|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />December 12, 2016
<br />Councilmember Davis asked Ms. Smith to clarify Option E for the public.
<br />Ms. Smith responded, Option E is the one that shows the maximum height at sixty -seven (67)
<br />feet at the parapet. The ordinance actually calls for sixty (60). The Comprehensive Plan talks
<br />about a low -to -mid rise —for which the general height variance is seventy -five (75). So, Option E
<br />would be consistent with the low -to -mid rise criteria. It would still exceed what is allowed per
<br />the ordinance, but it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All the other options
<br />would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
<br />Councilmember Broden, referring to Option E, asked, And that would require $12,600,000
<br />upfront to actually abide by the East Bank Village Plan and the Comprehensive Plan?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, The City would just have to build the garage on the plan that the plan
<br />calls for the City to build.
<br />Councilmember Davis asked if there was any way that the City could pay for the garage, given
<br />that the plan calls for the City to build one there.
<br />Mr. Mueller responded, You raise a great point, and this is an issue with plans across the board.
<br />We come with a great plan, but we don't always figure out the funding sources behind the plan.
<br />There's a Southeast Plan that has a lot of great stuff in it —we can't identify all the funding for
<br />that. There's other plans that we can't identify the funds for. If you're saying would we want to
<br />put $12,600,000 when we know that we have a fiscal curve coming up in 2020. We may have a
<br />[unintelligible] in our Motor Vehicle Highway Fund. I would not say this would be among the
<br />highest priorities, if we found somewhere, magically, $12,600,000.
<br />Councilmember Davis asked if the City had made any considerations whatsoever regarding the
<br />funding of construction of the promised garage.
<br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, This is kind of what I was inartfully trying to get at earlier, which is:
<br />as the '08 plan set out the investment targets, if you assume those investment targets are hidden
<br />away —not general or civil city funding, but TIF funding is absorbed into that district and then
<br />can be theoretically put back into a garage or other business ventures, or any other thing that you
<br />might want. We have not seen that. So, the TIF is not as robust as I think we would have hoped
<br />that it would have been, because those are really your funding sources. The fiscal cliff that many
<br />of us are anticipating in 2020, or shortly thereafter, is going to make things like this really cost -
<br />prohibitive in any other way than bonding. I think John Murphy would smack me in the back of
<br />the head if I said we had any type of funding in the General Fund to do that. In the future, TIF is
<br />really the mechanism to do it. Projects like this will enable the TIF over time and the General
<br />Fund after that to be a little more well - funded, in terms of tax dollars, whether they be TIF or
<br />General Fund. As that '08 was done, let's not forget that that was right at the time of a pretty
<br />rough patch, nationally as well as locally.
<br />Councilmember Davis responded, I agree with the '08 plan being done. At the same time, those
<br />of us in this Council that were here during that plan, we raised everything in the City. We
<br />planned for that plan. Our city has gotten all the financial rewards, and we've been rolling on,
<br />and we're not like other cities in the State because we took measures and planned to deal with
<br />that storm. He stated that after having raised taxes, the City should have generated enough
<br />money that, with a bit of applied creativity, could be put toward this garage. He asked, Why
<br />can't we keep our promise to this plan so that he does not have to go and build something way to
<br />the scraper, get everybody in the community upset except those who believe in everything he
<br />does. We keep our plan and he keeps his plan. We get the store, we get everything else.
<br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, It's unfortunate, but we just haven't seen the financial growth and the
<br />development there that we wanted to see to enable this to happen at this point.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked, And the resources with regard to the Wharf project —what is
<br />going in there? Is that okay to ask and to actually connect those dots for that garage, please?
<br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, I would prefer not to get too into it. We don't have any signed
<br />development agreements at this point.
<br />22
<br />
|