| 8/18/2008 | Unpublished Meeting Data Pending* |
| 8/25/2008 | BOARD OF ESTIMATES | A motion was made by Clear, seconded by Verveer, to Refer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES next meeting. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: |
| 9/8/2008 | BOARD OF ESTIMATES | A motion was made by Bruer, seconded by Clear, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER - ACCEPT REPORT. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: ACCEPT REPORT. |
| 9/16/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Refer to the TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING POLICY AD HOC COMMITTEE. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: Additional Referral(s): Economic Development Commission |
| 9/16/2008 | TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING POLICY AD HOC COMMITTEE | This Report was Refer to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION | |
| Notes: |
| 10/15/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Dave Gawenda, Vice-Chairperson of the TIF Policy Committee, explained the Mayor appointed the committee in 2006. It is a diverse group of Alders, the development community and himself, at that time the Dane County Treasurer. He had been a member of numerous TIF review boards throughout Dane County.
He noted that the document they produced reflects a consensus of the group. Some of the group’s concerns were:
· Looking at TIF for economic development and neighborhood revitalization,
· Making sure neighborhoods are equal, with no preference for the Downtown,
· An annual review process of what goals are and the Council to identify areas for TIF,
· As an aide to staff to clarify interpretation of policy.
Mr. Gawenda expressed Alder Brandon’s concern that TIF not be perceived as a “give away” to developers and he wanted the policy to say why this is not true. Mr. Gawenda noted the committee tried not to be prescriptive but instead state a preference for they type of development they sought.
Joseph Gromacki, City of Madison TIF Coordinator, reviewed his 2 page memo from September 8, 2008. He stated the goals and objectives took a lot of the committee’s time. He said the overall theme is to use TIF to create an environment for businesses to grow and create jobs in, not just TIF as a subsidy.
Carole Schaeffer, registered speaker representing Smart Growth Greater Madison, said she has followed this process for two years and represented the real estate and development community at meetings. Her group has many questions about how this TIF policy will work in light of the Economic Development Plan and wonders does this policy restrict TIF use? The Economic Development Plan calls for a change of attitude and does this policy follow the plan? What does this policy do to scare or attract developers? She has received many comments from her group mentioning this policy legislates for exceptions and punishes for failures with no refundable fees. They wonder if this simplifies the process? There are great priorities of neighborhood revitalization and job creation but does this policy build trust between the development community and the City? How does this policy educate about the benefits of TIF?
Alder Clear questioned the speakers about the job creation aspect of the policy.
Mr. Gawenda likes to think this policy will not scare people away. He wants to guard against people reading more into it than there actually is. Mr. Gawenda stated there was a lot of discussion on this, with many anecdotes from other communities about their use of TIF for job creation.
Alder Brenda Konkel explained how the committee tried to figure out what will happen to the City’s investment if the jobs are not created and it tried to balance what is promised with what happens.
Mr. Gromacki explained how the term”claw-back” was not used and was replaced with “job creation guarantee”. He further explained that banks finance a TIF deal they are in first or second position if the project defaults. The City would be in third position. This makes it difficult if the City wants its money out of a defaulted project because the City would have to buy out the bank’s position before even starting to recoup its share of money.
Ms. Schaeffer said it does not feel like an incentive if the three-year window is passed and the job guarantee is not met.
Alder Konkel said TIF is an economic development tool and the creation of jobs is important.
Mr. Gromacki said the committee looked for a better idea and did not come up with one. He said the job creation guarantee is not intended for mixed-use development such as 200 apartments with a minimal retail component. It is meant for TIF # 39, the industrial TIF. He noted other communities are starting to develop TIF policies and economic development plans.
Alder Clear asked if this makes TIF policy less arguable?
Mr. Gromacki responded that Madison is a leader in TIF policy and Milwaukee and Stevens Point are adopting their own TIF policies. He noted Kansas City has $3 billion in TIF projects that are failing because they do not have a policy that requires job creation or payback guarantees.
Chairperson Clarke recommended the EDC form a subcommittee with Douglas Nelson as its leader to review the TIF policy.
Ms. Gleason asked if it was the view of the TIF policy group that the City should do more TIF projects? Is this a commitment to use TIF more often or is this just another way of slicing up the existing economic pie?
Mr. Gawenda said there was no conversation on capping the use of TIF. It was mentioned that too much TIF was used for Downtown condominium development. He added it is the most flexible tool in the economic development toolbox.
Alder Konkel noted that this is for the Mayor and Council to decide not the TIF committee.
Ms. Gleason noted the expanded use of TIF as an economic development tool is good.
Mr. Gromacki said it was not the purview of the TIF Policy committee to talk about the use of TIF.
Mr. Nelson responded that the ED Plan suggests TIF could be used more often.
Alder Konkel responded that there are no TIF requests in the 2009 budget.
Mr. Gromacki further explained that in the past, $8-9 million was put in the budget each year for general TIF development and now this is handled through budget amendments as needed.
Mr. Her asked if there was any discussion by the TIF committee about encouraging minority and women owned businesses?
Mr. Gawenda noted TIF law does not address this and Alder Konkel said it was not addressed by the committee.
Don Marx, Real Estate Manager for the Economic Development Division, explained that all current City policies such as Affirmative Action and prevailing wage requirements apply to TIF recipients.
Mr. Gawenda noted that a related area of transportation services is not included.
Alder Clear noted the possibility of local purchasing policy being factored in.
Mr. Gawenda said the committee came up with the policy and the Council has to decide on it.
Alder Konkel mentioned she has heard a lot of grousing about the TIF policy but has not heard directly from others, except Carole Schaeffer.
Chairperson Clarke has gotten some specific emails he will forward on to her.
|
| 10/15/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Report was Discuss and continue | |
| Notes: |
| 11/5/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Vice-Chairperson Nelson explained the EDC TIF Policy Subcommittee met twice since the last EDC meeting. He said the subcommittee liked the streamlined policy and a job creation guarantee might make Madison less competitive. He directed the EDC to the memo by Mr. Mikolajewski that contains the recommendation form the Subcommittee. He suggested changing the last bullet item from “make other recommended edits” to “Carefully consider recommendations.”
Mr. Her said the subcommittee made this recommendation to use TIF as an economic development generator and to not set the bar so high that it is not used. He said it is hard to track jobs. These recommendations are proactive and to make TIF not hard to use.
Ms. Carole Schaeffer, representing Smart Growth Greater Madison, encouraged the EDC to support the subcommittee’s recommendations. She would like to add sustainability and energy efficiency as eligible TIF costs and had not included these in the comments she previously submitted.
Ms. Selkowe said the TIF Policy Committee has worked a long time on their report and they have not even seen the staff version of the policy.
Ms. Torkildson said the job creation and equity kicker is in the TIF Policy and she considers the staff version easier to read.
Mr. Gromacki said the changes the EDC TIF Subcommittee is recommending are in the staff version. The staff version is sorted by pure policy and eliminates the housekeeping stuff staff has to do such as, report to Council on TIF creation. This was set apart to make the TIF policy a more concise document. He also mentioned that State TIF law trumps local policy, for example the "but for" analysis is state law and not in the local policy to make a more succinct document. The staff document is basic and a blueprint.
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said the staff version captures the essence of the policy.
Ms. Selkowe asked for the rationale behind removing the career ladder requirement?
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said Mr. Clarke felt a career ladder is difficult to measure and not necessarily in place when a company opens.
Ms. Torkildson said there is no way to measure a career ladder if jobs are created. What happens when a city goes after jobs and the economy changes? Applicants should be evaluated on what it adds to the economic development base, not jobs that it transfers.
Alder Clear asked, hypothetically, isn’t it a straightforward process to ask an employer the number of jobs before and after their project is built?
Mr. Slone asked how to enforce a job guarantee? Would the City be forcing a company out of business if it did not create jobs and had to repay a TIF loan?
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said this is exactly what was talked about at the EDC TIF Subcommittee. They looked at this as a policy for economic development with staff as a gatekeeper and not to penalize a company at a later date.
Alder Clear said a differentiation between hard economic times and a poor business plan is needed.
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said this is a valid point, however, the reality is this makes Madison uncompetitive.
Mr. Gromacki said that the first job creation model that the TIF Policy attempted to implement would make end loans wherein funds were disbursed when job creation was met. However, developers wanted the money upfront to create jobs. The current model provides a low-interest loan and lowers the interest when job creation thresholds are met. Historically, the City has used claw backs in commercial projects, for example in the Monroe Street TIF project a clause in the contract calls for a grocery store to be in operation for ten years. In the University Square project, a pre-lease agreement was called for.
He further explained much of the TIF policy reflects what has been learned over the years, such as the City no longer does mortgage guarantees. Mr. Gromacki stated that if the first two models were undesirable, the third model would be to require job creation as part of a contractual obligation. The problem with this model would be that the City must sue the loan recipient in order to remedy a loan default caused by lack of job creation.
Mr. Slone asked if TIF loans are ever forgiven?
Mr. Gromacki said no they are paid off at agreed upon times.
Ms. Gleason moved, seconded by Mr. Boucher, to accept the subcommittee’s recommendations. (Note: no vote was taken on this motion.)
Ms. Selkowe asked if the subcommittee really wanted to remove all of section 3.1(5)? She noted the EDC talked about using TIF strategically for jobs and this gets to accountability.
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said this could be captured in the TIF contract agreement. There are uncontrollable in job creation and this is punitive for Madison. He asked if we wanted to add another layer to Madison’s policy?
Mr. Slone ages job creation is important and questioned if the subcommittee thought this was uncompetitive?
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said other communities do not have this and it creates extra risk for the developer.
Mr. Her explained removing it does not mean jobs will not be created this just removes a layer therefore it is easier to apply for and the City can negotiate an agreement that goes to the Common Council.
Mr. Gromacki said this is a double-edged sword and might create uncertainty. If job creation is option then it is the Council’s prerogative to chose if there are two competing applications.
Ms. Gleason said she is comfortable with the job creating language and no claw-back. She noted the document is hard to read. She noted the Department of Commerce has a claw-back policy and has a difficult time deciding how to use it and it is difficult to administer.
Alder Rummel asked how a City can use TIF to grow the economic pie? What happens if the goals for the Downtown are not realized? It is ironic that the EDC dos not want job creation. She wants TIF easy to use and the difference between basic sector jobs and distribution jobs is not straightforward.
Ms. Torkildson said job creation is important economic development tool. It is difficult to make sure requirements are met. How can it be implemented and defined, for example job migration is not job creation.
Mr. Gromacki said the TIF Policy Committee did talk about job retention definitions and they tried not to be too proscriptive and be open-ended. For instance Rayovac was given $3 million for 1500 jobs.
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said all things being equal, a business would go elsewhere if they had to have a job creation guarantee.
Mr. Slone said a way is needed to make job creation an incentive rather than to club them for not creating jobs.
Mr. Gromacki said the language that is recommended to be taken out is the closest thing to what is Mr. Slone said.
Alder Clear said if language is added that has a measurement to show jobs are created, this is an audit not a claw back.
Mr. Gromacki said the term sheet could have this. He said a recent study said financial incentives are last in the factors of where a company decides to grow.
Vice-Chairperson Nelson said the TIF subcommittee could reconvene. He thought the policy is less conducive and has more layers and risks for business and the City could police these things.
Alder Clear asks if reconvening throws off the timeline?
Mr. Gromacki said no, the TIF Policy Committee will meet sometime in December.
Ms. Selkowe would like the subcommittee to reconvene and job creation is important.
Alder Clear moved, seconded by Ms. Selkowe, to reconvene the TIF Policy Subcommittee. The motion passed unanimously. |
| 11/5/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Report was Discuss and continue | |
| Notes: |
| 11/10/2008 | SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND ENERGY COMMITTEE | Joe Gromacki gave a short presentation on what TIF is and how the City of Madison's TIF policy has changed over time.
The report attached to this Legistar file was completed in June and was forwarded to the EDC for comment and will then return to the Ad Hoc Committee. EDC will meet on TIF next week and then the Ad Hoc Committee will meet in mid-December to finalize the report.
Jeanne Hoffman clarified for the committee that this policy will go on to other committees and that SD&E will not have the final say on this document, so the committee needs to keep that in mind. The committee should be looking at broad issues regarding this policy and not edit it or get into the specifics.
Sherrie Gruder passed out the 2007 language that the SDE was considering (attached to the Legistar file). This language would require LEED silver certification. Sherrie asked where this language would fit into the policy?
Joe Gromacki referred to 5.1 sub-paragraph 18 as the language that the policy already has regarding green building.
Sherrie Gruder asked if there is where SD&E could suggest we include the LEED language.
Joe Gromacki indicated that there could be an issue if the certification isn't achieved. This similar issue was discussed regarding job growth. He also asked who would inspect the project for LEED and suggested there may need to be some language in section four to address that issue. Finally, Joe indicated that the industry itself is dealing with the issue of LEED and certification.
Sherrie Gruder indicated that SD&E knew that claw backs were an issue and that she wanted to let the Ad Hoc committee deal with it and now that they have figured out how they want to deal with claw backs that not achieving LEED would also require a claw back.
Joe Gromacki also suggested that you needed something in the Goal and Objectives Section in addition to green building elements that you address through the process.
Paul Muench suggested that before the committee talks about LEED requirements, we need to know if these costs would be TIF eligible.
Joe Gromacki briefed the committee about how costs are listed in state law - the state law does say that capital costs and soft costs that are related to the project can be eligible TIF costs. City fees and accessible costs are not reimbursable with TIF.
Paul Muench asked if a project came to the City applying for TIF, and the project had a lot of solar on the building, which increased the cost of the building, how would TIF staff look at a project like that in terms how much TIF it gets?
Joe Gromacki explained that part of the TIF question is that you need to look at the value of the building or the new tax over and above what was there before the project. This new tax is the TIF increment and the City forecasts out for 20 years how much new tax the property would pay and then the City discounts it back to a present day value. Joe also explained that because of that 20-year outlook, it is basically a guess on the part of the City. Because of that, the City doesn't want to give out too much TIF because then the City would be on the hook if the City makes a mistake on the 20-year forecast. This is where the City's a policy of giving only 50% of the increment comes from.
Joe Gromacki also indicated for Union Corners, the LEED costs were $600,000 on a $30 million project so not a lot. Paul Muench asked if those elements be considered as real costs and are TIF eligible?
Joe Gromacki indicated that yes, they are, but the bigger question is can the project support the request per the 50% policy? He also explained that the Council could go beyond the 50% rule if there is something that the Council feels is very important. Finally, Joe did say that the Council does have a problem when the City gives all the TIF dollars from a project or 100%. The City also likes to have funding available for other City projects, such as PW projects. When staff is not sure how the Council will react to a request, staff would go to BOE with a project and get BOE to say yes or no to various elements of a project, maybe even funding for LEED.
Sherri Gruder indicated that broadly speaking, we are talking about Green Building and Sustainability for the Goals and Objectives section.
Joe Gromacki asked about Energy Star. Sherrie Gruder indicated that Energy Star is a certification for residential and existing buildings. Joe Gromacki indicated that it is important that if the committee uses a certification program, that it work for all types of projects.
Michael Vickerman pointed out that solar and wind systems are not taxable.
Joe Gromacki indicated that it depends on what the rest of the project is worth. If the building supports more than enough tax increment, the funding these elements of the projects is not a problem, but if the building doesn't have enough tax increment to cover the request, then there is a problem.
David Drummond made the point that Trader Joe's is great to have, but that now residents on West Lawn have had to replace their lawns because they don't get any sun, due to the show from the building. David noted there is nothing in the TIF policy about the impact the project has on the project surroundings.
Joe Gromacki explained that is more of a land use issue and that really doesn't need to be in the TIF policy and that the role of Plan Commission is to deal with those issues. Joe also indicated that there is some information in the policy about planning, but he primary reason for the TIF policy is for making financial decisions. The City does have a policy for the TIF proposal and the Land Use approvals to be voted on by the Council at the same time. Joe admitted that the TIF policy is not a perfect document, but the process of having both Land Use and TIF voted on at the same time, is a step in the right direction.
Sherrie Gruder asked where the best place would be to put the goal about green buildings, because green buildings promotes the economy, but also other goals in the TIF policy.
Joe Gromacki suggested just forwarding a goal regarding green buildings to the Ad Hoc TIF Committee and let them deal with it or SD&E wants you to consider these goals and process issues regarding green building and sustainability. Then the Ad Hoc Committee would deal with it in terms of where in the policy these goals and other issues should go.
Joe Gromacki also mentioned that he would let the SD&E committee know when the December meeting of the Ad Hoc TIF committee was, so that someone from SD&E could go to the meeting.
Joe Gromacki left to go to BOE.
Sherrie Gruder then made a suggestion for the Goals and Objectives section that there be language regarding Green Building and Sustainable Energy and that this could support the goals of economic development and neighborhood revitilization.
Paul Muench suggested that SD&E recommend to the Ad Hoc TIF Committee that costs related to Green Building or Sustainable Energy be allowed to go in excess of the underwriting standards of 50%, that those costs are a legitimate reason for going over the 50%.
Sherrie Gruder agreed that green building and sustainable energy costs may exceed the 50% of increment underwriting policy.
Paul Muench explained that this is similar to the affordable housing policy, which can also go above the 50% policy for affordable housing.
Sherrie Gruder suggested that the committee look at the application process in section four.
Paul Muench noted that speaking as a developer and not a member of the SD&E, that he would like for the City to use TIF more liberally. In Madison, only 50% of the increment can be spent on the project, with another 10% of the increment in the district going to affordable housing. Other communities don't have these guidelines. He had heard that Cannondale Bicycle Company didn't come to Madison and maybe TIF could have helped. LEED would yet be another requirement for TIF. Another reason is that a developer needs to show the bank where the financing comes from. TIF is made at the end if LEED is required, because you have to get LEED.
Sherrie Gruder indicated that the EED check list would be submitted - to show that you are following LEED. Paul Muench stated it should be good enough for the City to know what the builder is going to build and not do LEED.
Lou Host-Jablonski asked when the City might be getting a green building?
Paul Muench indicated that the City is making a land use and/or TIF decision and at that time, the developer indicates if he is going to be doing something sustainable.
David Boyer indicated that it sounded like TIF needs to be first money in a project so that the other money going into the project, from banks, doesn't go away.
Sherrie Gruder suggested changing the language.
Jeanne Hoffman indicated that elements on the builiding such as PV could be checked as part of the building inspection process. Lou Host-Jablonski indicated that with the LEED process, you don't get certification until very late in the process, so there is timing issue.
Paul Muench stated that by state statutes, without TIF the project would not move forward. He would rather say that all projects must meet LEED regardless of whether they need TIF or that TIF should be more efficiently used and we should not have all of these restrictions.
David Boyer suggested that we could require LEED silver as specifications that the design must be met, regardless of whether it meets LEED.
Sherrie Gruder commented that time is running out and the committee needs to decide what it wants to do. Paul Muench stated again that we don't need to have LEED for TIF and that these projects are already hard to finance. If we required LEED for TIF projects, this will create sprawl because projects that would be in Madison will be driven out.
Sherrie Gruder asked if there is support for having developments designed and constructed to LEED and then stated there are only five members that want to move forward with this requirement. Sherrie Gruder reviewed what the committee wants to say to the Ad Hoc TIF Committee.
Lou Host-Jablonski asked if there is a way to make this a carrot? You get more if you do LEED. Paul Muench stated that would be great, but we needed to get more systems installed.
Sherrie Gruder added language regarding green building design to allow going above the 50% policy or that LEED documentation and certification would be more than 50% policy.
David Boyer stated that he would rather have a building in Madison rather than a building outside the City or no building at all. How do we make the building as green as possible and then use LEED to educate and show LEED is good for business?
Lou Host-Jablonski stated that we could expand the language to include storm water issues, water issues, energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Satya Rhodes-Conway stated that to get TIF, you must meet "the but for...." and that in other cities, they hand TIF out like candy. My question is, "is it enough?" What about LEED gold?
Sherrie Gruder stated that SDE recommends sustainable design be allowed to go above the 50% rule. Garrick Maine asked about requiring some form of certification so that we know if we are getting a green building that we asked for. Satya Rhodes-Conway indicated that if we are going to put City money behind something, we should do something big.
Michael Vickerman indicated that the apartment building off of Central Park is much better than LEED-Silver. Sherrie Gruder stated that is why we should have something that requires TIF funded projects to have 30% better than energy codes. David Boyer pointed out that this is not the same as economic development and neighborhood revitilization. Green building is more of an incentive, not a policy.
Paul Muench stated that a developer thinks about getting TIF because the cost of the project exceeds the ability to finance the project. Satya Rhodes-Conway made the point that developers try to get TIF because they think they can get it.
Lou Host-Jablonski moved and Peter Taglia seconded that the SD&E send a memo to the Ad Hoc TIF Committee stating that they include goals for green building into the TIF policies and that they also allow the TIF increment for green buildings to go above 50%. The motion was approved. | |
| Notes: |
| 12/3/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Chairperson Clarke said the EDC TIF Policy Subcommittee brought back their previous recommendation, dated November 5, 2008, to the EDC.
Mr. Boucher made a motion, seconded by Chairperson Clarke, to accept the recommendations from the EDC TIF Subcommittee that are in a memo from Matthew B. Mikolajewski dated November 5, 2008.
Ms. Selkowe asked for clarification of the last bullet of the memo.
Mr. Nelson explained that it should reworded to consider recommendations from others.
Chairperson Clarke noted the “Perfect World” document is not perfect and still needs edits.
Ms. Selkowe asked if the recommendation should refer specifically to the submittals by the various groups? Ms. Yessa confirmed that statements received are in the Legistar TIF file.
Chairperson Clarke proposed the motion be amended to add that the text of the last bullet in the memo be changed from “make” to “consider” and to add a reference to the documents in Legistar. Mr. Boucher accepted the amendment to his motion (“To accept the recommendations from the EDC TIF Subcommittee that are in a memo from Matthew B. Mikolajewski dates November 5, 2008, with the text of the last bullet in the memo being changed from “make” to “consider,” and adding a reference to the documents in Legistar.”)
Alder Clear asked if we are giving clear direction to the TIF Policy Committee?
Chairperson Clarke said this committee was not charged with writing the legislation. The EDC offers these recommendations to the TIF Policy Committee.
Alder Clear said TIF is the most important tool the City has and this is where we need the details.
Mr. Boucher asked if the EDC would see the TIF Policy Committee’s final edits?
Alder Clear said this probably would not happen. The TIF Policy Committee has to report to the Council.
Mr. Gromacki added the TIF Policy Committee is meeting on December 15.
Mr. Nelson said rewriting the policy is beyond the scope of the EDC and he is comfortable with what the EDC has done.
Ms. Selkowe noted the bullets do not give guidance for the rationale behind the bullet items and this is not the best way to convey information on this important topic.
Mr. Slone asked if anything was missing from the bullets?
Ms. Torkildson asked for clarification if staff is being asked to summarize the meeting minutes?
Alder Clear made a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Boucher, for the Chairperson to work with staff to codify the recommendations as discussed in the November 5 memo into a single document
Chairperson Clarke said the EDC TIF Policy Subcommittee would change the last bullet to “consider” the recommendations submitted by others.
Mr. Gromacki explained the TIF Policy Committee agenda packet would need to go out on December 8.
**Vote:
Aye: Boucher, Slone, Clear, and Nelson
Nay: Her, Clarke, Torkildson, Selkowe
Motion failed.
Mr. Her made a motion, seconded by Alder Clear, that Mr. Clarke work with staff to explain why the job guarantee and equity kicker was removed.
A friendly amendment was made by Alder Clear to amend the memo by Dec. 8th. Mr. Her accepted the amendment.
Alder Clear stated the goals of the TIF policy are number 1 job creation and number 2 neighborhood revitalization. Alder Konkel says this is a mixed message without specific language of how TIF can accomplish this.
Vote:
Aye: Clarke, Clear, Her, Boucher, Slone, Torkildson, Nelson,
Nay: Selkowe
The motion passed.
|
| 12/3/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Report was Discuss and continue | |
| Notes: |
| 12/8/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Report was Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s), as found in the document, "EDC TIF Memo to TIF Policy Committee 12-8-08" to the TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING POLICY AD HOC COMMITTEE | |
| Notes: |
| 12/15/2008 | Unpublished Meeting Data Pending* |
| 1/22/2009 | Unpublished Meeting Data Pending* |
| 1/22/2009 | TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING POLICY AD HOC COMMITTEE | This Report was RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER | |
| Notes: See attached report (FINAL REPORT - Cover Memo - TIF Policy Comte 2-24-09.pdf) |
| 2/24/2009 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Clear, seconded by Ald. Schumacher, to Refer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES, due back on 3/31/2009. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: 2 Registrant(s) in opposition not wishing to speak.
Due back at the 3/31/09 Common Council Meeting. |
| 3/23/2009 | BOARD OF ESTIMATES | A motion was made to amend the policy to change the equity participation payment to 50% to the City and 50% retained by the Developer. Motion carried with the following vote: 4 Ayes (Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Sanborn), and 1 No (Rhodes Conway). | |
| Notes: |
| 3/23/2009 | BOARD OF ESTIMATES | A motion was made by Bruer, seconded by Clear, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - CHANGE EQUITY PARTICIPATION PAYMENT TO 50% TO THE CITY AND 50% RETAINED BY THE DEVELOPER - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(4:0) |
| Notes: A motion was made by Bruer, seconded by Clear, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGE EQUITY PARTICIPATION PAYMENT TO 50% TO THE CITY AND 50% RETAINED BY THE DEVELOPER - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by the following vote: 4 Aye (Clausius, Bruer, Clear and Rhodes Conway), 1 Abstention (Sanborn) and 1 non voting (Cieslewicz). |
| 3/31/2009 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Clear, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Adopt the final report with the following amendment(s): Change the equity participation payment to 50% to the City and 50% retained by the Developer (page 10, (15) Equity Participation Payment). Add "and alder of the district" at the end of (5) Term Sheet and (6) Board of Estimates Presentations: Staff & Developer on page 6; add "are not eligible TIF expenses" to the end of (4) Operating Costs on page 9. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(16:2) |
| Notes: 1 Registrant(s) neither in support nor opposition wishing to speak; 1 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak.
|