Work Session (closed)
This session was held to discuss the lawsuit against the city by a builders group over our permit and planning fees. (you didn't miss anything).
Item N (Graco Development)
TIF is a mechanism whereby the city takes ALL of the property taxes (city, county, and school district) generated by a property (over 9 years) and uses it in the vicinity of that property. The use can be giving it back to the property owner or paying for infrastructure needed (or wanted) in the area.
When Graco decided to move to Dayton, the city returned the TIF money to them. The council at that time was told by Graco that they wouldn't come here without that TIF. I did vote for it then but I wasn't very enthusiastic about it.
They are now looking at building an additional 500,000 square foot facility on the remainder of the land and are looking for TIF returned to them. For this property I'm not ok with that and it didn't sound like many on the council were. I am ok with using it to upgrade a chunk of East French Lake Road though since the city is responsible to pay for that.
Item O (Kwik Trip Truck Stop)
This has come up a few times in front of the Planning Commission and Council. Originally I believe the planning commission was against it (3-2) and with the last meeting they were for it (3-2).
Though there is another Kwik Trip going in on 81 and Brockton, Kwik Trip believes it'll serve different customer bases.
When it first came before the council I was ok with it, After that meeting I had conversations with a few individuals which led me to believe there were high crime rates associated with truck stops. At both the Planning commission and Council meeting we learned that those higher rates are common to any convenience stores. Now the argument is basically this: is a truck stop appropriate for that spot? If not, what is?
We have 2 members who believe it is and 2 that don't. The 5th one (me) is on the fence.
Some of you have already given me your opinion but... feel free to contact me if you have one.
Item Q (East French Lake Road Design Discussion)
Well, this got messy fast.
For a while now 2 members of the council (including me) have made it clear we don't want to see condemnations. That has been stated a number of times with this particular project. I even asked if we thought we had enough right of way to do the project... I haven't gone back and listened to the meetings, but I'm pretty sure the answer was we did. It turns out since then we've added a third lane and a trail to the project. That means staff wants us to approve condemnations on both sides of 7 feet. And yes the caveat was thrown out "nobody wants to condemn but...". My belief is you are either ok with it or not. A 3rd member of the council had previously stated they also were "done" doing condemnations.... but apparently not.
The bottom line is the process requires approval for condemnation so the city doesn't get too deeply into a project, only to have it halted by a breakdown of a negotiation. If condemnation is approved, the city just takes control of the property and pays the appraised value, which I am NOT ok with.
Where it was left was the design will be done so that the 3rd lane and trail are alternates. There were 3 members that were ok with the condemnation approval so we'll see where it goes at the next meeting.
As usually feel free to contact me with any questions or opinions.