Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Study Session — 09/20/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 19 <br />when 204 retail stores were already within the area of the <br />development site. <br />Mr. Kotecki opined that this was a risky investment, with <br />an unproven demand given other large retail sites within a <br />five mile radius, as well as the environmental impacts not <br />having been fully examined and completed. <br />O. Dan Roe, 2100 Avon Street <br />Mr. Roe questioned the annual impact to the City for the <br />hazardous substance sub-district, and the source of funding <br />(i.e., TIF' increment or current tax value); and also <br />questioned the TIF analysis in general based on a 1% <br />inflation rate and land appreciation related to the earlier pay <br />off of the TIF' district. <br />Mr. Casserly responded to Mr. Roe's questions, clarifying <br />that any inflation over 3.5% would be available. <br />Mr. Roe questioned the use of that increment for other City <br />functions. <br />Mr. Casserly responded that the TIF Act dictated clearly <br />the use of increments only to development costs. <br />Mr. Roe further questioned how much it would cost for the <br />City to take control of the land to seek other developments, <br />and how that would be paid for. <br />Mr. Roe noted the actual value of the proj ect was quite <br />high, with the risk borne by the developer, and <br />comparatively, the public subsidy being requested was <br />relatively low based on the total project cost. <br />Mr. Casserly responded to Mr. Roe's fundamental question <br />of whether the public sector were to actually do the project, <br />noting the discussion and considerations would be less <br />complicated if the City were to use it's Port Authority and <br />to the land acquisition and sell it to developers. Mr. <br />Casserly noted that, in this scenario, the City would design <br />the Redevelopment Agreement, if the project moves <br />