My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
12-12-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:35:19 AM
Creation date
1/11/2017 4:00:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 <br />Councilmember Broden asked, Is the petitioner in the room? Or would the developer in the room <br />like to address that? <br />Frank Perri approached the podium to answer Councilmember Broden's question, but <br />Councilmember Tim Scott declared a point of order. Councilmember Scott asked for someone to <br />explain to him how this line of questioning relates to the PUD. He stated, I think we've gotten <br />way into the woods on all types of speculation on garages. Where does this fit? Directly relate it <br />to the PUD, 41 -16, that we have before us. <br />Councilmember Broden stated that the developer said that assistance with the garage would help <br />compress the height of the project. She stated that Councilmember Davis was trying to look for <br />resources for garages in the East Bank District. <br />Councilmember Scott responded that the person of expertise would be someone who works in <br />City finances. <br />Chairperson Ferlic agreed and stated, If the question is, "What are the funds available ?" the <br />question should be directed toward Brian Pawlowski. <br />Councilmember Davis agreed but felt that Frank Perri might offer insight into the matter, and <br />that Council needed all the insight it could get. He asked Mr. Perri to come up and share his <br />thoughts on the matter. Certain members of the Council audibly questioned the relevance of the <br />question. Chairperson Ferlic asked Interim Council Attorney Aladean De Rose if the asking of <br />the question was to be decided by vote or by the Chair, to which she replied that this was a <br />decision to be made by the Chair. Councilmember Davis asked how Council could override the <br />Chair's decision, adding that he was sure that it could be overridden. Councilmember Dr. Varner <br />stated that a two - thirds (2/3) vote was necessary. Chairperson Ferlic stated that the question was <br />relevant, but asked that it were directed only to Mr. Pawlowski. <br />Mr. Pawlowski stated, The simple version is: if you are asking if resources out the door for one <br />project affect the other, the answer is yes. What we are prepared and willing to do on one project <br />is completely dependent on its merits alone, and we are looking at this project in that respect. <br />Past that, I think it would be bad precedent, potentially, to talk about other deals that are <br />currently in active negotiation. There are finite resources in that TIF, to be sure —both now and <br />in the foreseeable future, for the next five (5) years out. Decisions will have to be made. My <br />personal view at this point is that we can see a lot of growth and development there without <br />hindering any of the projects —and future ones to come, as well. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, There is a shortage of funds, and in fact this project won't <br />have any money in the TIF funds for about ten (10) years because of the aggressive tax <br />abatement. Would it be fair to say that this seems to be the only plan that gets both these projects <br />done, rather than having to take money from one project and put it in another? <br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, Any scenario where we don't have to contribute cash out the door, <br />and we can take care of a developer's needs or a regional match, in this case, with a phase -in in <br />taxes—that's certainly a preference we would have. The option that you all have seen of 100% x <br />5 and 95% x 5—in that situation, you are getting tax dollars in the door, after the initial five (5) <br />years. After the decade is up, the TIF still has life until thirty -three (3 3) or thirty -five (35), where <br />the full amount could be upwards of $800,000, a portion of which flows into the TIF a bunch. <br />Councilmember Davis asked, So, you're telling me that there's no other option to fund this <br />outside of TIF in that area? <br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, As someone who is not the General Fund expert, I think the answer to <br />that is no. <br />Councilmember Davis asked, So, therefore the City cannot keep its commitment to take care of <br />that? <br />Mr. Pawlowski responded, I think the City's commitment was based on assumptions that <br />unfortunately just did not come to pass. Had those investment targets all been met, we would not <br />need this conversation. This is the type of development that we want to see drive things over <br />there. This developer; other developers who are in the room. Their projects are going to be the <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.