My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-18-SWS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
10-24-18-SWS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2018 3:52:24 PM
Creation date
10/19/2018 3:52:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 of 5 <br />If the City decides to construct a facility on the site, the City would need a financing mechanism <br />to construct the facility. One option that has been previously discussed is using Tax Increment <br />Financing (TIF) on the TCAAP site to fund the construction of the Civic Space. The City <br />Council could give direction for staff to pursue this option in moving forward or could suggest <br />an alternative financing mechanism. If TIF was chosen as an option, the City would only use <br />enough TIF to cover the cost of the construction of the facility, but still provide enough tax <br />revenue to cover on-going operations of the City. <br /> <br />The Council should also consider ongoing ownership and operations of the facility on the Civic <br />Site. If the City owns the facility there will be on-going capital costs over the long-term <br />associated with the building. If the City operates the facility it is likely the facility will not <br />generate sufficient revenue to cover operating costs, and will need to be subsidized by the City. <br />If the City allows the facility to be privately owned and operated, the City would not incur future <br />capital or operating costs. <br /> <br />Larger issue: What does the City Council want to see happen on the Civic Site? Does the City <br />Council want to move forward with an agreement between the County and developer for a Civic <br />use on that site? <br /> <br />Potential direction: <br /> <br />-The City Council should provide direction on whether Alatus’ proposal is acceptable or give <br />alternative direction. <br /> <br />City Planning Cost Recovery <br /> <br />The City has had a long stated goal that the TCAAP development will pay for itself, and current <br />residents will not be responsible for paying for TCAAP. Thru September, the City has incurred <br />$1,160,310 of TCAAP related costs, $846,580 of which is consultant cost and $313,730 of which <br />is administrative cost. It has been previously discussed to recoup these costs thru a planning area <br />charge. <br /> <br />Larger issue: Is the City firm on collecting these costs in their entirety? <br /> <br />Potential direction: <br /> <br />-The City Council could give direction to recover the full cost thru a planning area charge; <br />-The City Council could give direction to collect a portion thru a planning area charge; <br />-The City Council could give direction to collect all or a portion of the costs thru a different <br />financing mechanism. <br /> <br />On-Going Operating Costs <br /> <br />In order to meet the City’s goal of not burdening current residents with the cost of TCAAP, it <br />will be important the City is able to generate sufficient revenue from the development site to <br />cover any increased operating costs, such as, police and fire services, street maintenance, and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.