►
From YouTube: Ken Bleakly TAD Presentation January 26, 2016
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening,
mayor
and
councilmembers,
we
just
wanted
to
briefly
highlight
a
couple
of
the
changes,
since
we
had
the
last
a
public
meeting
in
response
to
questions
that
you
asked-
and
this
is
you
received
a
copy
of
the
updated
River
District
redevelopment
plan
earlier
this
week,
and
these
changes
are
all
reflected
in
that
document.
We
just
thought:
we've
highlighted
them
because
there's
a
lot
of
material
in
there.
As
you
know,
the
proposal
for
the
redevelopment
of
the
redevelopment
area,
that
known
as
the
river
district
has
three
separate
ad
boundaries.
A
Three
separate
tad
areas
included
in
there.
The
tad
district
number
two
is
6th,
Avenue
Liberty
district,
which
is
shown
in
blue
on
the
map.
Tad
number
3
is
uptown,
which
is
shown
in
sort
of
an
orange
color,
and
tad
number
four
would
be
2nd
Avenue
in
City
Village,
and
that
that
has
not
changed
that
basic
boundary,
but
some
of
the
boundaries
have
changed
slightly
and
I'll
go
over
those.
The
Liberty
district
boundary
is
identical
to
what
we
had
discussed
at
the
last
meeting.
A
It's
around
296
acres,
the
area's
shown
in
blue
here
on
the
map
in
that
area
has
not
changed,
but
in
the
Uptown
area
there
was
a
change
that
was
made
to
exclude
a
property
that
we
had
previously
included.
Let
me
go
to
that
map.
If
you
look
at
the
uptown
district,
a
parcel,
zero,
zero,
four,
zero,
zero,
nine
zero,
zero
four,
which
is
basically
between
13th
and
14th
Street,
has
now
been
excluded.
Half
of
that
parcel
has
been
excluded
from
the
tad
district.
A
So,
if
you
look
on
the
map,
both
the
upper
map
shows
what
it
was
originally
and
then
today,
we've
got
it
taken
out.
That
area
is
part
of
the
River
Landing
project.
It
is
intended
at
this
point
to
be
I
believe
a
parking
deck
that
property
now
would
continue
on
the
city's
digest
and
the
advantage
of
doing
that
is.
You
will
receive
the
immediate
revenues
both
from
the
struction
and
from
the
valuation
of
that
parcel
in
part
to
offset
your
concern
about
the
reassessment
impacts,
so
that
project
moves
ahead.
A
That
part
of
that
project
will
actually
stay
on.
The
tax
rolls
will
not
be
included
in
the
tab,
that's
the
only
change
in
the
Uptown
boundary
and
then
on
tad
district
number,
four,
which
is
the
city
village
edge.
As
we
had
discussed
that
the
last
meeting
there
was
a
request
to
include
a
couple
parcels
north
of
Manchester
expressway,
which
you
can
see
it's
sort
of
that
curved
shaped
Halfmoon
shaped
parcels.
The
previous
boundary
ended
at
Manchester
Expressway
and
now
we've
added
I
think
it's
two
parcels
to
the
north
are
in
there.
A
So
that's
the
only
other
change
to
the
boundaries.
There
were
three
things
that
we
talked
about
at
the
last
meeting
needed
to
happen.
One
is
remembering
the
districts
and
given
that
you
have
approved
the
Benning
Tech
Park
astad
number
one
as
I
said:
we've
renumber
these
so
that
Liberty
district
would
be
Ted.
Number
two
uptown
will
be
Ted
number
three
and
City
Village
tad
number.
Four.
A
It
clearly
can
be
one
that
you
can
do
with
a
school
district
or,
if
you,
in
this
case,
if
you
were
municipality,
you
could
do
with
the
county,
but
it's
not
clear
that
the
sponsoring
jurisdiction
can
actually
create
a
pilot
to
itself.
So
looking
at
the
language,
the
conclusion
was
that
the
best
strategy
was
to
use
the
amendment
provision.
That's
in
the
law
in
section
44,
36,
10
B
has
a
provision
that
basically
allows
you
to
add
parcels
at
a
future
time,
so
you
could
potentially
add
a
couple
small
parcels
and
what
that
does.
A
Is
it
triggers
that
you
then
have
to
reset
the
base
to
the
year
that
you
had
those
parcels?
So
how
that
would
work
is
if
we
went
through
the
reassessment
process,
when
you
have
the
answer,
let's
say
in
the
middle
of
2017,
and
there
was
a
significant
difference
in
your
opinion:
councils
opinion
between
2016
and
2017
values.
A
What
you
could
do
is
amend
those
districts,
add
a
couple
small
parcels
and
that
would
set
the
base
to
that
2017
number
that
looks
to
be
the
cleanest
and
simplest
approach,
and
it
gives
you
total
option
to
do
it
or
not
do
it
depending
on
the
results
of
the
assessment
process.
So
you
have
this
tool,
you
can
use
it
at
any
time
once
those
assessments
are
done
and
if
it's
in
your
opinion,
the
the
differences
in
material,
you
don't
have
to
do
it.
But
if
you
came
back
said
wow,
it's
significant,
it's
a
couple
percent.
A
Then
you
just
do
the
amendment
process
and
that
seems
to
be
the
cleanest
simplest
way
to
deal
with
that
process.
So
our
recommendation
would
be
to
proceed
and
adopt
the
plan
this
year
set
the
base
in
2016.
That
will
allow
you
to
start
marketing
the
properties
to
get
attract
projects
into
the
three
tad
areas
and
you
can
move
ahead
and
then,
if
it
becomes
necessary
to
make
that
adjustment,
we
don't
anticipate.
There
will
be
any
debt
that
would
be
issued
in
that
previous
12
months,
and
that
would
mean
that
you
would
not
it.
A
The
other
thing
I
would
point
out,
as
I
mentioned
by
including
this
portion
of
the
river
landing
project
in
now,
including
taking
it
out
of
the
tad
and
leaving
it
in
the
city's
tax
base.
We
think
that
will
generate
several
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
the
short
term
to
the
city
in
2017
at
eighteen,
which
would
hopefully
help
offset
again.
A
It
is
my
I
am
not
an
attorney,
but
it's
my
understanding
from
talking
to
sharing
a
about
this,
that
the
current
law,
the
way
it's
worded
says
boards
and
authorities,
so
I
would
think.
Potentially
it
would
include
them,
but
it's
very
vague.
The
language
is
in
the
statute.
Is
it's
not
it's
not
totally
clear.
Let.
D
Me
follow
up
on
that
Mayor
Pro
Tem!
That's
the
way
we
read
it
because
the
statute
is
written
so
broadly,
and
the
school
board
attorney
has
looked
at
it
and
I
believe
he
reads
it
the
same
way
that
it
would
cover
the
school
board
and
through
ms
gay,
the
lawyer
in
Atlanta
and
others
we're
trying
to
get
that
state
law
addressed,
get
the
General
Assembly
to
take
another
look
at
it,
because
it
is
so
broad
that
it
prohibits.
D
D
E
You
mayor
all
right,
just
so
I
understand,
I,
guess
what
we're
asked
to
do.
Some
some
of
us
I
think
have
some
serious
concerns
about
thee.
It's
not
the
amount
of
money.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
and
I've
spoke
with
mr.
Bishop
about
this.
The
idea
that
there's
this
huge
difference
that's
gonna
be
uncovered.
When
we
set
the
baseline,
then
look
at
it
a
year
later.
I,
don't
think
that's
gonna
happen
for
me.
It's
the
principle
of
this
is
not
my
money.
E
This
money
belongs
to
the
taxpayers
who
are
living
in
that
district
and
it
actually
in
terms
of
what
it
can
mean
in
terms
of
fulfilling
our
operational
obligations.
It
belongs
to
the
entire
entire
community.
So
for
me,
it's
more
about
getting
an
accurate
baseline,
at
least
that's
my
perspective.
So
what
I
understand
is
we're
gonna,
adopt
a
district
that
we
know
going
in
we're
gonna
change
and
then,
in
you
say
in
2017.
Yes,.
E
Right
so
in
the
twenty
and
2017,
what
we
would
do
is
I
assume.
We
would
withhold
the
funding
of
any
projects
till
then
and
that
those
particular
areas
move
a
boundary
line,
call
a
piece
of
property,
and
then
it
would
reset
everything
to
that
for
a
calculation
to
draw
a
new
baseline
based
on
the
assessed
value.
As
of
2017.
That.
E
Your
option
I
just
in
the
reason,
I
stay
this
because
I
make
sure
I
understand
it,
because
I'm,
okay
with
that
and
I,
don't
really
have
a
problem
approving
any
of
these
Tad's,
because
all
we're
doing
is
we're
we're
setting
our
easel
so
to
speak.
What
we
draw
on
it
is
entirely
up
to
us
right
and
and
to
that
point
I
would
encourage
anybody.
That's
got
a
project
in
their
back
pocket
that
they're
looking
to
pursue.
I
harken
back
to
what
happened
with
brac.
We
were
expecting
37,000
people
and
people
started.
Building
like
crazy.
E
Don't
get
your
cart
in
front
of
our
horse
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
projects
that
are
presented
are
projects
that
are
amenable
that
we
all
agree
on
and
I
still
struggle.
Frankly,
with
with
with
this
economic
development
tool
in
some
areas
that
are
already
experiencing
pretty
solid
redevelopment,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understood
it
I'm
not
going
to
be
problem
supporting
the
tad
districts
themselves.
F
F
D
B
B
E
E
G
G
A
Really
a
policy
question
for
you,
you
legally,
you
could
do
it
you
just
you
wouldn't
practically
you
either
do
one
or
the
other.
There
are
examples
where
they
have
had
within
Tad's.
The
companies
taken.
The
abatement
instead
of
the
Ted
and
kind
of
the
argument
is:
if
the
district
is
already
growing,
then
that
doesn't
really
harm
that
does
it
does
great
a
deficit,
but
the
rule
generally
is
if
you're
in
the
dad.
That's
the
preferred
methodology
and.
G
I
would
agree
and
I
would
like,
maybe
if
mr.
Jones
could
look
at
that.
Yes,
the
city
attorney
possibly
update
our
or
just
bring
us
some
information
about
updating
our
policies.
That
just
doesn't
make
a
business
standpoint
to
to
allow
somebody
to
opt
out
for
all.
You
know:
tax
abatement
when
you're
going
to
depend
on
those
tax
dollars
to
make
the
bond
payments.
So
if
you
put
you
in
a
bad
spot,
so
if
mr.
G
Jones
could
look
at
that
from
a
policy
standpoint
before
we
go
too
far,
past
March
and
then
my
last
question
is
on
the
the
bond
repayments.
Is
it
I
know
every
six
months,
I
assume
you
make
the
interest
payments?
Is
it
a
sinking
fund
tight
where
you
reserve
the
principal
and
pay
it
off
at
the
end,
or
is
it
amortized
down?
He
advertises.
A
B
H
H
I
will
not
support
the
Liberty
district
I'm,
all
in
agreement
with
it,
but
I'm,
not
in
agreement
with
the
South
Commons
area
of
the
impart
of
it
and
the
reason
being
behind
that,
whether
it's
current,
whether
it's
potential,
whether
it's
future
city
interest,
I,
think
that
it
would.
It
would
be
a
conflict
to
keep
it
in
the
tad.
At
this
point,.
H
Not
some
common
South
Commons
and
it's
a
potential
only
city
land,
I,
think
it's
very
clear.
I've
had
numerous
conversations
with
several
entities
in
this
room.
Several
people
in
this
room
and
I
think
it's
well
understood
what
I
mean
by
this
and
my
concern.
So
there
shouldn't
be
any
question:
okay,.
H
B
B
H
B
H
B
I
Just
want
to
be
very
clear
exactly
which
properties
we're
talking
about
and
exactly
where
those
lines
are
I
know
generally
what
councillor
Davis
has
outlined,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we've
got
them
and
it
may
be
that
tonight
may
not
be
the
time
to
do
that.
It
may
be
again
that,
when
we
actually
vote
on
this
in
March
that
those
be
drawn
the
I'm,
assuming
that,
basically,
what
he's
talking
about
are
the
softball
fields
is
it
go
all?
E
E
What
we're
talking
about
carving
out
and
and
another
question
to
sort
of
aside
from
that
is
I,
guess
the
same
options
apply
so
that
if
there
were
ever
a
need
to
adjust
that,
if
we
want
to
move
that
boundary,
we
could
do
that
and
it
would
reset
that
area
as
well.
The.
A
A
E
J
Bits
to
the
motion,
I
too,
will
look
right
to
see
just
to,
instead
of
imagine
it
and
then
I
would
like
a
little
bit
more
explanation
on.
Why
would
the
other
parcels
at
it
because
of
all
our
conversation
and
when
councillor
Glenn
brought
this
Davis?
His
concern
was
golden
Park
because
of
the
fact
that
the
possibility
Georgia
can
give
us
a
casino
or
probably
because
there's
someone
interested
in
buying
the
property
so
I
knew.
That
was
the
reason
why
we
wanted
to
take
that
out.
J
But
why
are
we
taking
out
South
common
in
the
Civic
Center?
If
that
doesn't
generate
taxes
anyway,
and
if,
if
I
understood
you
correctly,
if
it's
not
in
the
district,
okay
and
something
goes
wrong,
let's
say
the
sidewalk
something
happens
to
the
sidewalk,
then
the
funding
from
the
tab
will
not
cover
it,
because
it's
not
in
the
time,
and
we
would
have
to
find
that
funding
to
fix
that
piece
of
property
later.
Is
that
correct?
Well,.
A
J
So
I,
don't
you
know-
and
it's
too
quick
to
say
I
have
to
get
some
answers,
but
I
I
don't
see
the
benefit
of
removing
the
Civic
Center
nor
the
South
common
area,
the
golden
part
I'm
not
too
excited
but
I'll.
You
know
it's
acceptable
because
we
could
still
go
back
and
we
draw
the
lines
but
I'm
having
some
crunch,
some
other
property
that
belongs
to
us.
That
can
benefit
from
it
because
we're
not
gonna
sell
that
property.
It
belongs
to
the
public.
So
mayor
I'm
not
ready
to
vote.
Okay
until.