City council members attended the advisory committee meeting to briefly discuss the council’s role in funding decisions and to answer members’ questions about priorities.

Council member Katie Klitsky (first introduced in the meeting) said the council’s view is to prioritize limited TIF dollars for projects that help a development reach completion or that assist smaller developers who otherwise could not execute a project. Klitsky summarized the council’s position: “there are concerns that we have around this funding that isn't in the code... we do really wanna see these limited dollars go to things that are really going to enhance the neighborhood in ways that wouldn't have already happened through our ordinary processes or who help developers that maybe couldn't quite do the project.”

Several committee members urged better two‑way communication. Kimberly Lawrence said she was “disappointed to hear that we had someone who voted in favor and now, regrets that decision,” and asked whether decisions can be remanded back to the recommending body; Kevin replied that remand is rare for this advisory body because its authority is created by a short resolution sentence and not explicit in city code. The committee and council discussed options for improved outreach (adding council members and their staff to meeting mailings, occasional agenda check‑ins) and agreed that staff would share agendas and materials more consistently.

Members also discussed adopting a clearer scoring or enthusiasm metric in committee recommendations to provide council with more precise guidance. The chair and several members supported building objective scoring criteria (for economic development, pedestrian safety, or urgency) and Kevin offered to present possible procedures in January or February. The discussion ended with agreement to continue liaison practices and to aim for clearer documentation of committee priorities going into 2026.