Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- "'~ . '-" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. <br />2 . <br />3. <br />4. <br />5 . <br />6. <br />7 . <br /> <br />Community Redevelopment Agency Chairman Jerry M. Patterson; <br />Planning Commissioner Robert Newcomb; <br />Loren Norton, Attorney at Law; <br />Billy C. Hall, Executive Director, City Center Association; <br />Community Redevelopment Commissioner Harold Gosse; <br />Community Redevelopment Commission Chairman John W. (Bill) <br />Howard Way, former Chairman of Project Area Committee. <br /> <br />Hill; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Goblirsch responded to the questions as follows: <br /> <br />(1) that residential properties within the proposed expansion <br />area have been kept to a minimum; that the Developer spends <br />dollars to acquire land, but is asking help from the City for <br />site acquisition and development of a parking facility, the <br />return from which to the City would be $700,000 to $800,000 in <br />additional property taxes and $400,000 to $450,000 in sales <br />taxes annually after opening of the Center; <br /> <br />(2) that no City funds have been expended for a market study; <br />that Developer has had indications of market potential and <br />expectancies; that once construction is underway, the Agency <br />has authority to sell bonds and that proceeds from bond sale <br />will then be available for downtown use; that Developer is <br />willing to expend time and dollars to help the Agency locate <br />a downtown developer; <br /> <br />(3) that the proposed area is consistent with the depressed <br />area provisions of the State law, which recognizes several <br />kinds of depressed situations (i.e. structural blight, land <br />use, and economic blight);. that the existing North Main shop- <br />ping center is outdated and a potential economic blight, a <br />matter of concern; that displaced downtown businesses will <br />have priority in relocating in the new center; and that the <br />proposal will benefit the downtown area and the City as a <br />whole; <br /> <br />(4) that inclusion of the proposed development in the Project <br />Area will not affect previously established downtown tax <br />base; that funds for the construction of the parking facility <br />(approximately five to seven million dollars) will come from <br />bond sale based on anticipated revenues; that the intent of <br />the plan is use of funds from the proposed development to help <br />support redevelopment of the downtown area; that negotiations <br />are not complete, and future management of the parking facUity <br />has not been determined; that no official action will be sought <br />until eertain firm commitments have been made and success is <br />assured; that the State law provides for actions which must <br />be taken to amend existing Project Area boundaries; <br /> <br />(5) that exact boundaries have not been determined; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(6) that plans for downtown and the proposed development can <br />proceed simu~tane~usly. <br /> <br />Agency chaír1Í1an Patterson, in response to Mr. Way's. question (7) <br />regarding,pqss,ible additional expansion of the ProjettArea to <br />include res'iIdential areas to the west (bet.ween downtown and <br />Bristol) and the northeast (Logan area), stated that housing <br />areas do. not generate sufficient funds to support a Redevelop- <br />ment Agency; that housing redevelopment would not be feasible, <br />under the State redevelopment law. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Agency, and the Planning and Re.development <br />Commissions, was unanimously in favor of going ahead with the <br />ne.ces. S. a.ry st.udies, negotia.tions and procedures. toimI.l. emen. t....t. he <br />North Main Street expansion of the Redevelopment PrO ect Area, <br />including ti;l.e proposed shopping center, subj ectto f 1'111 cODlmit- <br />ments from major tenants, and continuing attention to comnU:tments <br />already made to the downtown area. <br /> <br />-2- <br />