1986-07-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes July 8, 1986 Council Business, continued Mrs. Zwieg, 1061 Robin Lane, stated it is not a traditional corner; it's the curve that is not lighted. George Walczak, 1065 Highview Drive, stated the light has been there all these years until it was removed; has a light in his basement the city can have for nothing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Locke reviewed status report regarding Senden Associates proposal for Second Street N.W. portion of development district and stated it appears there is potential to make the numbers work. Locke stated, at this point, we are talking about not having enough development committed to make the total project possible, and a good number of homes and parcels would have to be acquired to make the grading possible. Submitted some general course of action, not to usurp any actions that will have to be taken related to creating the tax increment district itself, etc. Benke clarified it will take a lot of work on the part of a developer and/or multiple developers and/or the city and it is in the city's best interest to have something precipitated and staff is looking for council concurrance in the general direction for that area. Locke stated this is an area that will see some change and we have the opportunity to guide that change. Benke believes the overall prospective is the best way to go about it; asked what needs to be done by whom and how quickly to make something come together; Locke stated the key ingredient is whether indeed further development for that area can be committed so that we can have enough increment to do make this possible. Schmidt stated, in looking over the city actions that would be required, they are not a problem for the city because we have done it in the past, provided there is some good public benefit to be served. Therefore, at this time the city can indicate it has no difficulty in performing its actions; the key being what to do with the street and some of the major costs of acquiring the land without, necessarily, a Development Agreement that would be able to show the evaluation needed for the city to be sure the increment would be captured. It becomes a matter of having one intended development and a matter of how soon other development projects can be inked to establish financial feasibility for the city to move ahead with the actions that would be contemplated by this project. Locke confirmed. Senden agreed with staff recommendations; however, the continuous push to make the project bigger creates two negatives: time and money (he will, however, proceed on that basis). Senden noted another problem is the federal government and the tax laws (tax increment financing mayor may not be possible). Individual developers are worried about the change in investment tax credit Page Seven Senden Project Evaluation Second St. N.W. Report 86-157