City Council Minutes 2019 11 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes November 4, 2019 Page 7 of 20 Caleb Dickinson, 721 Grant Avenue, read an email he sent to Council supporting the project and the City's approval of the agreement. Rick Kron, 746 W. Fir Ct., president of the Downtown Business Association (DBA), stated the DBA supports the agreement. It will encourage keeping local jobs and activity downtown, the building will provide the opportunity for increased retail activity and the TIF will allow two weak buildings to be replaced with a more suitable building in that location allowing long term revenue in downtown. Councilmember Stolzmann asked if the LRC had discussed inflating the base. City Manager Balser stated no. Mayor Muckle asked if the agreement needs to be amended to clarify the base inflating as it is supposed to and the calculation. Director Watson stated he felt the agreement holds the base constant. If want to adjust the base would have to make an assumption and should makea notation in the agreement that states that. Mayor Muckle moved to approve Resolution No. 10, Series 2019; Councilmember Keany seconded. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated his thinking as a member of the LRC and a dissenting vote. He stated the TIF policy has a principals that there would have to be extraordinary community benefit for such a rebate. For this project, he feels at the end of the day this building could end up a two-story office building or it could be sold to another owner before the 10 years is up. Worst case scenario the building will not generate sales tax. He felt it does not meet the test for the full 90% for 10 years. He prefers a TIF package other than this; it is a tool we should use as appropriate. He doesn't want to set a precedent for other developers that we fund office buildings. He was willing to entertain something other than the full 90% for 10 years. Councilmember Maloney stated this isn't about not supporting the business it is about a TIF rebate and do we invest here or somewhere else. As a City, we should be more aggressive looking at where we invest in the City and where we can stimulate growth and reinvestment, especially if it produces sales tax. When applying the Urban Renewal tool and looking at the map of the whole urban renewal area there are areas that could use some help and we should use the funds where they have the greatest impact long term. From his perspective we need to be more aggressive using our urban renewal funds but this project is on that edge of a priority. He would support but not at the 90% level. Councilmember Loo stated the incremental property tax the City would be foregoing for 10 years is significant. However, in 2033 the City would get funds we did not have before. If approved at the end of all this there would be a $7M building and it would generate a lot more property tax than we would have without it and it would be a better building than what is in that location today. Not even looking at the sales tax, the new building would be better for Louisville. If we don't do this, what is the alternative; nothing is happening on its own. This project won't go without the 90%; this is a risk the City has to take to get