Public Incentives Review Committee DRAFT
Meeting
Minutes
April 17,
2008, 4:00 p.m.
PIRC
Members Present: Mayor
PIRC
Members Absent: Cindy Yulich and Mike
McGrew.
City Staff
Present: David Corliss,
Mayor Dever called
the meeting to order and asked Reeb whether all PIRC
members
would attend the meeting.
Incentives Review Committee is a seven person
committee. Two City Commissioners are
members. Mike McGrew, Chair of the
EcoDevo Board was out of town, and indicated he would not be here and
Commissioner Highberger
asked for clarification on his attendance at this meeting and whether his role
would be ongoing or just for this meeting.
Mayor Dever said the
Allen Press tax abatement continued until 2011 so Commissioner Highberger’s
participation would likely be beyond this meeting and ongoing.
Mayor Dever asked
Reeb to review the draft 2007 Tax Abatement Report.
Reeb said he could
go into as much detail as the committee would like. He said he would walk through highlights
focusing on the three big pieces of information included in the report. Those three were the capital investment,
number of jobs, and the wages for those jobs.
There was other information in the report, but those were the big three
most people were interested in. He said
there were eight businesses that received tax abatements in 2007. By City Code they were required to complete a
questionnaire and all eight submitted a completed questionnaire for the
purposes of this report. It was also
worth noting there was some information not included in the tables and that was
information on the pending abatements for Amarr Garage Doors, Packerware/Berry
Plastics, and API Foils. He said he
talked with representatives of those businesses earlier this week and told the
committee that Berry Plastics planned to submit an application to get Phase I
of their abatement request approved through an order from the Board of Tax
Appeals and that would likely happen later this year.
He reminded the
Committee that on July 1, 2006, a state law became effective that exempted business
machinery and equipment from property tax and that would have some impact on
the machinery and equipment portion of the three pending abatements.
Reeb said Table 1
contained a snapshot of each of the 8 businesses receiving the abatements. Allen Press and PROSOCO both have more than
one abatement. He said none of this
information changed from year to year except for the appraised value of the
property. The 2007 appraised value for
the property was included in the table. Reeb
said the table showed the amount of capital investment actually made compared
to the amount projected on the abatement application and that number was in
parentheses for each business. There were also some end notes that explained
why a business might be a little bit below the projection.
He said the
employment information began at the bottom of page 2 and the table itself was
at the top of page 3. He said probably
the most important piece of information was on the far right hand side on the
last column. What they attempted to do
with this table was calculate where the business was in relation to what their
projected number of jobs was. For
example, the very first abatement, Allen Press, projected 327 total jobs as a
result of the abatement, 13 of which were from the abatement itself. They got that by looking at 327 minus the
pre-abatement number of 314 for a total of 13 added as a result of the
abatement. Allen Press reported 347 jobs
at the end of December 31, 2007, so what we did in the far right hand column
was subtract 327 from 347 to get a net of 20.
Reeb said they may want to note that DST
Systems, Jayhawk Bowling Supply, PROSOCO, and Reuter Organ were all below
projections. All of those businesses,
with the possible exception of DST Systems, were right at what they were the
prior years which was why they included the previous years in the report to try
to get five years worth of information on this table to get some sense of the
trend and see where the business is from year to year.
He said PROSOCO was
below projections but depending on how you count the numbers from when they
moved their employees over from
Reeb said the next
series of tables contained wage information for each business. It was arguably the most difficult for both
the businesses providing the information and staff coming up with appropriate
bench marks to compare the wages to. He
said this year they had more difficultly than in recent years in looking
obtaining Lawrence Metropolitan Statistical Area wage information from the Kansas
Wage Survey for 2007. That was demonstrated by looking at the various
asterisks and end notes for the jobs that were used when staff had to use a
mean wage that was different than the preferred 6 digit SOC Code for the
Lawrence MSA. He said they should keep
that in mind if they were looking at the percentages and number of jobs that
met a net mean wage for a job category.
It was best to look at this information as more of a starting point than
necessarily a conclusion as to whether or not a business met a particular
standard. There may be many reasons why
the business appeared to pay a wage below the applicable mean wage.
He said the
remaining tables contained background information. Table 4 included information about taxes by
each of the businesses or property related to the abatement. All of the businesses paid tax on property
not subject to the abatement. Table 5 on
page 13 contained some information about the industrial revenue bonds they had
for the businesses receiving tax abatements.
Table 6 was a list of expenditures and local sales. Table 7 provided some information on company
achievements in respect to job training, community service, and environmental
practices as well for that category.
Commissioner Highberger
asked to go back to page four and the taxes paid information. He asked if it was the total amount of
property taxes.
Reeb said it was
taxes paid only for property related to the abatement.
Johnson said it was
total paid, but not the distribution of it.
Corliss said but
only for property related to the abatement.
It may be possible that the business would have other property taxes.
Mayor Dever asked
if there was anything that stood out to Reeb between last year and this year as
far as anomalies or trends.
Reeb said a couple
of things stood out. He said during the
introduction he should have mentioned that the Jayhawk Bowling Supply abatement
ended in 2007. There were 8 businesses
in 2007 with abatements and as recently as 2005 there were 13 businesses receiving
tax abatements so the number of businesses continued to go down and that was
worth noting.
Johnson said that
was a bad thing.
Reeb said no new
abatements have been added but there was the possibility for Berry Plastics to
be added in 2008, but also in 2008 one of the PROSOCO abatements would end, the
Sauer Danfoss abatement would end, and the current Berry Plastics/Packerware
abatement would end, so in 2008 the number would go from 8 to 6 and would
continue that trend of going down.
As for the number
of jobs for each business that information was relatively consistent compared
to the last couple of years, with the exception of DST Systems. DST Systems went from 146 full time employees
in 2004, 2005, and 2006 but the number dropped down to 133 in 2007. He did not have information to explain the
reduction in jobs. However, the number
of DST Systems part time jobs did jump up to 108.
He said the other
thing in terms of what stood out to him was trying to find a good benchmark for
the various job categories; they had a harder time this year. Other than that, it was fairly consistent
with last year’s information.
Mayor Dever asked
if they could talk about the impact of the machinery tax and how it affected
the abatements they had done and how it would become a non issue in a few years
and how it affected the abatements they had done and the monetary advantages
they had by doing so.
Reeb said he had
not done any kind of financial analysis of that exemption’s impact, but perhaps
someone else may have done that. It appeared
that it would have some impact on the pending abatements in terms of what they
were giving up now.
Mayor Dever said
when it was $93 million in machinery.
Reeb said that was
90% tax abatement with Berry Plastics and that was going to be done in phases. When the business sought an application
through the
Mayor Dever said it
was maybe one of the reasons why
Commissioner Highberger
said he had made a suggestion during the process that had been adopted by this
committee to give a 100% abatement of property when they saw this coming, but
it did not happen.
Mayor Dever said he
wondered if that would change ever.
Johnson said it was
pretty unlikely that it would ever come back.
McFadden said she
wanted to commend all the companies for supplying their information on a timely
basis because in the past they had many of them that had not supplied any. To have 100% compliance with their document
and information request was commendable because it took a lot of time to
prepare and submit the information.
Mayor Dever said he
was not really sure how much depth committee members wanted to get into, but it
was important to analyze the survey of the wages as they compared to state
averages and means. He knew it was not
part of the required assessment, but as a trend it was important to try to figure
out the wages they expected were actually happening. He thought they should comment on that
because there were several that were substantially below the average mean
survey. He was concerned about this last
year and continued to wonder what kind of picture this painted on whether the
wages were deflated or whether or not they could do anything to encourage
people to read this in the proper light or if the numbers were skewed because
of regional differences. He did not understand some of the discrepancies,
especially when they were so substantial, like 50% lower in some cases.
Reeb said in terms
of the appropriate bench mark, they tried to use the mean wage for the Lawrence
Metropolitan Statistical Area as compiled by the State of
Mayor Dever asked
what percentage they had to use non local information.
Reeb said it was
probably close to 15% - 20%. He said the
other thing that was important to keep in mind about the information reported
in the wages and jobs was they were for all of the jobs for all the businesses,
not necessarily the jobs created as a result of the abatement. When they supplied an application requesting
the abatement, they noted jobs by general category, like management, non exempt
positions, etc.; He said that needed to be factored in as well.
Mayor Dever asked
if there was a reason why it was for all of them and not just the jobs that
were a product of the abatement.
Reeb said it was
consistent with what the Committee wanted approximately four or five years ago
when they first started using the format they saw now.
Mayor Dever asked
if anyone wanted to address anything particular about the report.
Johnson said he
agreed with McFadden’s statement that the companies should be commended for
being responsible. He thought they could
go through and pick any one of the wages and argue about it for half an
hour. For the most part, he looked at it
and there was some variance and most were not off base with what he expected
the wage to be. He said 73% of Allen
Press positions are at or above the mean wage.
He did not know how they would track it, but were the companies paying
the wages consistent with what the city thought they were going to pay when
they were giving the abatement. He
thought the answer was yes but did not know that for a fact.
Highberger
suggested sending a letter to DST Systems asking for additional information to
explain the reasons for the number of jobs compared to the projected number and
also why the wages appeared to be below the benchmark wage.
Johnson said it
would have been better if they just would have offered an explanation and he
would ask for it respectfully and not on an accusing basis but an inquiring
basis.
Mayor Dever said if
it could be something they would expect in the future.
McFadden said they
could ask for additional information.
Reeb said he had
PIRC directed letters from a few years ago that were written in such a way to
indicate PIRC reviewed the information and wanted additional information about wages,
shifts to part time jobs, and things that like.
Johnson asked if
the questionnaire included information about total payroll.
Reeb said no.
Johnson said as for
DST Systems jobs 133 full time jobs compared to the projected 175 may not
necessarily be a concern but 108 part time jobs created compared to none was also
worth noting.
Mayor Dever said if
they looked at 2005 or 2006, it was 87 part time jobs; 20 jobs roughly that
moved from part time and may have moved staff close to what it was. He asked if there were any other particular
comments about the findings of the companies in the abatement, specifically
wages or impact or assessment of their compliance based on the recorded number
of jobs versus when the abatement initially occurred and when this actually
happened.
Johnson said they
needed to have more prospects. He said
there were 10 abatements existing and in two years there would be five. That was a good thing on one hand and on the
other it was not a good thing.
Reeb said there
were 13 businesses in 2005 and he believed in 2002 there were as many as
15.
Robinson asked how
the
Mayor Dever said
they tried to use to the Lawrence MSA.
Reeb said in the
Kansas Wage Survey, there was a category for the
Johnson said the
Robinson asked how
Reeb said it depended
on the particular job.
Mayor Dever asked
Corliss if this was the type of information they would be lacking if the
Lawrence MSA information would no longer be reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Corliss said he did
not know if it directly was.
Mayor Dever said the
next item was to go over the Tax Increment Financing and Transportation
Development District draft policies.
Reeb said the
Committee was charged with forwarding the report to the City Commission by May
1st and so a motion to that effect would be appropriate.
Johnson asked if
they were also going to approve the minutes today.
Mayor Dever said he
wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with the information in the report
and then they could revisit it and approve it when they were done.
McFadden asked if
Stoddard could explain that a little bit more.
Stoddard said it
could be property tax revenue or it could be sales tax or both. She said it was best explained
graphically. When they had a
geographical area and were raising the property tax in the area and then you
place a district on this area. You do a
project to redevelopment the area where you have a commercial use and were generating
much more in property tax and sales tax.
The incremental amount would be utilized to pay back for the various
costs associated with that project. This
primarily was used for public infrastructure costs. It was meant as a redevelopment tool when you
are trying to encourage redevelopment in an area.
Transportation
Development Districts are a similar type of a concept. Again they would place either special
assessments or special sales tax on an area and that additional revenue would go
back to pay certain transportation oriented costs associated with the project, for
example if they had a large commercial development that would require a great
amount of traffic improvements. This
particular tool requires the unanimous consent for the owners so it was most
typically applied to single developments.
Robinson asked when
they developed the TIF and TDD agreement, was it just always 100% of the
overage that went back or was it a percentage that could be negotiated.
Stoddard said that
amount could be negotiated. She said it
might not always be 100% of the increment.
It might not be 100% of the sales tax or any of the tax. It also might be guest tax.
Johnson asked if
there could be a TDD within a TIF.
Stoddard said yes,
you could because the TDD was a sales tax add on.
Johnson said you
could have a TIF that was in one block, but because of the infrastructure needs
at the intersection could there be a TDD to just that location within the TIF.
Corliss said yes.
Stoddard said you
could not have a neighborhood revitalization area over a TIF. She said the TDD was an add on and that was
like the Oread Project.
She said taking up
the draft TIF policy, there were several things she tried to do as explained in
the staff memo. She tried to focus on
the process requirements and the criteria.
She tried to focus on those instead of rehashing the statutory
requirements. She tried to emphasize
some of the local elements of the process like how someone might approach the
city to apply and local requirements.
She said with the
TIF they would require a proposal being received from the applicant. The statutory process would be followed and
would require a redevelopment agreement with the applicant and the statutory
process would be followed. It would require
a redevelopment agreement with the applicant and would lay out the requirements
related to the project and the requirements of the City.
She said regarding
the criteria in the draft policy, it indicated that the City would judiciously
utilize this tool for projects that demonstrate a substantial and significant
public benefit to the community, that the project would achieve economic goals
through various means and there was an outline in the draft in what that would
be. This would be of community wide
importance and would meet with the comprehensive plan. The draft policy said that there were about
four principles and without the use of TIF, the project would not happen. She
said it talked about the debt issuance for those projects that they were
issuing debt for tax increment financing, special obligation bonds, the debt
coverage would be at least 1.25 times the debt service. Those were not necessarily spelled out in statute,
but were good to have as a rule of thumb.
The amount of the TIF assistance would be based on the economic significance
to the community and went to the earlier question that based on what kind of
project they were looking at. There
would be flexibility there. The TIF and
TDD proposals each provide for redevelopment and stabilization of areas that
would be favored with the idea of redevelopment being the goal. Each of the policies talked about the
development requirements. It said that
the developer must demonstrate the financial ability to complete and operate
the project. The projects would have at
least a 50% developer cost contribution toward the project costs. Projects that do have that would be viewed more
favorably. They were looking at all the
costs in the project and that developer was putting in at least 50%, which
would be favorable to the City. The
draft also indicated a redevelopment plan was required and that the City required
the developer to front certain costs such as the evaluation of the proposal
which was the feasibility analysis that was required and bond counsel costs and
those kinds of things. They were TIF
eligible expenses, but those expenses had to be paid before a district was
established. As in 12th &
Oread project, the applicant was required to pay those costs up front.
For transportation
development districts, a petition would be submitted in accordance with state
statute for transportation development district and it would follow a statutory
process regarding public notice and creation of the district. As far as the criteria in the draft, the TDD
could be used to reimburse the City for certain public infrastructure
costs. It could be pay as you go and
what they meant by that was, as an example, they receive sales tax from the TDD
and they would provide the developer that if the developer fronted the
cost. There was a way for the community
to also issue debt up front, in which case the City would use the proceeds to
retire that debt. There was a statement
in the draft that the use of a TDD should not enable a development to skirt the
City’s development policy, so a developer would still be required to do
everything he would be required to do otherwise. At least one of the following would be
met: it was a project that promoted or
supported efforts to redevelop sites, it was a retail attraction or mixed use
attraction, it would result in building transportation infrastructure the City
would require and would otherwise build.
She said as for developer requirements they would continue to have
evidence the developer could do the project and also that projects that have
developer contributions in excess of 15% of the TDD eligible expenses would be
viewed favorably. A development
agreement would be required and the applicant would be required to pay for
analysis fees that may be necessary in the establishment of that.
Stoddard said the
Commission requested feedback from PIRC and the public before finalizing the
policies. They were looking for any
thoughts from this group if there were any thoughts they wanted to submit as a
group or individually. They were
actively receiving a number of letters from many people. They also placed this on their website to get
feedback. Lisa Patterson was working on
sending out a newsflash to the City’s distribution list to also seek public
input on this.
Mayor Dever asked
if there had been much feedback.
Stoddard said she
had not received any feedback. There was
a batch of letters that were sent out late last week and another batch that had
been sent out today. It had been on the
website since Monday.
Mayor Dever asked if
it was a 30 day comment period.
Stoddard said they
would wait at least that long.
Mayor Dever said 30
days was a good amount of time to get the amount of feedback and could
determine if they were getting any response and could incorporate those
responses. He received a lot of
information from staff and it was a little less complicated but had been
thinking about it for a long time.
Johnson asked if
they have actually done this with the 12th & Oread project and
were creating a policy in which they would be guided to go forward.
Mayor Dever said
correct.
Johnson said he
would support that and understood. He
asked that under part of it, it said that City staff did not believe these fees
were necessary given the project improvement.
He could not agree more because creating fees that make hurdles up front
did not send the best message. The
criteria, it seemed to him when they said the City would use this judiciously
for projects that demonstrated a substantial and significant public benefit. He thought that was great but if they said
that, then why did they raise the question before. He said what they were saying was if it was
in the best interest of the City, then they were interested, so why would they
come down later in a paragraph and justifying why they would do it. They would set up that argument. He could not possibly agree more with the
first statement. They were going to do
this because it was in the best interest of the City and the community. They were not going to do it because the
people would not do it because you would not give them a break.
Commissioner Highberger
said we had actually gone through this process and they had to review potential
returns of the project. He asked why
give away public tax money if they did not have to.
Johnson said
because they are not giving away public tax money. They were trying to get tax money.
Commissioner Highberger
said why give away potential tax revenue that they would not have to give away.
Johnson said he
subscribed to the idea that there should be the cost benefit analysis, but
people doing this would say if they did this without the TIF, here was the
economics. They were going to do it
anyway if they applied for it. The
process of applying for this, they could demonstrate to the City that in doing
this, they would conclude it was good for the community; if it turned out to be
good for everyone, great. He was not
saying they should not do the analysis or listen to the argument, but do not be
the one coming out of the chute that they were not going to do this without the
TIF.
Robinson
asked how they would demonstrate that.
Mayor
Dever said they would say it would cost a certain amount of dollars and would
want a certain amount of return on their investment, and without this incentive
they could not get a market return.
Robinson
said so they were going to hold that with that credit.
Johnson
said if they did not have a policy and gave no indication they were willing to
do these type of things, then it was presumptuous for someone to come and ask
for one. If they developed a policy,
just like a tax abatement policy, then they would have a policy. He asked why someone would not look at the
policy to determine they were eligible for it and apply for it. He said if it was good policy and good for
the community they would do it.
Commissioner
Highberger said because it would be better for them if they had additional
income.
Johnson
said of course, and it would be better if they paid more taxes, but it did not
work that way. They were not giving away
anything but making revenue to pay for costs for a period of time. They were not taking money out of their
treasury and giving it to someone else.
Mayor
Dever said it would be giving from the treasury.
Johnson
said no, because it was used to pay.
McFadden
said if they had a policy, it should apply to everyone. If not, then they should not have a
policy. You should not have to prove you
were not going to do it if you did not get the TIF.
Mayor
Dever said he thought that the but/for was an indication but for the incentive the
developer would not get a fair return.
He would not necessarily do it, but may do it and suffer from lower
returns because in 10 years from now it may pen out great but the initial debt
load may not be great and would do better elsewhere. This way they would get a market return and
would be guidance they would get a fair one.
Robinson
said so anyone that applied for the TIF was going to go through that
process. It was going to be a but/for
requirement.
Corliss
said the draft policy they put together for comment was an additional
procedural requirement beyond the state law.
The state law said you had to have hearings, the taxing entities that
would be impacted by the incremental revenue, which would be the school
district and the county, and they would have an opportunity to review and veto
the district. It was an addition to the
statutory requirements. One of the
reasons they thought some of the analysis of the incentive was appropriate and
the but/for issue was they thought it was the public’s question; would the
project proceed but/for the incentive.
For the Oread Project, in addition to the feasibility study, the revenue
for the project paid for the public improvements, which was required by state
law, and had an inquiry of whether or not a subsidy was required for the
project to proceed. They were looking at
the market rate of return to determine if it was reasonable with or without the
incentive. It gave additional tools for
the decision makers to make judgments about and determine if it was in the best
interest of the community. The
additional tools helped analyze the economics of the project and which was why
they were suggesting whether it should be articulated as the but/for principle.
These were additional requirements
beyond any project that could qualify.
As they develop as a community and stress redevelopment as a community,
there may be many projects that would qualify for incremental revenue. What they want to say was that it may be true
procedurally from the statute, but wanted to ask additional questions like what
would happen if the incentive was not there.
He said it was his observation that was one of the questions that
continued to come out; was the incentive necessary for the project to
proceed. They needed facts and data and
with those facts and data you would make assumptions. If they got additional data, it would help
with that issue.
Mayor
Dever said they could not change the price and had to charge what they needed
to charge. They might draw in customers
they may not have had before. If they
would come across something they liked, they would have to determine whether or
not they would pay for it. They needed
to attract those people and as a City they had to have a maximized amount for
tax payers while knowing without certain incentives that it would not
happen. He said it should be fair to
everyone and every development should go through the process. It was prudent for them to have a tool and
rule in place.
McFadden
asked if there were specific numbers on the Oread project for the market rate
of return.
Mayor
Dever said yes.
McFadden
said she would like to know the difference between what they would like to have
and what reality was.
Commissioner
Highberger said the firm that did the feasibility study did a survey on rates
of return on comparable projects in the country.
McFadden
said it did not seem like they were getting that specific in terms of what they
would accept in the difference.
Mayor
Dever said the but/for was what they had to get around and what it meant.
Corliss
said they still had to satisfy but/for the incentive, the project would not
proceed. It would be a matter of
judgment.
Johnson
said it went back to the first statement.
They did not care about the rate of return for the developer, but what
was in the best interest of the community.
Corliss
said if McDonald’s said they would not build a new restaurant unless the City
gave them $100 million, they would say they did not think that was in the best
interest of the community. Those were
the easy ones. The hard ones were a
special type of project where they would need additional tools to analyze it.
Johnson
said the draft TIF policy mentioned the project must have debt coverage of at
least 1.25 times the debt service. He
asked why more than 1 and why not 1.0 or 1.5.
Stoddard
said a lot of times that was an issue with the bonds they issue as special
obligation bonds that they could at least generate more revenue than they would
anticipate. It was more of a marketing
aspect of the bonds.
Johnson
asked if it was a reasonable number.
Corliss
said bond counsel indicated that it was a standard requirement. It was an additional revenue assurance.
Johnson
said under the development requirements, projects that have at least a 50%
developer contribution toward the total development cost would be viewed
favorably. He asked why they would not
say 100% would be better. He did not
understand what that meant by the developer’s contribution.
Commissioner
Highberger said this was referring to the public portion part.
Mayor
Dever said if they built a $75 million parking garage and a $25 million hotel,
it would be steep.
Johnson
said under the TDD, projects that had private fundings and contributions of the
developer in excess of 15% would be more favorable.
Stoddard
said the difference was in the TIF it was looking at the total project
cost. On the TDD the 15% was referring
to just the TDD eligible costs, the transportation related costs. She said there was no magic in the numbers
and it was maybe a guide for the City Commission about what might feel right or
an expectation for the developer.
Johnson
said he was trying to understand why that was the number.
Stoddard
said in looking at policies from other communities, the numbers were somewhat
similar. Some of the communities had
thresholds and others had definite thresholds in what the developer must
contribute. That way the figure could
rise, fall or change and could be dependent on what they were looking at.
Johnson
asked what the impression of the image they were giving to a developer who was
at 25%, versus 50%, or versus 75%. He
asked if that was the message they wanted to send.
Corliss
said for example look at the 900 block Parking Garage. The public paid for that improvement with the
plans there would be redevelopment to the south and north of that. The redevelopment today had been to the
south. The parking garage was in the $7
million range and the development was not at that level. They were to do other work to the north. It
did not mean that was bad, because it benefited the
Stoddard
said they needed to decide if it should be a guideline or requirement.
Mayor
Dever said it was nebulous there.
Johnson
said he was in favor of what they were doing and in favor of the policy. People know what to expect and what they
could apply for. He said he was good
with it.
Robinson
asked if they could go back to the analogy of the hotel and the parking
lot. She asked if it was just the
parking lot that was eligible for the TIF and not the hotel.
Mayor
Dever said in this case it was both.
Corliss
said for it to be reimbursed, it had to be public improvements or a certain
developer related private improvements.
A private parking garage would be eligible and certain site preparation
and building permit would be eligible.
The actual construction of a private building, the hotel itself, would
not be eligible to be reimbursed with the TIF revenue. They were getting a lot of public
improvement, but had to have a way to pay for it.
Mayor
Dever said with the tax schedule, it would be fully taxable and it seemed like
it should be relative to try to encourage comparable investment.
Commissioner
Highberger said he liked the emphasis on the TIF portion and suggested they
limit it to rehabilitation. He thought
this was great work and the only other suggestion he would make was add
statements about what was favored and would like to have both for TIF and TDD
statements where projects were favored.
Corliss
said in conservation areas, he thought it was not quite blight but trying to
conserve, there were some statutory requirements that talked about
redevelopment of that area. The
developers at Bauer Farms, they were talking about TDD as means for paying for
that. They could not talk about TIF
because it was a corn field. TIF did not
work for redevelopment on farm ground.
McFadden said she
wanted to make sure they were doing a good job and make sure they were
financially liable to operate whatever it was in future projects.
Stoddard said they
had an analysis, like with Springsted that took their information and gave
their opinion.
McFadden asked if
they audited the financials of existing entities.
Corliss said one of
the redevelopment requirements was that they could get certain level of
assurances from a financial institution.
One of the additional assurances for the community was that there was no
City debt obligation for that project. There
was
Stoddard said they
would require financial statements and questions to determine their financial
ability.
McFadden said the
only other comment was what the proposal shall include, they needed to make
sure they were specific enough to get what they wanted from the developer. She said they needed to put in the policy
exactly what they wanted to make sure they got it the first time because it
would expedite things.
Mayor Dever asked
for a motion to approve the April 14, 2007 meeting minutes.
Moved by Dever,
seconded by Highberger to approve the PIRC meeting minutes from April 14,
2007. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dever asked
to go back to the review of the draft 2007 Tax Abatement Report. He said he thought they had come out ahead by
the number of jobs they had seen in regards to the reports they had seen. He was glad to see that.
Moved by Johnson,
seconded by McFadden to approve the 2007 Tax Abatement Report and forward it to
the City Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
The meeting
adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.