CC_Minutes_2010_0913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 13, 2010 Page 10 Councilmember Pust noted that the original application for the project had not included a TIF request, and questioned when and where that request originated. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that the original project came forward for discussion in 2007, with approvals of the full project in 2008, followed by a return of the project proposed for phases in the fall of 2009. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the actual plat approved as part of that revision had ex- pired and would require the applicant to return for another approval, with that ap- plication already in-house for staff review and recommendation. Councilmember Ihlan referenced page 3 of the TIF Plan, Section I, second para- graph and second sentence regarding construction of the project and the number and type of jobs to be created, including construction jobs, and the basis for that finding; and what new jobs will be created as opposed to construction jobs for ex- isting companies. Ms. Huot advised that the .language of that section was the additional legislative provision recently adopted, and provided for one of three tests to be considered for an Economic Development TIF District, for the City to consider approval beyond traditional TIF Districts. Ms. Huot reviewed the criteria for job creation, opining that the development would create jobs, adhering to the provisions of the Jobs Bill adopted earlier this year. Ms. Radel clarified the intent of those criteria in Section B on page 2 of the Plan, providing for not just job creation, but also job retention as part of that finding of fact. Councilmember Pust questioned if, under the new legislation, creation or reten- tion of just one job satisfied that component. Ms. Huot noted that this was a good legal question; however, based on her per- ception from anon-legal standpoint, and the definition of the statutory provisions, she assumed that even one job created and/or retained would qualify; and was a component of the "BUT FOR" test. Councilmember Ihlan noted, in the same paragraph, questioned the threshold for the starting date assigned by HUD; and how the City could predict that by the time for construction to start and the project to move forward, that the project couldn't be fully funded without the use of public subsidies such as TIF. Ms. Huot advised that, as part of Springsted's due diligence in reviewing the project's financials and pro formas, the rates of return anticipated by the develop- er for this project if the project were to proceed without TIF before a certain date, the developer has indicated that there would not be sufficient returns without TIF assistance. Ms. Huot advised that this is another component of the "BUT FOR"