CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 30 Public Utility Costs Ms. Bloom advised that staff was not proposing changes to public utility costs; but simply to update estimates to reflect actual costs with development of a per acre cost for Subarea I, then extrapolating that cost to Subareas II and III. Ms. Bloom provided a cost allocation overview, based on the size of a parcel, with Table 4 unchanged and recognizing reclassification for right-of-way acquisition to from private to public property. Regarding traffic added for previously developed properties, Councilmember Pust sought clarification that if traffic increases are seen over time with redevelopment, existing infrastructure was adequate to serve their parcels; with Ms. Bloom refer- ence the staff report in addressing the proposed methodology changes to infra- structure improvements for the Twin Lakes AUAR—Final Report. Mr. Trudgeon advised that Attachment C (4th column) showed the 2010 updated compared to the 2011 Scenario C update; with public costs at $14 million. How- ever, Mr. Trudgeon emphasized that staff wanted to very clear that grant and/or TIF dollars, not tax dollars, should suffice, with TIF generated revenue over the life of the TIF District anticipated to be $16 million, covering the cost of public improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would leave little, if any, TIF available to assist development projects beyond that. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there were limited funds still available in the Environmental Hazard District. Mayor Roe sought clarification that the TIF analysis had been done based on Sce- nario C and on development levels, not done based on the most intense use. Mr. Trudgeon concurred; however,he noted that there remained a lot of variables, with the timing of redevelopment the main one; and the longer you wait to devel- op, the less you collected. Councilmember Pust questioned if the $14,260,683 on Attachment C should cor- respond to the 2013 background traffic amount. Ms. Bloom responded that the traffic background PLUS the base line highlighted in lines 13 — 18 of Figure 21 (Attachment C) for other improvements had already been included in other amounts; and advised that staffs next iteration would high- light public costs on that table. At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Trudgeon advised that Table 4 was indicative of approximate cost-based scenarios for private land owners as they came forward with a proposed use and development proposal. However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that, at that time, they would need to provide a traffic study to determine a hard number and pay according to that finding as part of the devel- opment process. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Twin Lakes Overlay District docu-