Council Considers 8801 Page Redevelopment
On May 29th, 2007 the Overland City Council met in the Council Chambers with Mr. Cozad and others to consider the proposed tax abatement for the 8801 Redevelopment project. We covered this Redevelopment project at length a few months ago in this article.
According the developer they had not made any changes to the Redevelopment plan or agreement since the last meeting with the City. Their intent of this meeting was to simply discuss the plan with the new Council and determine what the best ways to move forward might be.
The following is that meeting in its entirety. (FYI: we've reverted back to hosting videos in Google until we can address some technical issues we were having with the service we experimented with earlier):
According the developer they had not made any changes to the Redevelopment plan or agreement since the last meeting with the City. Their intent of this meeting was to simply discuss the plan with the new Council and determine what the best ways to move forward might be.
The following is that meeting in its entirety. (FYI: we've reverted back to hosting videos in Google until we can address some technical issues we were having with the service we experimented with earlier):
If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the videos below.
you might not be able to see the videos below.
We apologize for the sound quality of this video. The acoustics of the Council Chambers are not very good due to the ventilation system. Usually this is overcome with the room's sound system, though there are some issues with using it at this time. We're continuing to try to clean up this audio and explore ways to better record it at future meetings.
With no changes or amendments to the plan or agreement our position that this redevelopment plan is not "ready for prime-time" stands. However, as can be seen summarized at the end of the video, we can hopefully expect some or all of the following changes:
* Provide Proof of Financial Commitments - This could take the form of letters from financial institutions committing to financing this project.
* Progress Milestones in the Agreement - If implemented properly this could create a series of progress checkpoints the developer would have to hit during construction to avoid having the tax abatement be reconsidered or possibly rescinded.
* Union Specific Language - Add language to require that union labor / contractors be used on all aspects of the project's construction. Though there were concerns raised about this practice, there doesn't appear to be an issue here (as you can see in this case, heard by the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals).
* Overland Residents Preferred - Add language to make a good faith effort to hire Overland residents whenever possible. Basically this would mean that if you have two applicants and everything else about them is equal, an Overland Resident would get the edge.
* LEED certification - Language added similar to the 8610 Page project where the developer's length of tax abatement is limited to the level of LEED certification the development receives, if any.
* A Hotel specifically restricted - Adding language to the development plan and agreement eliminating the option to build a hotel there. This could change if the developer brings a truly compelling case to the Council and they choose as a body to amend the agreement.
Overall, progress was made, but the agreement is still far from ready for a vote. Ultimately it is up to the developer to prove to the city that the development is of enough value to our community for Overland to commit to a tax abatement. So far, we don't believe that case has been made. However, we're looking forward to seeing what the new agreement and plan will look like.
One concern expressed by many around town is that the developer might be seeking the tax abatement simply to make the property more marketable for sale. When we first reported on this project the developer had the property listed on their website under both the listings of property for lease as well as listings of property available for sale. This remains to be the case (4.63 Acres for $1,495,000.00).
Though all the restrictions of the agreement would transfer to a new owner along with the tax abatement, we would still like to know if it is possible to restrict the transfer provision in someway to help alleviate this concern. Perhaps it is possible to require that the development be completed before the tax abatement as well as other rights and responsibilities of the agreement could be transferred to another party? If anyone has any insights into this possibility (or anything else) please feel free to share them in the comments below.
* Provide Proof of Financial Commitments - This could take the form of letters from financial institutions committing to financing this project.
* Progress Milestones in the Agreement - If implemented properly this could create a series of progress checkpoints the developer would have to hit during construction to avoid having the tax abatement be reconsidered or possibly rescinded.
* Union Specific Language - Add language to require that union labor / contractors be used on all aspects of the project's construction. Though there were concerns raised about this practice, there doesn't appear to be an issue here (as you can see in this case, heard by the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals).
* Overland Residents Preferred - Add language to make a good faith effort to hire Overland residents whenever possible. Basically this would mean that if you have two applicants and everything else about them is equal, an Overland Resident would get the edge.
* LEED certification - Language added similar to the 8610 Page project where the developer's length of tax abatement is limited to the level of LEED certification the development receives, if any.
* A Hotel specifically restricted - Adding language to the development plan and agreement eliminating the option to build a hotel there. This could change if the developer brings a truly compelling case to the Council and they choose as a body to amend the agreement.
Overall, progress was made, but the agreement is still far from ready for a vote. Ultimately it is up to the developer to prove to the city that the development is of enough value to our community for Overland to commit to a tax abatement. So far, we don't believe that case has been made. However, we're looking forward to seeing what the new agreement and plan will look like.
One concern expressed by many around town is that the developer might be seeking the tax abatement simply to make the property more marketable for sale. When we first reported on this project the developer had the property listed on their website under both the listings of property for lease as well as listings of property available for sale. This remains to be the case (4.63 Acres for $1,495,000.00).
Though all the restrictions of the agreement would transfer to a new owner along with the tax abatement, we would still like to know if it is possible to restrict the transfer provision in someway to help alleviate this concern. Perhaps it is possible to require that the development be completed before the tax abatement as well as other rights and responsibilities of the agreement could be transferred to another party? If anyone has any insights into this possibility (or anything else) please feel free to share them in the comments below.
Labels: City Council, Cozad, Overland, Redevelopment 8801 Page
posted by Overland Sailor @ 7:08 AM 
0 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home