Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Ramsey stated he does not fault Solomon Group for asking, but it is the consensus of the <br />Council to not support a restrictive covenant. He stated the City will not consider something that <br />is a direct competitor of Coborn's. <br />Mr. Gleekel stated they wanted to ask and if a restrictive covenant is drafted right, and not too <br />broad, there is not a bad connotation. With respect to access, his firm has been in business for 50 <br />years and has done a lot of condemnation work and empirical evidence proves that whether you <br />can or cannot view a retail business, the business does not want a change. This request was not <br />to imply the City has not been decent to Solomon Group but Solomon Group does not want <br />change and wants to maintain the status quo as much as possible. He agreed that people who are <br />going to a grocery store know how to get there because it is a destination. Mr. Gleekel stated <br />they will watch what happens, be honest with the HRA to protect their interests, and believe that <br />consistency is important for credibility. <br />Mayor Ramsey stated the City will be careful with sight lines when negotiating deals. <br />Development Manager Lazan stated it had been discussed earlier that the HRA is used to hearing <br />about restrictive covenants on deals but it likes to layer those on deals as they happen, that is <br />usually how restrictive covenants evolve. <br />Councilmember Elvig stated the City appreciates Solomon Group stepping in to pick up the <br />property, noting it is a sophisticated group that drew other tenants. He stated the HRA is <br />interested in growing that area, has already invested millions of dollars, and remains committed <br />to Solomon Group and Coborn's. <br />Mr. Gleekel stated they are private investors and understand the City is bound to consider the <br />taxpayers and constituents in making its decision. <br />The consensus of the Council was to not consider a restrictive land covenant. <br />2.02: Continued Discussion of 2013 Budget <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed previous Council discussion and staff testimony that $3 <br />million per year is needed to fully fund a road improvement project. Staff looked at the Mayor's <br />proposal and noted the current components are road funding at 16.34 %, tax rate at 44.149 %, and <br />staffing at 54.84 %. He presented staff's recommendation for road reconstruction funding with a <br />five -year phase out of assessments and matching increase of revenues to offset declining <br />assessments. City Administrator Ulrich explained that a 2% growth in the current tax base is <br />needed to accomplish that revenue. It is roughly $34 million in additional growth, which is <br />equivalent to 120 housing units or several large projects outside the TIF District, which may be <br />achievable four years from now. He then presented a ten -year phase out of assessments, <br />requiring $17 million in additional growth, which is equivalent to 60 housing units. With this <br />plan, the City would have to assess at 50% for the next three years and risk residents counter <br />petitioning, or delay those projects to 2015. City Administrator Ulrich requested Council <br />direction on the tax rate and amount of staff reductions. <br />City Council Work Session / May 1, 2012 <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />