TIF #3 Board of Directors Minutes - 10/15/2025 MINUTES
Tax Increment Financing #3 Board
October 15, 2025
PRESENT:
Kenneth Haney, Chairperson •Member
Councilman Tom Taylor •Member
Councilman Robert Brooks •Member
Sandra Gross •Member
Mark Beauchamp •Member
Ray Dixon, Jr. •Member
Barry Mahler •Member
Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager •City Staff.
Kinley Hegglund, City Attorney •Legal Dept
Kaitlin LeVasseur, Budget Analyst •City Staff
Tyson Traw, Deputy Director Public Works •City Staff
Fabian Medellin, Interim Development Services Director •Staff Liaison
Karen Montgomery-Gagne, Principal Planner •Staff Liaison
Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant •City Staff
ABSENT:
N/A
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mr. Kenneth Haney at 3:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Haney asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to ask any
questions, or had any comments. No comments were made.
County Commissioner Mark Beauchamp made a motion to adopt the September 3,
2025, minutes and Mr. Barry Mahler seconded the motion.
Chairman Haney asked if anyone had any comments, and no additional comments were
made.
Chairman Haney took the motion to vote, and it was approved unanimously 7-0.
III. Discussion and consider taking action to adopt a private project scoring matrix.
Mr. Fabian Medellin explained the ten criteria for the proposed scoring matrix, and
explained the point system for the scoring.
Tax Increment Financing#t3 Board Meeting PAGE 2 October 15,2025
Scoring Process
The scoring matrix consists of ten (10) criteria and can be awarded up to ten (10) points
for each category. The awarding of points is an objective review of information provided
by the applicant and their proposal. A set score of 70 will be used as a baseline for an
acceptable application for awarding. Each criterion will have a set of data needed by the
applicant to be awarded points. With the exclusion of the TIF Allocation Request
Percentage criteria, all other categories will be awarded the full ten points if the information
is provided or meets a minimum measure.
Scoring Criteria
1. Completed Application — The applicant provided all necessary information required
in the TIF Board-approved proposal application. If all items are provided, all ten points
will be awarded.
2. Project Eligibility (Business Development) — The approved financial plan outlines
that TIF funds can be awarded to:
"Provide leverage for private projects that will offer employment, tax base enhancement,
and needed services."
For each proposal, the applicant must show that the project will meet one of the outlined
goals of the Financial Plan Proposed Projects, all within the framework of"enhancing the
tax base and viability of the area". The full ten points will be awarded if one of the goals
of Business Development is met.
3. Blight Reversal—The Texas Local Government Code allows for the creation of a TIF
Reinvestment Zone under strict eligibility requirements, one of which is the number of
deteriorating structures causing an impairment of growth to the City, and creates a
concern to public health, safety, morals, and welfare. This criterion is intended to award
projects that improve the integrity of a structure and its exterior or construct a new
structure. If the proposed project reverses the blight within the district, ten points will be
awarded.
4. Applicant Indebtedness — The TIF funds are intended to be leveraged to support
private projects. The TIF funds should be used as another layer in a project's financing
stack. This indebtedness criterion gauges whether an applicant was awarded a loan to
support the project financing. If a loan is granted, then the full ten points are awarded.
5. Developer&TIF Investment Comparison —This category is to ensure the applicant
is responsible for a majority of the investment for the proposed project. The investment
for a private project is incumbent on the owner to provide a majority of funding in place
of the taxpayer. To be awarded for this category, the applicant's investment, excluding
loans, must exceed the requested TIF funds. If the criteria are met, ten points will be
awarded.
6. Alternative Funding — For projects to be successful, it is common to have multiple
sources of funding. This category identifies whether the applicant has sought out other
sources of funding, such as other investors or grants. If the owner shows in their
application that other funding sources are used, then the ten points will be awarded.
7. Project Readiness (Financing) — It is essential to determine a project's readiness to
take action towards project completion before awarding funds. This category examines
financial readiness and, based on the application, determines whether all funding is in
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 3 October 15,2025
4000., place, excluding the requested TIF funds, to take action if awarded. If the proposed
project has the necessary funding, excluding the requested TIF funds, then the
application is awarded the category's ten points.
8. Project Readiness (Permitting) — In order to determine an accurate estimated cost,
it is often necessary to have construction/ renovation plans prepared before seeking
finance. This criterion examines whether a project has the necessary construction
documentation to move forward with the project if awarded. If a project has the required
construction documentation and the project is ready for permitting,then the full ten points
for the category will be awarded.
9. Project Sustainability — The goal of the TIF district is to reverse the course of a
declining area and do so for many years to come. In order for a project to do so, an
applicant must show a project flow of income and expenditures to be sustainable over
the three-year projections required as part of the application. If the application projections
show a sustainable organization/project,then the criteria's full ten points will be awarded.
10. TIF Allocation Request Percentage — This category is the only criterion designed
to be awarded, ranging from zero to ten points. The points are awarded based on the
amount of funds requested compared to the overall TIF private projects funds allocated
from the inception of the district to the year requested. This percentage is intended to
gauge the overall TIF funds awarded for a single project and help divide funds over
multiple projects. The following chart will be used to determine the number of points
awarded for each request:
TIF Allocation Request Percentage Points Awarded
0-9.99% 10 Points
10%-19.99% 9 Points
20%-29.99% 8 Points
30%-39.99% 7 Points
40%-49.99% 6 Points
50%-59.99% 5 Points
60%-69.99% 4 Points
70%-79.99% 3 Points
80%-89.99% 2 points
90%-99.99% 1 Point
100%-> 0 Points
TIF Reinvestment Zone#3 Project Scorecard
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 4 October 15,2025
Max Points
Criterion Description Points Awarded
1 Completed application 10
2 Project Eligibility-Business 10
Development
3 Blight Reversal 10
4 Applicant Indebtedness 10
5 Developer&TIF Investment 10
Comparison
6 Alternative Funding 10
7 Project Readiness(Finance) 10
Nagle
8 Project Readiness (Permitting) 10
9 Project Sustainability 10
10 TIF Allocation Request Percentage 10
Total Score
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 5 October 15,2015
There was discussion among the Board members regarding #7 and #8, and it was
suggested to move those two items up to the top two criterion places.
Ms. Sandra Gross asked about the current applications, and noted that the board is only
seeing these two applications because they had requested to see them. Mr. Medellin
said, of the two applications before the board today one was scored a 35 and the other
was scored a 23 on the scoring matrix.
Mr. Ray Dixon, Jr. asked who actually helps the applicants with the application process.
Mr. Medellin stated that staff tries to help, but we aren't accountants. We try to fill in those
gaps where we can, and point the applicants in directions of other resources to help them
fill in the applications.
Mr. Beauchamp stated that we need to remember that these funds are public funds, that
there are regulations and restrictions, and a lot of documentation is required as there is
extra scrutiny when you're dealing with public funds. The matrix that we will be using will
be a guideline for us to go by.
There were questions, complaints and comments from members of the audience about
the application and funding process of this TIF#3 fund. It was brought up and discussed
why we are years into this TIF with no approved applications as of yet. It was noted that
it took time for the funds to accumulate. (It was stated that this current board is almost
completely new since earlier this year.) Ms. Gross and other board members commented
that they are trying to move forward and get questions answered so they can make the
decisions needed.
Ms. Josie Rose spoke up and voiced her dissatisfaction with the process.
Mr. Dwight Haywood came to the podium and spoke of frustration when he had applied
for a funding program (which was not the current TIF3 fund). He stated that the residents
need help. They need direction and need help to complete the process.
Councilman Tom Taylor took a moment to explain to the public that the board is fully aware
of the pain they have seen from people that could benefit from this program. The Board's
goal is to correct that. The first step, especially with the fiscal responsibility that we have,
is to set up a format to evaluate the grants, but to evaluate them so that we can give
transparency.
Madeline Chappell asked why the board can't come up with something to help business
leaders in the community that this fund is meant to help. She stated, "we don't have the
income,we don't have the paperwork,we don't have money for attorneys and accountants
and CPA's. We can't get loans from banks." She voiced her dissatisfaction with the
applicants having to come up with the money first, and then the board matching an
amount. She asked why there wasn't already a set program for the East side? She said
the board should come up with a program to help black businesses, minority businesses
on the east side to bring dirt for them to get out of the flood zone. She suggested that a
lake should be made on the east side, let the water drain and get the infrastructure fixed.
Mr. Douglas Johnson came forward to describe a similar experience as Mr. Howard. He
runs a carwash on MLK Jr. and has two other jobs to stay afloat.
Mr. Tim McMahill spoke up on behalf of the Zoom Zoom store owner, stating that the store
is a necessity for the people on the east side. There is nothing else over there for residents
to get groceries or necessities, while the rest of the town has many choices including the
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 6 October 15,2025
new Winco that just opened off of Kell. The residents on the east side have to walk to and
from Zoom Zoom, in all of the elements. He stated it is heartbreaking.
Mr. Medellin interjected that it is his job to help the board make decisions, to take action.
By the end of this meeting, this board will have made more decisions, taken more actions,
in just the last month, since the inception of the fund in 2009. He continued, "my goal is
to make you guys make decisions to benefit the community." Speaking to Ms. Chappell,
he said "that's my goal, to provide an opportunity, whether it's mom and pop or a Fortune
500 company." It starts today with basically setting some standard on what the board is
going to say is an acceptable application, an acceptable product. If it does need more
work, then we can get into the weeds and help them out as much as we can. But
unfortunately, the staff can't help with the bookkeeping and taxes. He said he would do
everything he can to help.
It was asked what happened to the prior board, and why hasn't there been one decision
made since 2009 on some of these people. Chairman Haney stated that there had been
a lack of participation where people would sign up to be a board member and then would
not attend meetings. He also stated that the board had not been presented information
where they could evaluate and make a determination as to the feasibility and the ability
for the board to finance, or not to finance, individuals who made the application.
County Commissioner Beauchamp made a motion to approve the scoring matrix and
scorecard with the modification of items #7, #8 & #2 moved up to positions 1, 2 & 3 on
the scorecard, and if they receive a zero that the project is put on hold until such time as
those items can be provided up to standard. Mr. Mahler seconded the motion.
Chairman Haney asked if there were any public comments, and there no additional
comments.
voiv
Chairman Haney took the motion to vote, and the motion carried, 7-0.
IV. Discussion and Consider Taking Action to Adopt Project Financing Mechanism
Policy
Mr. Medellin explained that the last meeting the board adopted an allocation policy.
Having 40% for private projects, 40% of funds for public projects and 20% discretionary
funds. The breakdown for the currently 1.5 million would be; 40% - $631,000 for public
and private projects. With 20% - $315,000 for discretionary projects or funding.
He continued explaining how the TIF funds were meant to bridge a gap between what the
applicant could provide and what the bank would lend, so as to make this thing happen
for the owner and for the community. The intent behind that is to serve and provide for as
many projects as possible. He also explained how the past contracts and agreements
were set up, and provided the board with the 2012 contract.
He stated that the TIF3 fund should be changed to match similarly to what is done in our
other economic development boards (4B, even at the City Council level.), and to modify
that agreement to a forgivable loan. Adding that it is still reimbursed, but there are
opportunities to inject funds to different phases within the project. That way there is always
progress. "In addition to the forgivable loan, there are means to secure, reimburse it
typically through liens on a property, ensuring that project will stay operational. Over a
five-year period, essentially after the completion of the project, after that new building is
built, five years later, the loan, the lien, are waived and forgiven. Then looking at a specific
percentage. As I mentioned, the two funds are intended to be a layer in that cake, a
connection between what the homeowner or the business owner, the developer, can do
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 7 October 15,20?5
and what the bank's requiring." He continued, "We want to ensure that the public funds
aren't being awarded to a project that's too risky. One of the criteria that you just approved
in your matrix is, are the developers investments exceeding the TIF funds? That's the
same approach that we would like to take for the mechanism, which, as I mentioned,
typically a developer up front or pays about 20% of a project. In that instance, we would
want to award no more than 10%, or half of what a developer would typically be required
to pay for a project. Those funds, reimbursed funds (that award) could be interjected at
different phases of the project. It's very project-specific because not every project is the
same. A new build is not the same as a remodel. It could be done at demolition, if there is
demolition, permitting, certificate of occupancy, and then lease and operation. Some of
that will be, as I mentioned, at your discretion because of each project's uniqueness. That
is staffs recommendation that we modify that agreement with these terms and model it
similar to our other economic boards."
Ms. Gross clarified, to accept this as written would be to give them a loan, with a decrease
of 20% over five years, and probably put a lien on the property. That would put some
swiftness on the owner's part to accept it and get it done, and improve their business.
Councilman Taylor expressed his concern that this would contradict what the
residents/business owners of the east side are expressing that they need. Mr. Medellin
explained that it is contradictory to what the community needs versus what is expected of
us. What is expected of us not only by the homeowners and business owners that are
paying their annual taxes every year, but also by the State. This information we have to
provide to the state. We are audited on our funds and we are legally obligated to be
accountable for those funds in the event of the seller selling the property, death, or
something goes south. It would be a way to recoup funds in such an event.
There is an incentive to progress through the phases, and they can be tiered or structured.
There can be payouts between phases, and you can have deadlines between phases.
Chairman Haney asked if there were any additional comments, and there were none.
The recommendation is to modify the contract to a forgivable loan amount with liens. That
will be forgivable over five years, after the project completion.There is also a project award
of no more than 10% of the overall project cost to be dispersed at various phases during
the project.This is the option that staff is recommending. Mr. Medellin advised in the future
the Commission would have discretion to amend.
Mr. Gene Buchanan, compared the proposed requirements to a previous project in TIF#1
and asked why they can't be the same requirements as in previous districts instead or
making it harder. Mr. Medellin advised TIF #1 has different Board members, a different
geographical area, and a different financing base.
Mr. Dwight Haywood, citizen and business owner stated we should help the people help
themselves and that excuses were being made about which TIF Board does what. Mr.
Haywood stated it needed to be equal and fair and that he has been requesting funding
since 2016 and that the paperwork was too much and his credit wasn't good. He stated
the Board is not helping the people.
Mr. Medellin stated the Board would determine if the forgivable loan would be over two
years, or five years. More discussion from the public regarding their wishes to see the
payback timeline to be two years and not five years.
Chairman Haney asked Mr. Medellin to recap staffs recommendation.
County Commissioner Beauchamp made a motion to recommend the project financing
Awe mechanism policy as presented by staff. The motion was seconding by Mr. Mahler A
Commission
Tax Increment Financing S3 Board Meeting PAGE 8 October 15,2025
member then had a question. Mr. Hegglund advised once a motion has been made and
seconded, that it must be voted on. If the motion does not pass then a new motion could
be made.
County Commissioner Beauchamp and Mr. Mahler both withdrew their motion and
second. Commissioner Beauchamp made a new motion to accept the recommendation of
staff with the forgivable loan being repaid in three years instead of five. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Sandra Gross. Chairman Haney asked if there was any discussion by
the Board. With no discussion Chairman Haney took the motion to a vote, and it carried,
7-0.
V. Funding Request— 1301 MLK Jr. Blvd. —Mohammad Kabir
Mrs. Montgomery-Gagne stated the requests staff would present were the most complete
applications staff had received in sixteen years. Mrs. Montgomery-Gagne advised she
had an application from Mr. Haywood on her desk since July of 2023 and hoped to
continue to work with Mr. Haywood to have a more complete application to bring before
the Board.
Mrs. Montgomery-Gagne stated this application request was for$120,840 from the Board
with a total project cost of $150,840 for Zoom Zoom #5, a sole proprietorship owned by
Mr. and Mrs. Mohammad Kabir located at 1301 MLK Jr. Blvd. Mr. Kabir has been renting
this unit in the strip center since 2010 and is currently working with the property owners in
a lease-to-own contract. The applicant is requesting 80% funding from the Board and
presenting approximately 20% or$30,000 of the project cost as cash equity.
The subject property is located in the southeast area of the Eastside Community and in
the southeast area of the TIF #3 zone. The property is located outside of the FEMA
floodplain and is zoned as Light Industrial(LI)that allows for the commercial uses currently
there.
Currently photos of the property were displayed while Mrs. Montgomery-Gagne
highlighted some key elements Mr. Kabir wished to implement such as 70% grocery items
with fresh produce and 30% beer, wine, and spirit sales. Another key item is this location
is the only fuel location in the community and closed until funded and another fuel pump
ordered there is no other locations for fuel. Mr. Kabir has advised staff he typically sales
500 gallons of fuel per week and a very active location for key services in the area.
Mr. Kabir gave a brief overview of the project and stated he has been in Wichita Falls
owning a business since 2000. The question of if a quote for a new fuel pump could be
presented to the Board before a decision could be made.
Councilor Brooks stated that was the first store he ever walked, road his bike and then
drove his car to and that it would be an insult if the Board did not approve his funding
request.
Mr. Mahler asked if he owned the entire strip center or just the one store. Mr. Kabir stated
he would be owning the entire strip with plans to expand and replace the canopy.
Chairman Haney closed the comments for this request.
VI. Funding Request — 511 Mississippi Ave. — House of Empowerment Ministries
(Empowering Network) Pastor John McGee
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 9 October 15,2025
Mrs. Montgomery-Gagne presented the next funding request to the Board for House of
Empowerment located at 511 Mississippi Ave. The total project cost is estimated at
$900,000 and requesting $100,000, about 11% of the total project cost.
The subject property is located to the east of downtown Wichita Falls close to Branding
Iron with high visibility from East Scott Street and Mississippi Avenue. The House of
Empowerment is a non-taxable entity, owning their building since founded in 2008. Their
goal is to work with the community and provide services for youth, homeless, recovery
addiction programs and expand their services. The 19,380 square foot structure was built
in 1955 and needs funding to renovate all areas, expand and remodel the kitchen,
resurface the parking lot and address the major roofing issues.
Currently they have a bid of just over $25,000 to paint the exterior of the building and still
has paperwork coming in. Additional work for the roof is estimated at over $83,000. Mrs.
Montgomery-Gagne advised there were no photos of the kitchen remodel, however that
is estimated to be approximately $77,000. An estimate for resurfacing the parking lot is
still pending but is expected to be large.
Pastor John McGee advised the Board they are non-profit and their main clientele are
those fresh out of prison or in various stages of recovery. Pastor McGee stated they serve
about 80 people every Tuesday and the kitchen is not large enough to cook and serve the
meals. Pastor McGee gave a brief outline of what they hope to accomplish with service
and beautify downtown Wichita Falls.
Mr. Mahler asked how they presently operate and continue to operate. Pastor McGee
stated they run off tithes and offerings.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 5:14 pm Chairman Haney closed the public comments and excused the Board into
Texas Executive Session Section 551.087.
At 6:03 pm Chairman Haney closed the executive session and resumed the meeting.
Chairman Haney advised there was still needed documentation needed from both
applicants. Chairman Haney stated the Board determined there was funding needed for
both applicants and will provide a 50% match up to $10,000 for professional service fees
that will consist of an architect, general contractor, plans, HVAC, and plumbing. This will
give more specific information and estimates on work to be performed that will solidify
further funding in the future.
Mr. Medellin advised once design professionals were hired they would provide full plan
sets for the projects that could then be reviewed by the Board for funding requests.
Mr. Mahler stated the Board would invest in the projects, but they needed more
professional information to set the projects up for success.
Commissioner Beauchamp made a motion to fund a 50% matching grant of up to$10,000
payable to draw from as invoices submitted to engineers and contractors. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Taylor. Chairman Haney called for a vote. The motion passed
unanimously with a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Medellin advised the next steps are the agreement would need to be approved by the
City Council at the Meeting on Tuesday, November 4th, 2025.
Tax Increment Financing#3 Board Meeting PAGE 10 October 15,2025
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
a) Next Meeting Date—Mr. Medellin asked if the Board could meet again on November
5th, 2025, 3:30. The board agreed to this date.
b) Discussion Topics — Mr. Medellin stated he hoped to having more petitions that
would present economic development in the TIF#3 district.
Ms. Chappell asked about the process of relocating the boundary lines for the TIF #3
District. Staff advised that would have to go before the State of Texas as they are who
oversees the boundaries. They typically frown on extending the boundaries to include
properties that have not been paying into the TIF fund.
IX. ADJOURN
Chairman Haney asked if anyone had any other comments. With no more comments
being made, Chairman Haney adjourned the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m.
l ' r i/ k
� 40v� ii) /zoS
S
Kenneth Haney, Chairperson / Date