My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.09.18 EDA Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
EDA
>
EDA Minutes
>
2006 EDA Minutes
>
2006.09.18 EDA Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 11:32:55 AM
Creation date
12/7/2015 11:03:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
9/18/2006
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
EDA
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
they would qualify for a TIF district or not. Staff gave an update at the meeting on the <br />coverage test and building inspections and requested direction from the EDA related to <br />proposed TIF boundary. <br />CD Intern gave an overview of the attached map and building inspections. CD Director <br />talked about the building inspection process and the time it takes to complete the reports. <br />He also stated that we are still working on what is going to happen in regards to the <br />Lavalle parcel and the new County road. <br />Miron asked if staff thinks the TIF District would be challenged and what would happen <br />if it did. <br />Bever asked CD Director if he thinks the City will be able to count the Lavalle parcel as <br />occupied. <br />CD Director stated staff does not think this would be challenged. He used Richfield as an <br />example of one that was challenged because they condemned land and the city is not <br />condemning land for the proposed TIF District. He stated that the Lavalle parcel being <br />deemed occupied is important to the proposed TIF District. If it is not considered <br />occupied the district will not meet the coverage test and may have to be removed from <br />the proposed district. He stated that staff and consultants are still working on this issue. <br />Granger asked about the Stock Lumber site and the accessory structures on the property. <br />He also asked about the 145th Street property owners. <br />CD Intern stated that the building inspectors just inspected the Stock Lumber site and that <br />the accessory structure will not be used in the building inspection reports. There were <br />calls made to the remaining property owners that did not respond to the letters sent about <br />the building inspection. Some of them were on 145th Street and they either did not call <br />back or stated that they did not want the inspection done on their property. <br />Arcand asked if there were still developers interested in developing in the downtown <br />area. <br />CD Director stated that we still get calls from developers and business owners that that <br />would like to be located in the downtown. <br />Klein asked if we should be thinking about a bigger TIF district that would include <br />County Road 8. <br />Miron stated that we need to think about what property would develop on its own and <br />what area would need some encouragement. <br />Denaway stated that it seems as though that County Road 8 is developing on its own. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.