Laserfiche WebLink
<br />F. Consider city acquisition of Twin Lakes parcels if they become available on <br />the open market for the right price; and <br />G. When the market suggests it might be appropriate, prepare and issue an <br />Request For Competitive Proposals for redeveloping all or some part of Twin <br />Lakes consistent with the revised master and compo plans. <br /> <br />IV. In the meantime, if the Council were to agree with my recommendations, I offer for <br />Council discussion the following responses to the Gap Strategies: <br /> <br />To begin with, the gap is challenging, to say the least. Some would say unbridgeable. As <br />Rottlund and staff attempt to bridge the gap over the coming months, here are my <br />impressions -- Some of the strategies are fair, some are not, and some may be acceptable <br />with some limitations. <br /> <br />Clearly acceptable, indeed mandatory, are: <br /> <br />1. Creating Hazardous Waste Subdistricts to clean up the worst pollution; <br />2. Seeking enviromnental remediation grants; <br />3. Looking for county or state assistance with road improvements; <br />4. Acquiring the land for fair market value and using condemnation &/or a <br />development moratorium in that regard if necessary; <br /> <br />Clearly unacceptable, in my view, are: <br />5. Using GO Bonds - the city's taxpayers should not be put at risk this way and it <br />creates a bad precedent; <br />6. Reducing contingency estimates for redevelopment costs - if anything, the <br />uncertainties argue in favor of a larger contingency, not less; <br />7. Removing the Twin Lakes Parkway as a cost of redevelopment borne by the <br />redevelopers-but for this redevelopment we have no compelling need for this <br />roadway. <br /> <br />Other gap strategies may be acceptable or unacceptable depending on how some details <br />are handled: <br />8. Reducing city administrative fees is okay so long as the reduction is real and not <br />an indirect project subsidy in other words, of course, if we can become more <br />efficient and generate fewer administrative costs then I'm all for reducing our <br />administrative fees allocated to the project; <br />9. Similarly, I might be able to support spreading the fiscal disparities contribution <br />citywide depending on the final mix of project uses, the length of time this <br />contribution would be spread citywide, and what the financial analysis tells us <br />about the effect of this strategy on residential property tax bills outside this TIF <br />district. <br /> <br />V. Final Comments <br />