12-12-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 Councilmember Broden asked, Is the petitioner in the room? Or would the developer in the room like to address that? Frank Perri approached the podium to answer Councilmember Broden's question, but Councilmember Tim Scott declared a point of order. Councilmember Scott asked for someone to explain to him how this line of questioning relates to the PUD. He stated, I think we've gotten way into the woods on all types of speculation on garages. Where does this fit? Directly relate it to the PUD, 41 -16, that we have before us. Councilmember Broden stated that the developer said that assistance with the garage would help compress the height of the project. She stated that Councilmember Davis was trying to look for resources for garages in the East Bank District. Councilmember Scott responded that the person of expertise would be someone who works in City finances. Chairperson Ferlic agreed and stated, If the question is, "What are the funds available ?" the question should be directed toward Brian Pawlowski. Councilmember Davis agreed but felt that Frank Perri might offer insight into the matter, and that Council needed all the insight it could get. He asked Mr. Perri to come up and share his thoughts on the matter. Certain members of the Council audibly questioned the relevance of the question. Chairperson Ferlic asked Interim Council Attorney Aladean De Rose if the asking of the question was to be decided by vote or by the Chair, to which she replied that this was a decision to be made by the Chair. Councilmember Davis asked how Council could override the Chair's decision, adding that he was sure that it could be overridden. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated that a two - thirds (2/3) vote was necessary. Chairperson Ferlic stated that the question was relevant, but asked that it were directed only to Mr. Pawlowski. Mr. Pawlowski stated, The simple version is: if you are asking if resources out the door for one project affect the other, the answer is yes. What we are prepared and willing to do on one project is completely dependent on its merits alone, and we are looking at this project in that respect. Past that, I think it would be bad precedent, potentially, to talk about other deals that are currently in active negotiation. There are finite resources in that TIF, to be sure —both now and in the foreseeable future, for the next five (5) years out. Decisions will have to be made. My personal view at this point is that we can see a lot of growth and development there without hindering any of the projects —and future ones to come, as well. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, There is a shortage of funds, and in fact this project won't have any money in the TIF funds for about ten (10) years because of the aggressive tax abatement. Would it be fair to say that this seems to be the only plan that gets both these projects done, rather than having to take money from one project and put it in another? Mr. Pawlowski responded, Any scenario where we don't have to contribute cash out the door, and we can take care of a developer's needs or a regional match, in this case, with a phase -in in taxes—that's certainly a preference we would have. The option that you all have seen of 100% x 5 and 95% x 5—in that situation, you are getting tax dollars in the door, after the initial five (5) years. After the decade is up, the TIF still has life until thirty -three (3 3) or thirty -five (35), where the full amount could be upwards of $800,000, a portion of which flows into the TIF a bunch. Councilmember Davis asked, So, you're telling me that there's no other option to fund this outside of TIF in that area? Mr. Pawlowski responded, As someone who is not the General Fund expert, I think the answer to that is no. Councilmember Davis asked, So, therefore the City cannot keep its commitment to take care of that? Mr. Pawlowski responded, I think the City's commitment was based on assumptions that unfortunately just did not come to pass. Had those investment targets all been met, we would not need this conversation. This is the type of development that we want to see drive things over there. This developer; other developers who are in the room. Their projects are going to be the 23