2004_0726_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session — 07/19/04 DRAFT Minutes - Page 13 advise the development team as to their clear intent regarding use of this tool; with the Council able to build factors into the agreement for potential criteria (i.e., use only to assemble "final" property/ies needed for redevelopment as shown in an adopted redevelopment plan or policy document; use only after a certain percentage of applicable properties are assembled or encompassed within purchase agreements; or use of "friendly" condemnation). Councilmember Maschka sought clarification as to an estimate of how much of the site was currently under the control of the development team at this time, particularly related to Phase I of the proposed proj ect. Staff deferred to the developer to respond later in the meeting. Councilmember Maschka opined that it was a tool of last resort and if used carefully could establish value. Councilmember Ihlan questioned the appearance of property acquisition costs listed at $44 Million, while property payment by the developer was listed at �26 Million; and what constituted the difference. Councilmember 1 h] �n noted for the record, her personal and severe reservation in using Eminent Domain. Mr. Miller deferred to the City's development attorney, Jim Casserly, to address Councilmember Ihlan's concerns during his presentation. Councilmember Ihlan further addressed whether TIF was used for environmental clean up, concurring with a public comment heard tonight that contaminated land should be reflected in the market price, rather than the City paying the cost of Eminent Domain as well as environmental costs. Policy #4 Mr. Miller briefly defined and explained Council choices on how to distribute contribution requirements when creating a TIF' district; whether to pay it from within the district or consider contribution from outside the district. Mr. Miller noted that the Council would be required to adopt a resolution that would be