2017-01-09_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9c. Attachment A Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 2016 Page 21 Under Section 8, General Property Information, (Page 5, lines 7 – 25), Coun- cilmember Etten referenced previous discussions and the importance placed on the proximity to transit and other amenities (Item #8, Lin 24), but now it had dropped down to the end of the list.Councilmember Etten questioned what that said as far as the goal discussions in the past. Mayor Roe noted that while it was listed last in the framework, as with typical administrative information appearing first on any form, it met the intended goals. Councilmember McGehee, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, opined that in gen- eral the draft truly reflected what the city had talked about. Case Study and “Acquisition Review” Document (Bench Handout) At this point, Mr. Aarsvold led the City Council through a case study based on re- al information from a real project in another community, and using the draft framework document to proceed. While opining that this framework was a good start, Mr. Aarsvold pointed out some areas needing improvement and sought feedback going forward; and advising the form would naturally evolve with staff revisions once tested, with this example simply providing an idea of what to ex- pect for a project. Mayor Roe suggested changing the form to “assessed value change” rather than “property tax change” as it appeared misleading unless the city asked for a larger levy, and assuming the same tax rate it didn’t necessarily equate to more overall city taxes collected. Mr. Aarsvold suggested a caveat at the bottom of the form to inform the process without completely removing that language if found too misleading. Specific to the parcel itself, from his perspective Mayor Roe suggested valuation changes for surrounding properties and knowing the associated change around the property would serve similarly to the Chapter 429 process and impact/benefit as- sumptions and be more helpful than tax numbers. While those tax numbers may inform future TIF calculations, Mayor Roe questioned their inclusion in this deci- sion-making. Councilmember McGehee addressed her overall TIF concerns and her personal interpretation of using that type of tool, time period for increments, and negatives in withholding those funds from taxing jurisdictions for a period of up to 26 years; and impacts created across the city with increased service costs to taxpayers with- out sufficient taxes generated from new developments or projects by “locking up” that money. Mayor Roe suggested “locking up” those funds for the purpose of filling a financ- ing gap or other development costs was the purpose of TIF districts in general,