Merriam City Council spent substantial time discussing a draft Community Improvement District (CID) policy that would establish how the city would consider point‑of‑sale tax increments to help finance redevelopment projects.

The policy presentation, given by staff member Chris Eagle, outlined how a CID would work, the preferred finance approach and the city’s guardrails. "CID is essentially a tax at the point of sale," Eagle said, describing the mechanics and the recommended 2% CID maximum increment and a city contribution target of under 30% of total incentives.

Councilmembers focused on transparency and contract safeguards. Mr. Silvers proposed requiring visible notice to customers that a CID applies and the added percentage; Eagle and other staff said the policy can be framed to 'view more favorably' projects that include customer notification and that final details would be spelled out in each redevelopment agreement. Councilmember Shraddha suggested the notification requirement be handled in each redevelopment agreement rather than as a one‑size policy mandate.

Members pressed staff for clearer legal and financial language. Councilmember Hans flagged wording on financing exceptions and asked staff to have bond counsel and the city’s financial advisor clarify two specific exceptions in the draft. Eagle said those passages were drafted with input from bond counsel and a financial advisor and offered to bring back clarified text.

On performance and accountability, Eagle described the city’s preference for PAYGO reimbursement (no bonds) and for staged clawbacks tied to project benchmarks: "We will reimburse you for 20% of the value of this item until you do item B. Once you do item B, we'll reimburse you 40%..." he said, explaining how phased reimbursement would enforce delivery of agreed milestones.

Council also asked for explicit language that developers remain current on property‑tax obligations (or pay under protest) and for edits to several editorial items (wording such as "earlier" to "early"). After questions and suggested changes, the council chose not to adopt the policy that night and directed staff to return with the clarified language from bond counsel, property‑tax/payment language for redevelopment agreements, and the proposed transparency/notification language.

The council’s action was procedural: staff will revise the draft CID policy and return with edits and counsel clarifications for further consideration at a future meeting.