Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Private Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery development board weighs public-private partnerships to jump-start downtown projects
Summary
At its Oct. 15 meeting the Montgomery board spent a lengthy discussion exploring public-private partnerships to finance downtown redevelopment, pilot a 50‑acre site across from Calhoun Church, and invite experts to advise on P3 structures and city incentives.
Board members at the Oct. 15 Montgomery County Development Corporation meeting discussed using public-private partnerships (P3s) to pursue redevelopment projects the city cannot fund on its own. An unidentified proponent said the city "is not funded to be able to pick up some of these projects" and argued the only way to kick them off is to form partnerships with private developers and businesses.
Members listed several potential uses for P3s: relocating or upgrading city hall or the police department, building community centers, streetscape and facade improvements, and new retail that private partners would help finance. A specific pilot site discussed was a roughly 50-acre parcel across from Calhoun Church; a board member said that would be a "really good one to start with" to test partnership arrangements.
Discussion also covered legal and policy steps: members said City Council involvement would be necessary for incentive structures, and the board raised concerns about tax abatements and the revenue trade-offs of long-term tax incentives (one member noted examples of tax relief lasting up to 10 years). Several members recommended inviting outside expertise — including a representative named Greg Statham and contacts at A&M or the Texas Municipal League — to present models other cities have used.
Board members agreed to pursue outreach and schedule additional conversation; they discussed adding a focused agenda item at an upcoming December meeting or calling a special meeting to hear expert presentations and initial proposals. No binding incentive or commitment was made at the Oct. 15 meeting; members framed the discussion as exploratory and directed staff and board members to convene interested developers and subject-matter experts for follow-up.
