07/12/2001 EDAC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

3 than before. So the capacity is diminished to provide the subsidy. The payback period would be 11-12 years. The question for the council is whether it is willing to accept the longer payback period before it sees a general tax benefit. Mr. Juni said the taxes developers will pay will be lower, also, so they will benefit that way. Mr. Rolek said the taxes coming into the city are almost cut in half, but the state is implementing its own tax on C/I. The cities see less revenue, but businesses won’t see more than 10-15% tax break. Mr. Wessel said one option is to sell a remnant piece that the city will own and will be available as part of the Marketplace site after Apollo Drive is constructed. He believes it is useless to the city, but has value to the developers. It could become a part of the subsidy negotiation, but the city doesn’t know what it will cost yet. The Environmental Board had a preference for the city to retain it as a park-like entrance. He asked for the group’s opinion of making it available to the developer. Mr. Chase requested action on the Business Subsidy Policy first. Ms. Divine said the policy is similar to the one the Economic Development Authority already adopted. Mr. Gorowsky moved to adopt the Business Subsidy Policy. Mr. Milbauer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Members discussed clarifications within the Tax Abatement Policy: 1) including commercial and industrial as a use for tax abatement; the only thing to be excluded would be residential outside of the Town Center; 2) define the Town Center boundaries with a map; 3) include all affected school districts. Mr. Hicks questioned how a project could not be economically feasible without the subsidy, since the city wouldn’t support a development that is not economically feasible. Mr. Wessel said the Marketplace was a project based request, the market isn’t quite there, they need assistance to catalyze it. Ms. Schwartz mentioned that subsidies can be unfair to those who have built here without assistance. Mr. Rolek said it is one consideration when a subsidy is requested from a business that competes against current uses. Mr. Hicks said that a subsidy to a new business is an advantage over any current business. It’s not fair, but other considerations are taken into account when giving an abatement, and the policy should reflect that. Ms. Hansmann said the overall analysis should fall into the high bracket to justify abatement. Mr. Hicks said the policy should reflect what the city is actually doing, and the wording should be correct. Mr. Milbauer moved to accept the the Tax Abatement Policy and recommend the changes discussed to the City Council. Mr. Gorowsky seconded the motion. Mr. Vacha suggested that the policy regarding competitive advantage be changed to read “…projects and/or existing businesses.” Mr. Milbauer amended the motion to include the change. Mr. Gorowsky seconded. Motion passed unanimously.