Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />July 22, 1987 <br />Thunder Fahey suggested that the Planner give the Council an outline of <br />Bay TIF the current TIF districts and if Council feels these districts <br />(Cont.) should be expanded, now would be the time when the districts are <br />being consolidated. <br />The City Clerk noted that if the districts are consolidated <br />School District and County may need another 30-day comment period <br />on the revision. <br />Wilson suggested that Qond Counsel may determine that the previous <br />30-day comment period was adequate. <br />Fahey felt that if the districts are consolidated and the developer <br />of the Thunder Bay 2nd Addition wants to proceed before all the <br />details are finalized, the development agreement should contain a <br />stipulation that the developer would have to pick up the $40,000 <br />cost that is proposed to be picked up by TIF. Fahey did not feel <br />that the City should bear this expense. <br />Blesener did not feel it was fair to the developer to change the <br />program at this point. <br />Fahey stated that he was not willing to leave the City open for a <br />$40,000 liability and would not approve the purchase agreement under <br />that condition. Fahey noted that the City can approve the Thunder <br />TIF Plan and would still have time to consolidate districts in the <br />future. <br />Blesener agreed that the Thunder ea.v TIF should be approved now and <br />the districts consolidated in the future or at such time as the <br />City has another TIF project proposed. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-7-326 - APPROVING THE <br />THUNDER BAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING <br />PROJECT AND PLAN <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 352. <br />Council reviewed the purchase agreement proposed between the City <br />and the Wright's. <br />Fahey questioned the provision in the agreement requiring the City <br />to pay abstracting costs, State Deed Tax, mortgage registration fee, <br />and special assessments. <br />Page -9- <br />