CCP 02-13-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. should relate to a lowering of Everes1's land cost per square foot to a specified level. .. Another concept that has arisen in connection with the allocation of tax increment is Everest's slatement that if the assistance is capped then the City should be willing to share . in the risk of a slower project development. To take both factors into account, Staff believes that the City should consider the following schedule of application of tax increment from Everest's development. . (a) First, tax increment is applied as necessary to pay debt service on the public improvement bonds. Given the discussion in item 2 above about . the sewer line and the possibility of other unknown costs, tax increment from the first two buildings may not be enough and the pledge should be . all tax increment necessary to pay debt service. (b) Second, 2 1\2% of the tax increment is applied to the City's administrative . costs. (c) Third, tax increment is allocated to the developer's documented qualifying . redevelopment costs to the point that the land cost per square foot reaches $1.60. This is the cost that Everest assumed would be reached if the development is constructed over the assumed 8 year period. I (d) Fourth, tax increment would be split equally between the City and Everest. -. The City could use its share to reimburse itself for its costs related to the acquisition of the Kern Milling property (other than $1.25 per square foot which should be paid by Everest at the time that the City deeds the property to Everest) and any olher costs the City may incur. Everest's . share would be used to further reimburse it for qualified development costs. 5. Staff proposes that in light of item 4 above there be no incentives or withholding of tax . increment relative to the construction of the signature office building. However, the 12 . acre site should be reserved for this use and no other use will be permitted without the City's approval. 6. Staff is still exploring ways of funding the Highway 96 road improvements but believe . that the funding should be identified in the agreement with Everest. . . 7. Staff opposes the granting of any exclusivity rights that would hamper the City's ability to undertake development in the future. This is particularly true given the expected length of the Everest project.' Statfbelieves that the proposal outlined in item 4 should provide . Everest with sufficient assurance that the City will not assist other competing projects in a way that would impair the City's ability to recover its investment in the development. . BF'0t -. .