My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08-08-2016 Council Packet*
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2016
>
08-08-2016 Council Packet*
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2018 8:53:59 AM
Creation date
10/11/2016 10:32:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/08/2016
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 25, 2016 <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br />convenience of having one large district to include all as is being requested here. Mr. 44 <br />Grochala identified districts that were already place. 45 <br /> 46 <br />Mr. Grochala clarified what is identified within the tax increment plan, including the 47 <br />budget and spending plan and the amount of increment proposed through a five and a half 48 <br />year period of a maximum nine year term. It would be about eighty percent collected 49 <br />each year going to the developer; the remainder is reserved for pooling and 50 <br />administration. He noted the inclusion of those terms within the contract and the plan. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Julie Eddington, Kennedy and Graven and counsel on this project, reviewed the 53 <br />development district plan proposed. The contract provides the developer with an amount 54 <br />and as soon as the city pays that off, there is no longer any city obligation and the district 55 <br />must be decertified by the end of that year. 56 <br /> 57 <br />Council Member Kusterman asked about the practice of establishing the entire city as a 58 <br />tax increment district and the impact. Ms. Eddington explained that the entire city is the 59 <br />development district while the tax increment district is just the project area. 60 <br /> 61 <br />The mayor suggested that this can be a sensitive topic within the city so he wonders why 62 <br />the recommendation is for longer than needed. Ms. Eddington explained the 63 <br />recommendation, noting that the value of the property the tax increment grows as the 64 <br />project is built and the valuation rises. 65 <br /> 66 <br />Council Member Rafferty suggested that he’d prefer more discussion on tax increment 67 <br />financing and the project and wonders if postponement is appropriate. The mayor noted 68 <br />that a public hearing is scheduled but past opening that, the council should be 69 <br />comfortable moving ahead. Mr. Grochala suggested that the rezoning and preliminary 70 <br />plat (Items 6Aii and 6Aiii) could still move forward. Further the Springsted consultant 71 <br />on the project will be giving a full presentation on tax increment financing. 72 <br /> 73 <br />The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. 74 <br /> 75 <br />These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 76 <br />August 8, 2016. 77 <br /> 78 <br /> 79 <br /> 80 <br /> 81 <br />Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 82 <br /> 83
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.