Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION- APRIL 23, 2007 <br /> <br />Ms. K vilvang stated a future discussion point was whether or not to have a right of reverter. <br />Since the MDA would layout the schedule of activities, the City should have remedies in <br />place should the developer fail to follow through. Remedies could be a right of reverter or <br />financial consequences. A right of reverter would allow for the land to revert back to the <br />City should certain elements fail to be completed. Financial consequences help ensure that <br />the developer's interest would be for the long term by holding back developer fees until the <br />start of the next phase. The most common remedy was to revoke the developer's right to <br />work on a particular piece of property and another party would then be found to complete <br />the job. <br /> <br />Land Use Provisions <br />The City could require, by contract, the kind of uses it wanted on the property. The uses <br />could include things that would be required or permitted and provisions for future <br />revisions. <br /> <br />Design Standard <br />The City would set the design standard up front that the developer would have to meet. <br />The only way the developer or subsequent developers could deviate from the design <br />standard would be ifthey came back to the City. <br /> <br />Public/Private Infrastructure <br />This would be where financing needed to be figured out and would usually include some <br />type of bond financing. It would be important to get bonding on a tax exempt basis. Doing <br />so would be cheaper for the City and those paying the assessment. Mr. Bubul stated that <br />there were some federal rules that could affect the City's eligibility. <br /> <br />The MDA would include provisions that allow the city to review the developers proposed <br />financing. Ms. K vilvang stated that typically the developer would release their financial <br />information at their office, Elhers and Associates, or the attorney's office. The review <br />would be done with as much confidentially as possible. A summary would then be drafted <br />stating the condition ofthe developer's finances and whether they were able to meet the <br />needs of the city. <br /> <br />Ifthere was a need for Tax Increment Financing (TlF) or abatement, it would also be in this <br />contract. Pay-as-you go tax increment could be used as a form of subsidizing the cost of <br />the infrastructure where the developers would pay for some of the cost and the City would <br />reimburse them from tax increment over time. <br /> <br />Councihnember Grant asked if it was possible to assess and TlF the same area. Mr. Bubal <br />stated that assessment and TlF could not be used to pay for the same thing but, if it was <br />determined that having the developer pay the assessment would make it unfeasible to <br />market that property, TlF could be used to buy down the assessment. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead asked ifthe same was true for tax abatement. Ms. Kvilvang stated that it <br />was not permitted to have abatement in a TlF district, although a parcel could be taken out <br />ofthe TlF district and abated. <br /> <br />2 <br />