CC PACKET 10142003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

09 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 9 1 Mr. Inman noted it was said this property was a prime piece of real estate. He indicated if that 2 were true it would have been developed and the City would not need to assist it. He explained 3 residents did not see the amount of revenue needed to develop this property and bringing in 4 retailers and homeowners was market driven according to what they were willing to pay. He 5 added the buildings would need to be purchased and torn down and there was a significant gap 6 on this piece of property, which the redevelopment process was trying to fill. He noted the 7 increased taxes from the redevelopment motivated this project, as this was a self-contained 8 project. 9 10 Mr. Inman indicated reduction of the tax district duration was contemplated if the project 11 proceeded better than anticipated. He stated the estimated annual tax increment was 12 approximately$2 million a year, assuming the development goes to full value, and 10% of that 13 amount could be used for administration so the City's general fund would not be used to pay any 14 expenses. He explained the form of financing proposed was pay-as-you-go, which meant that 15 once the gap referred to earlier was established it was the developer's obligation to finance that 16 gap. He noted the tax increment received would be used to repay the developer for taking on the 17 obligation. He added the district would disappear if something happened and the project did not 18 go forward. 19 20 Mike Fisher, LHB Architects, stated his firm had been hired by the City to make sure the TIF 21 district met statutes. He explained an inventory completed by LHB Architects concluded that 22 parcels consisting of 70% of the area in the district were occupied by buildings, streets, utilities 23 or other improvements. He noted LHB also conducted an interior and exterior inspection of all 24 the parcels/properties and concluded that more than 50% of the buildings in the district, not 25 including outbuildings, were structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation 26 or clearance, which meant the buildings could not be modified to satisfy the building code at a 27 cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and 28 type on the site. 29 30 Mr. Fisher continued to discuss the blight analysis and explain the formulas and numbers used to 31 reach the stated conclusions. 32 33 Councilmember Faust complimented Mr. Fisher on having done a very thorough analysis and 34 stated his analysis met the "but if for" scrutiny. He asked if Mr. Fisher felt the TIF requirements 35 were met for the City to move ahead. Mr. Fisher responded he was very confident the 36 requirements were met. 37 38 Councihnember Horst asked if there were potential problems in the future. Mr. Fisher replied 39 the analysis was completed after being physically present in the buildings. He added the 40 analysis used conservative findings. 41 42 Councilmember Horst asked regarding the source of the objections. City Attorney Gilligan 43 responded it could be coming from the State auditor or property owners. 44 45 Mr. Fisher stated an inspector was making the evaluation and he was the most senior architect in 46 the company. Mr. Fisher added he took the role as analyst. He noted the inspector was very