My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 03 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 03 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:44 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 10:28:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/16/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 03 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
was apparent that there is and will be a tie on the sales tax rebate to the upgrades related <br />to the building itself. Koelbel stated that they would prefer that there not be a cap. <br />However, If Council needs to set a cap, he suggested that they take the $900,000 and <br />discount it by twenty-percent to determine the cap amount. He was then available to <br />answer any questions. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Koelbel if, after viewing the videotape, his understanding was that Council <br />had voted to reimburse fifty-percent of a 3% sales tax. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied, yes. <br /> <br />Sisk asked for Koelbel's basis for this understanding. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied that they sent an initial letter that asked for eighty-percent of a 3% sales <br />tax. After a Council Finance Committee meeting, Bill Simmons contacted me to inform <br />me that this had been brought to the table at that meeting. He said that he felt a fifty- <br />percent cap would be acceptable to Council. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Koelbel if there was any question on where he personally stood on this issue. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied, no. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he has always been opposed to a rebate of any sort. He explained that, for <br />this reason, he is going to abstain from voting on this agreement. <br /> <br />Mayer asked for clarification on some statements contained in Koelbel's March 8 letter to <br />Council. He read: 'we knew that Sam's had identified a site in Broomfield and was <br />moving forward on its processing.' Mayer asked Koelbel where that site was located. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied it was somewhere on 96th or on the extension of 96th. <br /> <br />Mayer asked if that was an area that provided services, as the letter implies that 'time was <br />on our side'. He assumes this to mean that the site was not as readily available as Parcel O <br />in Louisville. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied that the Louisville site was a little further along. He stated that they had <br />to use every advantage to get them to look at the site in Louisville. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that there is nothing in the area of 96th in terms of site development. <br /> <br />Koelbel replied that there was a site that was developable in a reasonable period of time, <br />or they wouldn't have been looking at it. They were in a bit of a race with Costco and <br />wanted to preempt some of their activity. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.