CCP 01-24-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ~ ~~ CITY OF ARDEN mLLS ty\.\~ \ MEM)RANDtlM \>>4~ ~ ~dJ I DATE: January 18, 1995 TO: Mayor & COl1IlCil I FRCM:@ Te=ance R. Post, Acting City 1\dministrator Brian Fritsinger, Cc:mmmi.ty Planning Coordinator I SUBJECT : Staff Recalll1eDdatians Concerning Everest Developnent Prop. I Backcround As staff has evaluated the tIl3.terials presented by Everest Development, various issues have emerged that staff believes require further I resolution before staff =uld be willing to suppJrt this project. They include the following: I 1- No CaD an TIF Assistance Aside from the reimbursrrent to the city for its acquisition costs 111 of the former Kern Milling site and ongoing administrative =sts, the redeveloper is essentially asking for all TIF generated by the project for the life of the district. Staff's concerns are 1) from a public policy standpoint and; 2) no linkage with the ongoing I need for public assistance for the duration of the project. On this point staff is not comfortable that all analysis items have bee.'1 provided to derronstrate the sensitivity and required degree I of public assistance. on this project. 2. Hiahwav 96 Access T1mro\TE!lIelt Costs I Although the redeveloper has been tIl3.Cle aware of staff's concerns of the lack of these improvement costs in the proposal for over a I year, they retll3.in absent fran the last proforma. Staff believes that the =ent Round Lake Rd. /Hwy 96 intersection will be required to be uwraded because of this development and should I therefore, be funded by the tax increme.'1t provided fran the development. I 3. Office Bui1dina Incentives The way in which the redeveloper proposal is =ently structured, there is no differentiation between available TIF fran an ~ industrial versus an office building. Staff would suppJrt a reduced TIF payout on industrial buildings that could be "recaptured" upon the ccmpletion of the signature office building. I