Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Industrial Development Board Meeting: The Standard Project Economic Impact Plan - February 10, 2026

Board of Mayor and Aldermen & City Boards — Tuesday, February 10, 2026

BodyGermantown, Tennessee

SessionBoard of Mayor and Aldermen & City Boards

DateTuesday, February 10, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:42:32

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:04

It is 6 30, and so we will call this meeting of the Germantown Industrial Development Board to order.

0:12

At this time, would you call a roll to establish a quorum?

0:18

Mr.

0:19

Yonda.

0:20

Mr.

0:21

Harless.

0:22

Here.

0:22

Ms.

0:23

Ham.

0:24

Chairman Evans.

0:26

Yes, we have one more member of the board who is in route, so we he will be joining us shortly.

0:32

At this time, the next item on our agenda after establishing the quorum is to approve the minutes from our two January meetings.

0:42

At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve them individually.

0:47

Mr.

0:47

Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes.

0:51

This will be the first meeting, which was on January the 5th.

0:59

We now have a fifth member of the board seating.

1:06

Minute, we have a motion to approve and a second.

1:09

All in favor of approving the minutes of the January 5th meeting say aye.

1:13

Aye.

1:14

Any opposed?

1:15

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

1:17

The next motion will be to approve the minutes of the January 20th meeting.

1:22

Mr.

1:23

Chairman, I make a motion we approve January 20th minutes.

1:28

A second.

1:33

Hearing none, all in favor of approving the minutes of the January 20th meeting.

1:38

Please say aye.

1:42

Our next item will be citizens to be heard.

1:45

We have a few people who have signed up to address the board tonight.

1:50

We appreciate you being here.

1:52

We appreciate all of you being here tonight.

1:55

We will have not a full presentation as we did at the public hearing, but we will have a recap of those presentations, and we will also be addressing, I believe, some of the questions that may have been raised during the public hearing.

2:12

Those of you who have indicated you wish to speak, there will be a three-minute time limit.

2:18

We will be giving you a 30-minute 30-second, excuse me, 30-second warning before your three minutes expires.

2:26

I would suggest if any of you also spoke at the public hearing that it would not be necessary to repeat everything from that meeting, but please, any points you wish to make, try to get them in within the three minutes.

2:39

Cameron.

2:41

Thank you, Mr.

2:42

Chairman.

2:43

First up is Ms.

2:44

Susan Burnett.

2:48

Can you repeat that?

2:51

Yes.

2:52

Miss Susan Burnett, yes.

2:54

Yes, ma'am.

2:55

Would you please uh state your name and your address, please?

2:59

Uh Susan Burnett 2223 Ottaburn Lane in Germantown.

3:04

Thank you very much.

3:05

I emailed each of you my factual analysis of why the standards proposal for TIFF financing should be rejected.

3:13

My arguments must have been pretty persuasive.

3:15

As someone forwarded my email to Mr.

3:17

Orgel's consultant, who then proceeded to contact voting members attempting to refute my arguments.

3:23

I wonder who this person has allegiance to, the Germantown taxpayer or the developer.

3:30

In contrast, I'm allowed only three minutes to speak and without the benefit of the consultant's retorts.

3:37

Let me remind you that this property was purchased in 2022 and subsequently demolished only to ask for TIFF financing four years later.

3:50

Is this project won't be built without a TIFF.

3:53

I must assume this project means this exact project, as I find it hard to believe that a well-established developer could stay in business while paying 17 million dollars for property, allowing all the tenant leases to expire, raising the property, and after four years continue to sit on an undeveloped 17 million dollar investment while paying 108,000 a year in annual property taxes.

4:21

There's no way that this property won't be developed in some form or letting it versus letting it sit vacant.

4:28

Thornwood, also a multi-use development, has been in development over the last 10 years without a TIFF.

4:35

Analogous to the standards proposed phase two TIFF property, the smaller Thornwood Apartment Complex alone generated $419,000 in unrestricted property tax revenue in 2025.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Economic Development█████████████████████████████████████████████70%

Procedural██████10%

Public Safety█████7%

Public Engagement███5%

Fiscal Sustainability██3%

Engineering And Infrastructure██3%

Zoning█1%

Education█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Industrial Development Board Meeting: The Standard Project Economic Impact Plan - February 10, 2026

The Germantown Industrial Development Board (IDB) met on February 10, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall to consider approval of an Economic Impact Plan (EIP) for The Standard project, a mixed-use development proposed by CRE Devco Germantown, LLC. The plan includes a request for tax increment financing (TIF) with a maximum cap of $35.5 million over 20 years. After receiving public comments and presentations from staff and the developer, the board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the EIP and transmit it to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and the Shelby County Commission for final approval.

Consent Calendar

Minutes Approval: The board approved the minutes from its January 5 and January 20 meetings by separate motions, each passing unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

Susan Burnett (2223 Ottaburn Lane) urged rejection of the TIF, arguing the project would not need a subsidy and that the city would lose over $9 million in property tax revenue over 20 years, using Thornwood as a comparison.
Dare Stock (1632 Holly Hill Drive) expressed adamant opposition, stating the TIF "robs citizens" and questioned the developer’s financing, adding that the city’s property taxes already rose 30%.
Sarah Freeman (7684 Appahon Lane) opposed the TIF on grounds of precedent and conflict of interest (noting a board member’s involvement), and said the developer should have anticipated costs.
Lillian Landrighan (1635 Holly Hill) urged a no vote, calling the $35 million TIF a subsidy that would shift costs to residents, increase traffic, and set a dangerous precedent.
Louise Wilson (9018 Jenner Road) questioned the TIF’s necessity—the site is not blighted—and highlighted risks if the project fails, noting lack of details about guarantees, competition with Thornwood, and the 75% tax diversion.
Pauline Latham (6958 Country Road) opposed the TIF, stating existing taxpayers shoulder burdens while new development gets a break, and that Thornwood succeeded without a TIF.
Patrick Green (2900 Oakley Lane) opposed the $22 million (his estimate) diversion of taxes, arguing the developer already proved viability with Phase 1 built privately, and that residents are held to higher standards.

Discussion Items

Staff Presentation: Cameron, IDB staff, reviewed the TIF policy, process, and project alignment with the Western Gateway Small Area Plan. He noted the $65 million capital improvement threshold and $5 million infrastructure minimum; The Standard exceeds both with over $130 million in improvements and $35 million in eligible infrastructure.
Developer Presentation: The developer’s representative addressed misinformation, emphasized that the TIF is not a giveaway but a tool to fund infrastructure using future growth. He noted the project’s $130 million investment, 320 lofts (assessed as commercial at 40%, not residential 25%), 88,000 sq ft of retail, and controlled-access security measures. He argued the project cannot proceed without the TIF ("but for" test met via sworn affidavit).
Financial Consultant Presentation: Reed Dolberger explained the TIF math: total property tax revenue after Phase 1 & 2 completion estimated at $762,000/year for the city. The city retains base year tax ($108,860), debt service millage, and 24.75% of increment; developer gets 75% of increment. County side: total tax ~$1.145 million, with similar splits. Total combined annual property tax to city/county is about $768,000 to taxing bodies, $1.1 million to project, and $43,000 in fees.
Board Questions: Members clarified that the TIF period begins only after phases are complete and appraised; the $35.5 million cap is based on eligible public infrastructure costs; the developer is seeking a $14.5 million loan against approved TIF revenues; the TIF can be assigned if property is sold, subject to a development agreement with benchmarks; the split between city and county TIF contributions is approximately 42% city, 58% county, all directed to infrastructure on the site.
Board Member Comments: One member noted the site currently generates ~$70,000/year in property tax; post-development, the city will receive at least $301,944/year in property tax even with the TIF (base plus 25% increment), plus sales tax. Another emphasized the importance of commercial growth (assessed at 40%) to stabilize residential property taxes.

Key Outcomes

Motion: Board member Yonda moved to approve the Economic Impact Plan for The Standard of Germantown, with a maximum incremental tax cap not to exceed $35,500,000, and transmit the plan to the Germantown Board of Mayor and Aldermen and the Shelby County Commission with a recommendation for approval. The motion was seconded.
Vote: The board voted 5-0 in favor: Yonda (yes), Hendricks (yes), Ham (yes), Harless (yes), Chairman Evans (yes).
Next Steps: The approved EIP and associated resolution are forwarded to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and Shelby County Commission for final approval. If approved, a development agreement will be executed outlining benchmarks and timelines.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com