Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Mr. Obie asked if the financial analysis suggested that the City . <br />could use $570,000 to finance an $8,330,000 project. Ms. Funk <br />pointed to charted figures which showed that the total cost of <br />the two projects (downtown retail development and a multi-use <br />center) would be $11,665,000 subtracting land cost and ERA funds. <br />She said the total tax increment would be $895,000 plus $255,000 <br />in the sinking fund by 1978. These two sources would total <br />$1,150,000. She said this would mean $11,720,000 in bond proceeds <br />to finance the $8,330,000 project. <br />Mr. Obie asked how the multi-use center alone could generate <br />$325,000 a year. Ms. Funk said this tax increment figure was <br />based on the value of new construction and the tax rate. Mr. <br />Obie asked if the multi-use center would be a public structure. <br />Ms. Funk said the $4 1/2 million public structure which would be part <br />of a multi-use center had not been included in public revenues, <br />since it would be paid for by the public. Mr. Obie asked why the <br />civic center had been proposed for the site it was shown on. Mr. <br />Elbasani said though the site proposed was tight, it made the most <br />sense in terms of reinforcement of the existing downtown area. <br />Mr. Obie asked if another site could be chosen if it were preferred. <br />Mr. Elbasani said the choice of site was flexible except that it <br />should benefit downtown. <br />Mr. Delay asked if the overpark inequity was being treated separately <br />by ERA or was being considered in terms of the new tax increment <br />which could be generated by downtown development. Mr. Kupper said e <br />the overpark assessment was not considered in the downtown project. <br />He pointed out that the downtown project would not create a new <br />assessment district. In the long run, the matter would have to be <br />considered and if enough revenues were being generated by tax <br />increment, the overpark assessment might be considered. However, <br />he said the figures presented showed that the new tax increment would <br />be needed initially just to finance the redevelopment project. <br />Mr. Delay asked if it was feared that the City would receive more <br />heat from businesses in the overpark assessment district since the <br />new project might seem to continue an inequity for these people. <br />Assistant Manager said the City was aware that the problem would <br />not go away by itself, that thedilemma was in deciding where the <br />higher public and good lay. He said it was a question of downtown <br />investments already made, and how best to carry out already es- <br />tablished policies. <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City Council would continue to review <br />the downtown project as it progressed. He said the City had <br />several ongoing concerns such as energy, existing businesses. <br />tearing down buildings, and placement of new businesses. He said <br />as the tax increment (a public source of money) was being used <br />to finance the project, the public should be allowed to review <br />the proj ect. Mayor Keller agreed with Mr. Lieuallen, saying he <br />saw the need for the public to be involved in improving the <br />project but not in drastically changing its numbers. Mr. Kupper e <br /> 7/11/77--4 <br /> 5lf5 <br />