Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney outlines Kroger PILOT payment history and urges city-authority talks over revenue sharing
Summary
Authority counsel told the board the city has collected roughly $9.83 million in PILOT proceeds tied to the Kroger transaction while the Downtown Development Authority collected about $1.72 million in fees; counsel suggested the DA and city explore sharing some funds to support authority activities.
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney Kirby Glaze briefed the board on legal background and accounting history tied to the Kroger transaction and Fort Gillum property, urging a joint discussion with city officials.
Glaze said the city has collected about $9,833,000 in payments on the PILOT-like payments associated with the Kroger transaction and that the Downtown Development Authority has, over related transactions, collected about $1,724,000 in fees. By Glaze's calculation, had the Development Authority charged the same fee schedule it might have collected just over $5,000,000 from those transactions. Glaze stressed that some of the underlying documents predate his involvement and he had not seen executed copies of all agreements, and he cautioned that reclaiming sold properties would require funds and could trigger litigation.
Glaze presented those figures as context for a policy question: should the city and the authority negotiate a revenue-sharing approach to help fund the authority's operations and programs? He recommended a first step of an executive-level meeting among the development-authority chair, the mayor, the city manager and attorneys to see whether common ground exists before pursuing formal public action.
Board members acknowledged the information and asked for updates; Glaze said he would be available to attend discussions with the city attorney. No formal motion or legal action was taken at the meeting; Glaze framed the item as informational and strategic next steps were to be scheduled between authority and city officials.
The figures and the recommendation were presented by counsel; the board did not adopt any new agreement during the session.

