My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-13-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 02-13-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:13 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:15:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
<br /> . <br /> should relate to a lowering of Everes1's land cost per square foot to a specified level. .. <br /> Another concept that has arisen in connection with the allocation of tax increment is <br /> Everest's slatement that if the assistance is capped then the City should be willing to share . <br /> in the risk of a slower project development. To take both factors into account, Staff <br /> believes that the City should consider the following schedule of application of tax <br /> increment from Everest's development. . <br /> (a) First, tax increment is applied as necessary to pay debt service on the <br /> public improvement bonds. Given the discussion in item 2 above about . <br /> the sewer line and the possibility of other unknown costs, tax increment <br /> from the first two buildings may not be enough and the pledge should be . <br /> all tax increment necessary to pay debt service. <br /> (b) Second, 2 1\2% of the tax increment is applied to the City's administrative . <br /> costs. <br /> (c) Third, tax increment is allocated to the developer's documented qualifying . <br /> redevelopment costs to the point that the land cost per square foot reaches <br /> $1.60. This is the cost that Everest assumed would be reached if the <br /> development is constructed over the assumed 8 year period. I <br /> (d) Fourth, tax increment would be split equally between the City and Everest. -. <br /> The City could use its share to reimburse itself for its costs related to the <br /> acquisition of the Kern Milling property (other than $1.25 per square foot <br /> which should be paid by Everest at the time that the City deeds the <br /> property to Everest) and any olher costs the City may incur. Everest's . <br /> share would be used to further reimburse it for qualified development <br /> costs. <br /> 5. Staff proposes that in light of item 4 above there be no incentives or withholding of tax . <br /> increment relative to the construction of the signature office building. However, the 12 . <br /> acre site should be reserved for this use and no other use will be permitted without the <br /> City's approval. <br /> 6. Staff is still exploring ways of funding the Highway 96 road improvements but believe . <br /> that the funding should be identified in the agreement with Everest. <br /> . . <br /> 7. Staff opposes the granting of any exclusivity rights that would hamper the City's ability to <br /> undertake development in the future. This is particularly true given the expected length <br /> of the Everest project.' Statfbelieves that the proposal outlined in item 4 should provide . <br /> Everest with sufficient assurance that the City will not assist other competing projects in <br /> a way that would impair the City's ability to recover its investment in the development. <br /> . <br /> BF'0t -. <br /> . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.