Laserfiche WebLink
extra time when the City has not been afforded the same opportunity. He stated he would like <br />the end date to be changed to December 31, 2016. <br />Member Skaff agreed and stated if they cannot meet that date then they would need to meet with <br />the City to amend the agreement. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill stated they presumed they could get the project done <br />by December 2016 but there are also many ways the project could be delayed. A lot of it will <br />hinge on how it goes this fall and how the winter conditions turn out to be. <br />Member Riley stated it sounds like in theory the amount of time and payments result in the same <br />but why would they say they are only doing four years if they are also stating a dollar amount. <br />He felt like there was a disconnect. <br />Economic Dev. Mgr/Assistant City Administrator Brama stated originally when they talked <br />about this there was discussion about $500,000 and there are different ways of slicing this up. <br />The terms are talking about present value and the way the agreement is written it is the lesser of <br />four years in increment, or $500,000. He stated this was something that he was not involved in. <br />Mr. Aarsvold stated based on their early analysis based on the need, the dollar amount was <br />important but also a big part of it was having four years of payments in their cash flow for their <br />Proforma. It could be written that they receive $500,000 regardless of how long for the payoff to <br />occur. But part of the thought of doing this, was to add another layer of protection for the City <br />and make sure they are not paying beyond the four years because the City has other needs with <br />respect to TIF from this project in the years going forward and a limited number of years from <br />the back end that the District will exist. He stated this was a way to make sure the City is not <br />paying any more than it needs to. The City has the ability to pay the entire $500,000 in the <br />agreement and leave it open ended for payback if they choose. <br />Member Skaff asked if this is the final authority for this agreement or does it go back to the City <br />Council. It was indicated it will go before the City Council for approval. <br />Member Skaff asked if there could be a compromise on the end date, such as March 2017. <br />Member Riley stated the reason he thought the end date should be December 2016 is to tie in <br />with the assessment date. of January 2017. He stated neither March nor June meet that criteria. It <br />is based on the assumption that the project will be done by December 2016 but the agreement is <br />not requiring that it be done by then so he felt there was a disconnect. <br />Economic Dev. Mgr/Assistant City Administrator Brama asked if it would be the preference of <br />the Board for him to have a discussion with the developer and bring the comment back to the <br />City Council for further discussion. <br />Member Skaff indicated he would be agreeable with that. <br />Member Hardin thought if in January 2017, the project is 98% complete, it will not be assessed <br />at the full value. Mr. Aarsvold stated that was correct and if the project is not fully completed by <br />Economic Development Authority/October 8, 2015 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />