1986-01-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes January 14, 1986 Benke asked Winkels if he had had the opportunity to discuss with the new councilmembers the city's past policy and distinguishment between the designation of Development Districts as opposed to Tax Increment District; Winkels had met with both Brandt and Williams and briefly discussed how the city has perceived a development district and, within that, several tax increment districts. Benke asked if this particular area (north of the railroad tracks to County Road E2 and east of Fifth Avenue) could be, at this time, designated as a development district; then if a development agreement were signed, it could be amended later to include the entire area and have several tax increment districts within that area. Winkels responded affirmatively, and felt the inclusion of that area is the most appropriate for study at this time; if we create a tax increment district, it would only be coterminous with Senden's property which would be consistent with past council poliCY in only creating districts where a project is occurring rather than including other properties simply for the sake of capturing any kind of future tax. Brandt asked for clarification that the proposed resolution would be two separate items; one, that we direct staff to look at the feasibility of creating a development district and, secondly, at the same time, to begin negotiating a development agreement, neither of which would create a tax increment district; Winkels responded affirmatively. Williams encouraged staff to seriously consider the inclusion of Block 3 as a part of the development; councilmembers concurred. Benke stated the inclusion of Block 3 does not force us to do anything beyond Senden's property. In response to Brandt's request, Schmidt indicated that the Financial Policy Advisory Board is completing a project which deals with the criteria for tax increment districts and the recommendations will be coming to the council very soon. Senden commented on the proposed project, stating his plan is to renovate the existing twenty-year old building which precludes nothing, add a second building which might preclude some options, and holding the last half of the property for platting with adjacent parcels. Senden added that he had been in touch with parties interested in building owner-occupied buildings on the last half of the property. Send en agreed with Williams that putting the whole property into a development district sends a message that the city would like to see something done and that the city is willing to help in terms removal of houses, public improvements, or municipal assistance and financing, etc. Page Seven