07/11/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j Committee had looked at possible sites for land banking for these e relocations, and this would mean extra work for the Committee, but was included in the process of carrying out the program. Mr. Delay had several questions concerning legal aspects of the proposed program. He said the program was a public investment for which reason the public payoff should be clear. He said since this program, and the previously approved plan for downtown revitalization would both be in effect, it might be beneficial if the City could end the tax abatement program when it was no longer needed. He asked if the Ci ty woul d be locked into the program for a certain period of time. He asked how much discretion the City would have in granting the abatement, and how optional its approval could be. He asked if the City could be taken to court if it did not approve someone's request to be included in the program. Assistant Manager said the subsidy would be granted project by project depending on each project's individual merit, and the Council could rescind the program at any time. He asked Ms. Niven to further comment. Ms. Niven said the bill was self- destructing including only construction completed by January of 1980. She said it was doubtful the downtown revitalization program would be developed by that date. She said the two pro- grams would tend to reinforce each other. Mr. Delay referred to page 2, Section 2.1.3 of the proposal. He said the selection of those to receive the subsidy would be made administratively not in the Council, and asked if the word- e ing of the proposal insured that justification would bereas~able and not based on weak reasoning. Assistant Manager said Mr. Delay's understanding of the proposal was not accurate. He said the section Mr. Delay referred to concerned the preapplication process, which preceded the formal application process which had to be presented to the Council. He said Council had to be given 180 days to review the application. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the builder would seek the benefit after or before construction. Assistant Manager said the benefit only applied to those who sought it prior to actual construction. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the cost to the public would be. He said a fiscal impact statement presented to the Council indicated the net gain after 20 years would be $43,000. He asked what this figure meant. Ms. Niven said the figure was based on a $23,000 less per ten years as opposed to a $27,000 gain for ten years. She said these figures were based on the assumption that land and structure costs would remain constant, which they would not, so that by the time the figures were entered on the tax roles they would be higher, meaning more of a gain to the City. Mr. Lieuallen said he was still not certain if the program would cost the City a lot of money. He was also not certain how the preservation of buildings would be carried out. He asked which -- 7/11/77--8 5Lfq