Laserfiche WebLink
Based on the most recent development permit, Mr. Noard appears to eligible to receive $3,073.99 <br />in taxable rebate for 1996. This leaves a remainder of up to $16,500.91 that is potentially <br />recoverable if taxes rise on commercial property generally or if taxes rise on this property <br />specifically. There still remains the possibility that taxes could go down generally which would <br />leave less room for Mr. Noard to recover these dollars. [For instance, the legislature has several <br />proposed bills reducing commercial property tax generally]. <br /> <br />In a letter to Mr. Jeffrey Carson, attorney for Mr. Noard, staff proposed a resolution to the <br />situation could be an early pay-off, but because of the unsurity of future tax levels, staff <br />suggested that if an early pay-off is agreed to, it be made at a considerable discount <br /> <br />Mr. Carson responded with the attached letter stating that Mr. Noard would settle for $15,000.00 <br />cash. This offer represents approximately a 24% discount from the original $19,574.83 or a 9% <br />discount from the $16,500.91 balance apparent after 1996. <br /> <br />Based on the previous information, it appears that there are two options in bringing this issue to <br />closure. Those option are as follows: <br /> <br />Option 1 Reject the offer. <br /> <br />Option 2 <br /> <br />Counter the offer. Given the uncertainty of excess increments or <br />property taxes ever being available, staff feels a 50% discount is more <br />appropriate. Further, that any settlement not be in cash but instead be <br />noted as a credit against future City services. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff's position is that Mr. Noard was charged the fees appropriately and that he has already <br />received a large amount of assistance through tax increments and unique benefits not offered to <br />other developers or property owners. Therefore, staff recommends that the Finance Committee <br />make a motion to propose that the City Council proceed with Option 1 and reject the offer. <br /> <br />If it is felt that this will not resolve the issue and the committee thinks Mr. Noard is entitled to <br />some type of settlement, it is staff's recommendation that the Finance Committee make a motion <br />to propose that the City Council proceed with Option 2 and provide a settlement of a 50% <br />discount and that this discount be offered as a credit against furore City services. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Based on discussion. <br /> <br />Reviewed By: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />Finance Officer <br /> <br />FC: 08/27/96 <br /> <br /> <br />