Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 04/18/05 <br />Minutes - Page 8 <br /> <br />development costs; platting; city public improvements; <br />redeveloper public improvements; site improvements; minimum <br />improvements; phasing; quality of minimum improvements; <br />capitalized interest; contamination grants and responsible parties; <br />government approvals; permits/fees; zoning and land use <br />approvals/easements; special assessments; park dedication <br />fee/public open space contributions; Business Subsidy Act <br />exemptions; relocation of tenants; prohibition on tax exemption; <br />and the effect of the term sheet. <br /> <br />Council comments, questions and discussions were as follows, <br />identified by individual page and topic: <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />Discussion included identification of the City as the legal entity <br />to enter into a contract; proposed language changes from "will" <br />to "may;" statutory test assumptions; expertise of the City's <br />Development Attorney and staff and their desire to protect the <br />City's interests; <br /> <br />Policy discussions related to the "subsidy" package and term <br />sheet obligations implied; redevelopment agreement contingent <br />upon creation of a TIF District and sequencing; possible <br />inclusion of a separate clause related to pending litigation <br />regarding environmental issues and Comprehensive Plan and <br />Zoning amendments and other declarations to be included in a <br />redevelopment agreement, as well as severability clauses as <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />Discussion related to Eminent Domain included identification of <br />parcel ownership and status to-date; status of a U. S. Supreme <br />Court case and implications to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment <br />Project; whether or not an appropriate public purpose can be <br />found or if the project is deemed economically unfeasible due to <br />the inability to obtain necessary parcels; property acquisition <br />uncertainties; potential cap for eminent domain acquisition; and <br />rephrasing of paragraph 4 in keeping with the best interests of <br />the City. <br /> <br />Discussion related to tax increment financing included a <br />