09/06/2001 EDAC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 need to be resolved, but all issues don’t need to be resolved to keep the project moving forward. Mr. Wessel stated the city is continuing to negotiate the Apollo Drive access with JADT. McDonald’s still wants to build when that is resolved. Mr. Chase noted that the city should not wait until a development like Marketplace is before it to decide policy. Ms. Dahl stated that EDAC members should understand the reasons for her abstaining, which included issues on 77th Street. Mr. Rolek stated that the structure of the Marketplace subsidy request has changed, and includes a request for abatement and waiver of some development fees. Council gave direction to work toward a 5-year payback. The fees waived are only a portion of the total fees that will be collected from the project. Mr. Chase said the legislative changes has worked against reaching the goal. Ms. Divine said the subsidy policies need to be reevaluated based on legislative changes. Mr. Rolek said waiving fees does not set a precedent, and each development must be evaluated on its own merits. It will not obligate the city to waive fees for any other developer. Mr. Wessel stated the project has to justify a subsidy, and whether the project would be here without an incentive. The long term benefit should be what directs the incentive. Mr. Gorowsky stated it would be helpful to have a primer on subsidies based on the latest changes. Past policies may not be as critical as what should be done in the future. Past policies may not be as critical as what should be done in the future. Mr. Chase asked for a straw vote regarding the length of payback: Mr. Gorowsky said 8 years seemed acceptable for the return the city will get on the Marketplace project. Mr. Juni said the city has to weigh the value of the project to the city, although EDAC should not be concluding the number of years a subsidy should be. Mr. Hicks questioned what Target expects in terms of a payback for their store. He is not comfortable with 8 years, and would prefer less than 5, but he does not have all the information to conclude what is best. Ms. Hansmann said she is for the project provided it goes through the process. The people she hears from say they want a Target, but they don’t want to pay for it. She prefers a 5-year payback. The purpose of development is to add to the tax base. Mr. Rolek reminded the board that any development using city tax abatement contributes to the school and county taxes immediately. Mr. Rafferty said the city needs to act like its buying something for itself. He questions that a billion dollar corporation with box architecture can’t stand on its own, and it should less than a 5-year abatement. Mr. Vacha said it is too great a gamble, fees shouldn’t be waived, and the abatement should be under 5 years. Mr. Chase said he preferred 5 years, but the impact of this project is greater than just the project, and a subsidy may have to be 8 years.