My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 01 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 01 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:18:29 AM
Creation date
1/22/2013 9:01:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2013 01 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
Revitalization Commission <br />Minutes <br />December 10, 2012 <br />Page 2of 2 <br />Karl commented that as City grows there is a need to have commensurate role in <br />management of events, specifically with regard to safety.The Friday night <br />parade of lights seemed to overwhelm the people running it; Karl witnessed a <br />child being injured by a parade float. Carlos asked about forming a Downtown <br />Business Districtto, among other things, better manage events. Michael <br />mentioned there has been some historic opposition that needs to be considered <br />first, and the timing may not be right. Michael suggested Carlos informally meet <br />with him and some local business owners and/or property owners to see how <br />they feel about forming a District, before asking them to speak at an LRC <br />meeting. Sam addressed potential liability to the LRC in case of injury on a <br />project LRC is/was involved with. <br />Business Matters of the Commission– <br />a.Review/Discuss key elements of TIF application. Michael expressed <br />concern about Draft Concepts 3 and 4 in the <br />Discussion of Special <br />document that was <br />Session for Application and Evaluation Process <br />part of the packet.A lengthy discussion by LRC members followed. <br />Two main concepts of structuring assistance were being debated; 1) to <br />utilize tax increment from properties within the entire TIF District to <br />provide up-front funding to a project, or 2) utilize the tax increment from <br />a specific property to provide up-front funding to a project. Each <br />financial structure has differing effects on allocations of TIF to future <br />projects. <br />Karl wanted to explore how to pay back developers that invested in <br />infrastructure, and what would happen if a project failed. <br />The discussion also covered how to select a project to fund, and where <br />the money would come from. Opinions were expressed on how large <br />the area collecting TIF revenues should be(either district wide, or a <br />subarea). Michael argued the areawas already defined when the <br />boundaries of the URA were set. Carlos proposed creating zones (or <br />subarea) within the URA asan option. <br />Items for Next Meeting –Not discussed <br />Commissioners’ Comments–None <br />Meeting Adjournedat 9:20AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.