

I mean, it benefits both people of the city and them.

I'm I would go with at least 70.

Any discussion?

So any discussion on the number.

We have 50, 70.

Go ahead, Councilor Falconer.

I was thinking also that I thought 50 was too low.

Um, I I mean I I understood it's the first time, and I understand it's like we gotta start somewhere, but I kind of agree that it's not really a passing grade.

Um, you know, maybe 70 is a little too high for our first go at it.

You know, maybe we can split the baby and go with 60%.

I'm hearing 60 now, and then Counselor Gupson, I see your hand is raised.

Go ahead.

Yeah, um so again pick one so that you can go down or go up easier, whichever one is what I'm mentioning, but I'm supportive of the the 70 as well.

Well well, so that we I I agree with counselor marshall that that is a really really good point.

Do we so then we also heard maybe 60?

Would you I guess where are we at?

I know, and I think uh here's my as someone who so we have weighted grades at school.

Um proficiency is 70 in the 70 percent column, and then career like daily assignments goes in 30, but it is a tricky and the slippery slope because if you already have the weighted, right?

But it is a tricky and the slippery slope because if you already have the weighted, right?

You already have the weighted in the score of 25 points and 20.

And if someone doesn't hit that, then it and you have too high of a minimum, it's gonna be hard for some projects to pencil out.

I mean, that's just my take as a teacher, and I know it's not the same thing, but just doing rubric scoring.

Um I don't know.

Go ahead, Counselor Schimmel.

Well, keep keeping with the education language that if if we you know likened uh a young thriving business to have an IED or the IED or basically the if if we're gonna supplement the score with a robust outreach and assist and referrals, that I think is prudent to help them strengthen the scores above 70.

So I think if there's that intention, then 70 can work.

What's staff's recommendation?

What do you guys think?

Or what have you seen from other municipalities?

I am thinking about if we can go back one slide.

That these bottom two categories of five points each, most projects are unlikely to hit them.

Um so that really hits the the ceiling at really 90 with some bonus of 10.

So I agree with maybe 60 being a good middle ground.

Yeah, because then that's 90, and then they're way too low, but 60 would be a good starting point.

Okay, I'm I'm hearing this has been a good rich discussion, and I'm hearing 60 is the number.

Are we I'm seeing the head nods here, and I sorry, Counselor Gasman.

I can't.

Nope, yep.

Okay, cool.

Yes, yes, yes.

Sounds good.

So there's gonna be a minimum threshold 60 points.

Yes, and um, thank you very much uh for all of the the feedback.

We will have a uh updated rubric as part of the upcoming resolution.

Uh and now we're gonna switch gears into program eligibility.

So next slide, please.

One more.

So this is the very long list of eligibility requirements that currently exist for this program.

I can go through them all out loud, or folks just want to take a second and read through.

And the question for council is if there are any eligibility requirements you would like to add, remove, or amend.

Also noting that on the next slide, we have four staff recommended, or at least um what to have council consider uh four additional program requirements question on property must be property uh application must be building owner.

Um locally owned or locally owned franchise.

So with that, it said like uh I know maybe that's a the building I don't own the building, somebody else does that doesn't live in Forest Grove, but it is so how would that like that wouldn't be eligible?

It would be eligible because the uh it's the category right above that, so applicant must be building owner or a tenant.

And so as the tenant, if you can provide a notarized letter by the owner, yeah, but then you are eligible.

Okay, okay, any questions?

Uh I had a question.

Okay, Counselor Just Gussen and then Counselor Falkner.

Okay.

So and this might not matter.

I think we had a conversation at one time, maybe it was last year, about situations where the property owner, a building owner gets that grant from us, does it all up nice, the value skyrockets for them or whatever, and then they sell it.

And uh if I remember right, that conversation ended with it still increases the tax assessment value.

Um, and so we were okay with that.

And the assumption is that the building is going to be used shortly, or or in a situation where it can be used shortly, you know, or at least have a plan for building owners that that building isn't used.

What if they receive a grant and they continue to sit on it?

What do we do then?

Is there do we need to see a plan for you know use benefits before we approve that a phased plan?

Counselor, I appreciate the question.

And one, it does still increase the taxable assessed value, but we also are asking in that application for several kind of pieces of proof of how that building's going to be used, including retaining and expanding a business and encouraging construction of mixed use development.

So I believe that might be captured within the program objectives.

Good enough.

If that addresses your question, it does.

It does, thank you.

Thank you.

Do we think the language is strong enough on project will likely increase the taxable assessed value?

I really appreciated the chart that you have that sort of breaks down, you know, likely or not.

Um, or and then there's some that was like maybe and I I don't love the maybes so much.

I want a little bit more assurance on this one, and I'm wondering if council might have some thoughts.

Or staff.

Yeah, I think it's tricky to peg down exactly what will increase assessed value.

Assessed value can also happen at the sale of the building.

So it may not be triggered.

This investment may not trigger assessment at the sale, but it may increase it quite a bit.

So I think that's important to think about too.

Um the chart is helpful.

I called the county and tried to ask them kind of how we would do this, and they didn't have great answers.

So knowing exactly what triggers assess value.

It's kind of project beyond that chart.

Unfortunately, which the area of this project process and project.

Go ahead, Counselor Schimmel.

If we're done with that particular question, I want to circle back to recust comment.

I think it's a prudent one to consider make ensure that we're very explicit about any covenant that that show up in the contract itself.

Uh because where uh a property does exchange or get sold, that what any covenant could be a barrier to uh a sale if if the if the uh prospective buyer uh doesn't want to accept that so I just want to make sure that's that's clear because that that shows up typically on public money from the state, there's covenant that often that oftentimes either delay projects or become a barrier because the current owner doesn't want to have that burden of uh of passing on so if we're gonna have any covenant, we gotta be real clear about those those are clearly laid out in contract.

I do not believe our current contract requires any covenants.

Uh, I think it's under the assumption that if the building does appreciate that significantly in value and then is sold to a new owner that that new owner would want to recoup the value of their investment, that new building by utilizing the space that and I don't believe we're planning to add any covenants unless you would like to suggest that we do so.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that I'm I'm actually I would dissuade us any covenant because the they could end up being a barrier to the bare economic development that we want to promote.

Um, because if if the the current owner has to sell because they're in debt, you know, we don't want the covenant to be a barrier to I think I think it's the we can encourage that, but I just want to be careful we're not writing in covenants that end up understood.

So on this slide, are all of these requirements a thumbs up?

Okay.

So then there's some that staff wanted to add, and we're gonna go.

Uh yes, for proposed eligibility requirements.

So one is to establish a minimum project cost threshold.

Staff does not have a recommendation, 20,000 is put up there as an example.

Uh we did receive some lower value projects in this latest round.

I think the lowest was maybe 16,000.

Is that right, Miles?

Um, and then projects going up to 300,000.

Um, so we saw quite a range.

Um, second one would be to restrict funding from being used on portable assets as meets those URA goals of trying to increase taxable assessed value and establishing business and all of those uh requirements require the funding be used for a building improvement.

This might be an oversight um that it's not explicitly called out in the current program eligibility, although it is um can be inferred.

Uh and then the fourth, and this was a EDC uh request is must demonstrate financial feasibility either through some sort of financing plan, a letter of credit, a showing of having the capital or having uh additional grants from another work.

Can I can I ask a question about the first bullet?

Um instead of doing like a minimum, can we do like a percentage based on what the they're asking for?

Because there's a am I understanding that correctly when you said that some and I think some projects asked for a 16 was sixteen thousand dollars total, so they asked for eight thousand.

We're suggesting that a project that small wouldn't be considered so a minimum project of twenty thousand dollars, ten thousand we are not asking or recommending or discussing here um changing the match it would still be okay.

So you're saying that this project, the minimum, so it could not and no projects below twenty thousand, but that was just the number would be yes, just a number.

So it's any number that okay and mayor just to clarify that number does include the match.

So the cost to the property owner or the business would be ten thousand, and then it includes the other ten thousand.

Yeah, that's why I was like getting the little total project.

Okay.

Counselor Govson, I saw your hand come up and then pop down.

Go go ahead.

It was, and I was about ready to put it up again.

Jesse answered my first my question.

So thanks, Jesse.

Um, I would still just based on um conversations with downtown businesses.

Um I would request that it was be dropped to 10,000 total project.

$10,000 can be a project that does help them.

And that's $5,000 less than they have to that they have to provide.

I guess my I understand what you're saying, and we definitely want to do what we can to help businesses downtown, but if it's a building improvement, then I don't see it cost I I don't see it being less than $20,000 because it I mean, based on the applications we've seen, that the ones that are smaller amounts tend to be more on portable assets than on building improvements.

But what about the people that have uh financial grant requests that they've um that they've put in and they haven't received yet?

I mean, there's I don't know.

I still I still hold by that just because of what I've heard from people.

It's it's their experience that I'm that I'm drawing that um recommendation for.

So I hold to that.

Okay.

Counselor Schimmel.

I I think it's a prudent to consider that um the caveat of external uh sources being on different cycles, and that they'll line up with an one annual cycle.

Um so that that's an important factor in having a viable application that meets a score is if if we if we they what they need to demonstrate that they the money's committed, then those misalignments can be you know months uh apart.

So that's just a consideration, and and maybe it's we consider a more dynamic cycle if if it makes sense.

That dealing, sorry, just the the only other consideration was the we also have the storefront revitalization grant, which is the lower amount.

And I I don't recall if that one sixteen thousand was a was a storefront now.

Okay.

So I was gonna answer your question.

I think it's five thousand.

Well, that's the design grant, but there's another there's a revision.

Yeah.

So we we got these.

We got design aside.

Um I wanted to just address the financial feasibility criteria, and one way that we could operationalize it is to include in the application that they lay out what their financial plan is, including it could be applying for grants that are on a different cycle, and we can always make it a condition of actually the reimbursement of the funding and just know about that going into the cycle.

I think that's key though, is that it's a reimbursement.

So the money's got to be spent up front.

So whether they're getting it through a private loan or through a credit card or through a grant.

The city's risk is already mitigated because it's reimbursed.

So if the project doesn't happen, the city's not out that I don't know.

We need to for me, I don't know, we need to put another layer of feasibility for something that's kind of risk mitigated at the back.

Okay, let's we got it.

We have one more work session.

So let's try to wrap up some of these bullet points.

Let's just go first.

So establishing a project minimum.

Can some people so I heard Counselor Guffin throw out 10,000 dollars?

Does anyone have a different opinion about that?

Go ahead, Counselor Falkner.

Yeah, I mean, I I think that this I find I I guess I'm gonna say I don't think that anything less than 20,000 is going to rise to the 60 point minimum.

Um and so that's that's one thing I'm sort of like kind of back the napkin, doing some like an application myself.

So I think 20,000 is probably the minimum minimum.

And especially if I mean now with it being required that it be a building improvement.

Okay, so I uh I saw a head nods on 20,000 from one, two, like five of us, six of us.

There's six.

Okay, so we're gonna go with 20,000 for the minimum cost threshold and then restrict funding.

Are we in agreement with that thumbs up?

So can't be used on portable, and then require it to be used for building improvement.

Yes.

And then what do we think about this financial feasibility through a letter of credit or no yes?

Okay.

Here's the next step.

So we'll update the website.

Um we'll bring a resolution forward um to the URA board for approval, then we'll update the website.

Grant application will open in July 1st and run to December 31st, 2026.

Um the EDC will review the applications in January of 27, and then we'll bring those applications to the URA board in February consideration.

Counselor Gusin.

So sorry, when we're done with the slide, can we just go back?

I have a question.

Okay, but we're back.

Oh, okay.

Um, so the last bullet must just demonstrate financial feasibility through letter of credit or other written confirmation that matching investment has been secured.

So counselor Schimmel was talking about other grants as well.

And is this going to be one of those situations where they've applied for another grant, they won't be able to do this unless they receive that other grant.

And so it is conditional on them receiving that grant.

And we've got somebody else, you know, next person in the hopper behind that, you know, person if it doesn't bring us up to that um top dollar amount, uh so we can bubble somebody up if they aren't able to do the project.

I don't understand.

I think I don't know.

Does that make sense?

I think she's saying create a waiting list.

So if somebody is relying on this grant and another funding source and that doesn't materialize that the money doesn't just sit there for the six months that we have somebody else, I guess that would be waiting in line for that funding.

How how have we done it in the past?

We've had enough funding for all the projects, so there hasn't been a need to have somebody in line.

And it's a reimbursement, so if the project doesn't happen, the city doesn't spend the money.

Yeah, I would just I mean, I we can discuss I mean, I don't know if we want to discuss this right now, but the way I look at it, Councilor Govson is that if some um if whatever hat like the project didn't pencil out, then that money would be added to the next year's.

It goes back into the URA.

Yeah, it goes goes back to the URA fund.

That would be no, and and that's fine.

That's fine.

Mostly it was about allowing that um contingency because there's people that work, I mean, all the time they work this grant along with this grant, and so they're trying to balance two grants to achieve one goal.

And if if we don't let them do it this way where it's contingent on this other grant, then they can keep going in a circle because they don't have that um full amount that they're really needing.

So being able to uh allow that um in our process would be very valuable to the businesses in building up.

I think in that other written confirmation that could be explained that they're looking at this other grant as their match.

Go ahead, Counselor Schummel and then Counselor Falconer, but really like five minutes.

Well, can can I can I uh I don't know if it's appropriate to propose a subcommittee, say offered counselor Guserson and myself to like come come back to staff with what what that complexity looks like.

And because I think that the way you've crafted this in isolation out of separate from outside funds is operable.

Um I think I think both counselor Falcon are uh sorry, Gusaston and I have have some affinity to the this outside sources, uh catalyzing that with local sources.

So I I I guess I would that's in a sense putting a pin in that for now and moving forward with this as it is, and then coming back with uh how do we get outside investment more productive to our business owners or property owners.

So I think what I'm been hearing uh maybe in let me make sure I'm my understanding is correct, is this idea of does it make sense to ask for financial feasibility when we know businesses are trying to stack grants and their cycles don't necessarily line up?

And I think with staff in the resolution and in the application that we can address that in a way that makes sense.

Um if I'm understanding what that concern is correctly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think so too.

And I think we can come back with with a resolution.

Counselor Guskin.

Um just to note that that as a business owner and as somebody that looks through grants often, I pass the ones by that say, you know, you must have this.

I'm gonna pass it by.

So if there's something else in there saying, but if you know, if you've got this other grant going, they're gonna miss that.

They're gonna go straight through their eligibility requirements, see that and move on.

Yes, uh, thank you for that feedback, counselor.

Well appreciated, and we will address that in the final document.

Okay, are there questions about the next steps?

Um, so you know the the thing too is this will be brought back on the February 13th meeting.

So if you're I mean, there's also time to if something pops up, but again, I think there's good work being done, and with any project, you just try to improve each time, right?

So we can continue to make adjustments as needed.

And I appreciate the the work that was done.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, so I'm gonna adjourn this work session and then we're gonna immediately start our next question.