CC_Minutes_2014_0721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 21, 2014 Page 14 Redevelopment project, as detailed in the RCA. Ms. Kelsey advised that, while final project costs and development agreement have yet to be finalized, Ms. Kel- sey advised that the projected financing gap had already been reduced some (At- tachment B); and the attempt was to cover all costs incurred by the RHRA associ- ated with carrying the property, including paying the City for the fire station site, demolition of the building and any additional miscellaneous land costs. Ms. Kel- sey reported that the final development agreement would include a "look back" clause to revise cost-share allocations, if homes sell higher than projected. Ms. Kelsey further noted that the property transfer would not occur until after devel- opment and approval of the development agreement and any further reductions in financial assistance for the project; with some additional gaps still being deter- mined and their actual impacts. At the discretion of the City Council, Ms. Kelsey sought their support for reim- bursing the RHRA for these expenses from pooled tax increments, through adop- tion of the resolution as drafted and included as Attachment C to the RCA. Councilmember McGehee noted that these two tax increment financing (TIF) dis- tricts were about to expire anyway, and since older districts allowed funds to be used in other development areas, while newer districts did not, based on her un- derstanding if the City didn't use these funds within 1-2 years as applicable, tax- ing jurisdictions would get money back but the City would actually lose funds. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important to understand why these two districts and pooled increments were being considered in particu- lar. If the "look back" clause came forward in the future, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like to see the RHRA and City paid first; and further stated that she would encourage the developer to build higher quality homes to increase their market value and sales prices to increase that profit if possible; and ex- pressed her support in any excess funds coming the RHRA and City first. In an effort to clarify the developer fee at $618,000, Mayor Roe sought infor- mation from Ms. Kelsey on how much of that was attributed to gap financing. Ms. Kelsey responded that calculations were not done that way, and gap funding of the developer fee was nil, and only addressing the price of the land and price point, with a portion of the gap due to the City's and RHRA's preference for less density and therefore facilitating that preference in assisting with the financing; but only using reimbursement of land costs from TIF pools. As mentioned by Councilmember McGehee, and for the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted that if TIF balances remaining in these districts were not used for this purpose, any remaining balances would be roughly allocated with 1/3 of