My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0926
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2016 10:06:22 AM
Creation date
10/27/2016 10:03:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/26/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 26, 2016 <br />Page 19 <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Etten noted the similarities of Items 2.A.4 and 5 (page 2) but <br />asked if they were different enough to list separate due to the “but for” analysis). <br /> <br />Mr. Aarsvold opined that they were similar, but he thought distinct enough to in- <br />clude both. Mr. Aarsvold stated #4 addressed extraordinary redevelopment costs, <br />while #5 provided varying dynamics possibly due to a market dynamic versus ex- <br />traordinary costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Aarsvold clarified that both items may rise to the “but for” test, particular for <br />tax increment financing, while a project under Item #4 may have contaminated <br />land and in order to get back on par with a Greenfield site, costs would be in- <br />curred; while in Item #5, only a market dynamic may hinder redevelopment on a <br />clean site. <br /> <br />In Item 4.A (page 4), Councilmember Etten questioned the intent of a project <br />meeting “any of” the qualifications or meeting all. Councilmember Etten clarified <br />that just because a project met the qualifications didn’t automatically mean they <br />would get money from the city. By consensus, it was determined to strike” any <br />of” from the second sentence in 4.A. <br /> <br />Councilmember Etten sought clarification of language in Section 4.2.C.5 (page 5) <br />related to rehabilitation of tear downs. <br /> <br />From his perspective, Mayor Roe identified expansion equaling growth, while re- <br />habilitation equaled an existing substandard building. <br /> <br />Mr. Aarsvold offered to further clarify language, but advised that his assumption, <br />from past conversations, was that the intent was for a project needing rehabilita- <br />tion, redevelopment or expansion. Mr. Aarsvold stated he had tried to stay away <br />from language such as “substandard, “due to statutory definitions with that term <br />for tax increment finding. Mr. Aarsvold opined his intent was to leave the lan- <br />guage open enough while still meeting the city’s desired goals. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGhee asked Ms. Collins if, from her staff perspective, this <br />provided a sufficient working tool for staff while not hindering their initial review <br />of projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Collins responded that this framework would prove significantly helpful <br />when staff fielded calls as to whether or not the city would support a particular <br />use. Ms. Collins reported that staff received a significant number of calls from <br />entities seeking public assistance before they even had a specific use or project in <br />mind. With this framework in place, Ms. Collins advised that it would provide <br />staff the ability to give a definitive “no” response where applicable; while struc- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.