2016-10-17_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

8a. Attachment B Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 26, 2016 Page 19 Councilmember Etten noted the similarities of Items 2.A.4 and 5 (page 2) but asked if they were different enough to list separate due to the “but for” analysis). Mr. Aarsvold opined that they were similar, but he thought distinct enough to in- clude both. Mr. Aarsvold stated #4 addressed extraordinary redevelopment costs, while #5 provided varying dynamics possibly due to a market dynamic versus ex- traordinary costs. Mr. Aarsvold clarified that both items may rise to the “but for” test, particular for tax increment financing, while a project under Item #4 may have contaminated land and in order to get back on par with a Greenfield site, costs would be in- curred; while in Item #5, only a market dynamic may hinder redevelopment on a clean site. In Item 4.A (page 4), Councilmember Etten questioned the intent of a project meeting “any of” the qualifications or meeting all. Councilmember Etten clarified that just because a project met the qualifications didn’t automatically mean they would get money from the city. By consensus, it was determined to strike” any of” from the second sentence in 4.A. Councilmember Etten sought clarification of language in Section 4.2.C.5 (page 5) related to rehabilitation of tear downs. From his perspective, Mayor Roe identified expansion equaling growth, while re- habilitation equaled an existing substandard building. Mr. Aarsvold offered to further clarify language, but advised that his assumption, from past conversations, was that the intent was for a project needing rehabilita- tion, redevelopment or expansion. Mr. Aarsvold stated he had tried to stay away from language such as “substandard, “due to statutory definitions with that term for tax increment finding. Mr. Aarsvold opined his intent was to leave the lan- guage open enough while still meeting the city’s desired goals. Councilmember McGhee asked Ms. Collins if, from her staff perspective, this provided a sufficient working tool for staff while not hindering their initial review of projects. Ms. Collins responded that this framework would prove significantly helpful when staff fielded calls as to whether or not the city would support a particular use. Ms. Collins reported that staff received a significant number of calls from entities seeking public assistance before they even had a specific use or project in mind. With this framework in place, Ms. Collins advised that it would provide staff the ability to give a definitive “no” response where applicable; while struc-