CC_Minutes_2010_0726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 26, 2010 Page 28 Councilmember Ihlan disagreed that there was a public purpose for use of TIF; as this was designed as market-rate project and afor-profit enterprise, and had been approved without TIF several years ago. Councilmember Ihlan opined that it would have negative impacts on the neighborhood as well as encroaching on park land; and disagreed that this was a blighted area, with the exception of one home, and served as wooded parkland now. Councilmember Ihlan noted that access road would pave over a significant portion of Langton Lake Park, currently sec- luded; and that it didn't justify public subsidy. Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10829 entitled, "Res- olution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Establishment of Tax Incre- ment Financing District No. 19 within Development District No. 1 and the Pro- posed Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto (Attachment EO" scheduling a public hearing on September 13, 2010 to hear public comment. Councilmember Pust advised that she was opposed to the use of TIF for this project, but couldn't deny, at this point, that there was a public purpose in con- necting Langton Lake Park. Councilmember Pust noted that the development coming into the area provided an opportunity for a formal connection and access into Langton Lake Park, but that the road would also provide access to the site. Councilmember Pust supported additional public comment and discussion. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of public comment and further discus- sion, based on the proposed use of TIF meeting the City's criteria. Roll Call Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan. Motion carried. 14. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions a. Continue Discussion on the 2011 Priority-based Budgeting Finance Director Chris Miller provided as a bench handout, an updated ranking of individual Councilmembers and a composite of those rankings, attached hereto and made a part thereof. Discussion included differentials between high/low rankings; interpretations of rankings for mandated programs and services; areas of consensus and areas with- out consensus needing further discussion and review; Mr. Miller's ranking of "6" for those items left blank in the rating process to underscore the need for further dialogue; assumptions and potential distortion of the data and rankings; varying definitions of what is mandatory and whether federal-, state- or City-mandated; mandated areas representing contractual obligations and/or long-term agreements; provisions of City Code; narrow and/or broad definitions of mandatory items; and