09-10-18 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2018 more time to complete the project and get reassessed within a designation period. Those will always exist, but we hope to see fewer in the future as we fix up this designation period issue. Councilmember Davis asked, Is there any way we can fix this prior to us having people attached to this? Where we just have a meeting to review our abatements, to sit back and look at these issues, and not tie them into a vote? That's been my biggest concern, when the issue of making those changes is now tied to the different eleven(11)businesses here. We need further information of how to put this all together, to send this through with a vote is my concern. How do you deal with the issue of not harming them, but at the same time, not setting a precedent for other people behind you? The other businesses can make the same arguments, and that's a serious concern. Mr. Mueller responded, The designation period is not required in statute, so there is nothing to amend outside of the specific tax abatement resolutions with individual tax abatements, so we couldn't amend anything in the code to do that as a blanket. We'll adopt a policy going forward that is more amenable to the process. Councilmember Davis asked, Can we adopt a policy, and it be connected in coming times? On a night where we just do strictly policy and not attach business to it. I don't have a problem making adjustments for policy, but I have a problem with making all of those connected with businesses and policy all in the same. We get a packet on Thursday, and we get emails asking what's going on here, and that creates the fact that we can't come back and justify what's going on because we don't have a policy, we're just making this outside of that. Mr. Mueller stated, We are just trying to adapt our informal policy from before. Councilmember Davis asked Attorney Bob Palmer, What kind of policy do you see us putting together to address this sort of thing? Council Attorney Palmer answered, I think that is a function of DCI to come up with their own internal policy, to set a designated period that is reasonable given the scope of the projects that come before us on tax abatements. They've been overly optimistic so far, and in setting these designating periods hoping everything will be completed and reassessed within two (2) years, when in reality through delays in construction or in reassessment, those overly optimistic designation periods just don't pan out. This doesn't change any economic effects, they just need to become more realistic with the larger redevelopment projects that are coming before the Council. Councilmember Davis asked, Are you saying this doesn't need to have a Code change? It just needs to have a policy change? And we don't approve that policy, it has to be a policy within the department? Mr. Palmer replied, That's correct. Councilmember Davis asked, Therefore, they could have changed that policy before they came here today? Mr. Palmer stated, It wasn't their policy at the time you passed the tax abatements in 2015 and 2016. Councilmember Davis asked,But could they have changed that policy in the Executive Branch, or does that have to come before us? Mr. Palmer stated, They can change the policy anytime they choose to, but because these already had been designated time periods, they had to come back and be reconfirmed by the Council. Council President Scott added, It is required by state statute. Councilmember Davis stated, That's my concern with everybody's abatement that is currently out there. They then all have to come back through us. Mr. Palmer stated, Only the abatements that have not been completed and reassessed within their original designation period. I assume that you've caught as many of those as you could. 6