HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-14 TIF Commission MinutesRIVERSIDE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
The Riverside Tax Increment Financing Commission met on February
14, 1996, at the City Hall Annex, 4712 NW Gateway, Riverside. The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Super at 7:10 p.m. with
the following members responding to roll call: David Brenner,
Mayor Betty Burch, Diza Eskridge, Jimmy Karr, Ron Super, Al Tunis,
and Ed Young. Absent: Jim Davis and Tim Weeks. Also present was
Ann Daniels, Secretary, and Steve Warger, Riverside resident.
Minutes from the meeting of November 27, 1995, were approved as
printed.
Mayor Burch welcomed David Brenner as a member of the Commission,
having been appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of
Aldermen on February 13, 1996. Mr. Brenner replaces Jim Wedua who
had submitted his resignation.
Mayor Burch and Ann Daniels presented an update on the various
issues regarding the former TIF Plan submitted by Trillium
Corporation and John Brown and Company, as well as the latest
information from the Levee District Board and Corps of Engineers.
Mayor Burch and Mrs. Daniels detailed the funding needed for the
Levee project, showing both an inflated and uninflated amount as
proposed by the Corps of Engineers. After reviewing proposed
funding levels from Trillium, City of Riverside, and the Levee
Board, as well as amounts projected to be raised by 500 of the
sales tax and utility tax in the proposed redevelopment area, a
shortfall of $5 to $7 million was noted.
The Commission members addressed several questions posed to them as
follows:
1. Is there a feeling of support for the levee?
Answers: Property owners on the West side voice no
opposition while property owners on the East side have
expressed some opposition. Concerns include: financing
costs to the City and the affected property owners;
The aesthetics of the levee; the value of the land in
the levee district area -- will it increase?
Mayor Burch responded to a question concerning the real
benefit to be gained from construction of the levee by
stating the levee would protect existing businesses in
the area, as well as any new development that might
occur, and the cost of flood insurance for anyone located
in the floodplain would be reduced.
2. Is there continued commitment from the Commission to
support only the construction of the levee and not to
include the infrastructure and reimbursement of the
development costs to the developer?
Answer: Yes.
3. What kind of legal expense will be involved and is a
financial adviser for the Commission also necessary?
Answers: Ann Daniels had spoken with Steven Crystal, an
attorney who specializes in representing small cities in
TIF projects, and was given an estimate of $15,000 for
legal services from review of the plan through completion
of the development agreement and adoption of the
Ordinance by the Board of Aldermen.
Mayor Burch addressed the need to have a financial
adviser review the proposed funding available to the
project to determine whether bonds could be sold to
cover the costs. She stated she had been working with
Greg Bricker from George K. Baum and Associates and would
like to invite him to attend the next meeting to review
his findings.
Greg Bricker will be asked to attend the next meeting of
the Commission to make preliminary recommendations to the
Commission concerning the feasibility of adequate
financing for the project.
4. Who should represent the City's interest in the legal
negotiations for this project?
It was the consensus of the members that an attorney with
strong TIF experience, preferably with smaller
communities as opposed to metropolitan projects, be hired
to represent the TIF Commission and, ultimately, the
City, in negotiations for a TIF project.
It was also the Commission's desire that the Board of
Aldermen be asked to authorize the Commission to
interview potential candidates for legal adviser to the
Commission. This will be done at the meeting on February
20, 1996.
5. Can the school district and other taxing bodies support
the proposal if the Argosy property remains exempt from
property taxes, current and future development?
The school district's representatives stated they felt
this had been agreed upon at the close of the last
negotiations and they could still be supportive of this
concept. The county representative stated a similar
consensus.
6. Will this Commission support the Developer recovering
the Development costs?
Answer. No.
7. Is it necessary to name the Developer now? Does Trillium
have the right to pre-select their Developer? Should the
project developer contribute funds?
Answer: Ann Daniels reported on information provided by
attorney Steven Crystal with regard to opening the
project to bids for developers rather than going with
Trillium as the developer. She stated advertising for a
developer usually was done when the City owned the ground
to be considered as part of the project. Otherwise, it
was customary for the developer to present the project
and support it with cash contributions and support for
the bonds.
8. What impact could pending legislation at the state
level have on this project?
Answer: Any project to be considered at this time
needs to be completed prior to the adjournment of
this session of the General Assembly which is late May.
During discussion of the various questions, several items were also
discussed. These included:
1. An offer by Ed Young to pay for the Attorney's fees.
Appreciation was expressed for the generous offer but
it was the feeling of the members the City should hire
the attorney so no conflict of interest could be charged.
2. No plan has been submitted by Trillium as of this date.
Consequently, the clock has not started on the project.
3. Trillium will be expected to contribute at least the
$2.3 million they had previously committed, provide the
infrastructure at their own expense, and guarantee the
bonds, if necessary. Should they not be willing to do
these things, the project will probably not be
considered.
4. Purchase of the land needed for the levee by the City.
This would require the City to make all the investment
and would not be beneficial.
5. The school representatives were asked if the projected
shortfall in financing not be resolved from other
sources, would the school district consider supporting a
percentage of the property tax being assessed, if this is
deemed legal?
Al Tunis and Tim Weeks stated they could not speak for
the District but would refer the issue should it be
found pertinent to the completion of the project.
6. Other funding sources were briefly discussed including
seeking additional funds from the Federal government,
capturing of de-obligated funds from Community
Development
Block Grant funds, and additional dollar commitments from
the city and/or developer.
When all discussion had been covered, a motion was made to adjourn
by Diza Eskridge, seconded by Jimmy Karr. The vote was unanimous
and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
' i~ j /
r_ ~-
Ann Daniels, Secretary
TIF Commission