2003-123 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2003 APPROVED 135 Councilmember Reinert moved t adopting a modified program for 136 Development District No. 1 and establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10. 137 Councilmember O'DonnelligeMIDSMINNINION 138 139 Councilmember Carlson stated at another time she might vote yes because of those coming off of TIF, 140 but now with the amount of money and other expenditures the city may need for road improvements, 141 etc., she is not in favor of this plan. 142 143 Community Development Director Grochala noted the 4.2 million is not the amount they are putting 144 on the project. Economic Development Assistant Divine indicated the amount is up to 2.49 million. 145 She explained a bond payment is considered a cost, so it has to be listed, but the amount of the budget 146 is 2.4 million, which is the estimate of what would be generated if this were fully built out. She stated 147 4.2 million would not be available; 2.49 million would be the maximum of the budget. 148 149 Councilmember Carlson asked what the amount of money not paid in taxes would be if they adopt 150 this TIF district. Economic Development Assistant Divine answered 2.49 million if fully built out. 151 152 Community Development Director Grochala advised they are estimating if the project were built out, 153 what would be generated over 10 years, so they have done some assumptions. That number is what 154 the plan says would be needed to maintain options. It is possible they could never reach that amount. 155 He indicated the 2.4 million is not an obligation for the City to provide, it is only an operating budget 156 to set a limit on what could be available. 157 158 Councilmember Carlson asked if the change made two weeks ago, where it was previously in the 159 policy that a business that received a subsidy had to stay in the city for five years, applied to TIF. 160 Economic Development Assistant Divine indicated it is up to the EDA to determine if that would be a 161 requirement. The change two weeks ago was due to the fact that it used to be a state regulation to 162 require a business stay for at least five years, but now it is up to the city's EDA Board to decide. The 163 development agreement with the business can be worded however the EDA chooses. 164 165 Councilmember Carlson asked if they were indeed looking at a road referendum this fall. Community 166 Development Director Grochala stated they were. 167 168 Councilmember Dahl asked if Staff would be making the five-year stay requirement a 169 recommendation. Economic Development Assistant Divine stated it would be handled on a case -by - 170 case basis, set by the EDA. She noted the request tonight is not an agreement with any particular 171 company, and when a business does make an application it would be up to the EDA to decide. 172 173 Councilmember Dahl indicated she is aware it is an EDA Board decision, however if Staff does not 174 make it a recommendation, it is possible the EDA Board would not consider this aspect. Economic 175 Development Assistant Divine stated they will leave the language as it is, so it will be in the 176 development agreement and a point for the EDA Board to decide. 177 178 Mayor Bergeson commented that the 2.4 million is not all City money; it is the combination of the 179 School District, the County and the City. He stated also that all TIF projects have a 'but, for' test, 4