Laserfiche WebLink
get the titles transferred into the City’s name when the T.I.F. is retired at the end of <br />November, then the City would have a difficult title situation. He said it would make it <br />harder to transfer these properties to a developer. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said his concern is that he has no idea what the City is doing on Olive and <br />what is going to be done with these properties. Ms. Riganti noted that approximately <br />two months ago a memo was distributed to the Council with some proposed actions <br />for some of the properties. She said previously the City hosted a design Charrette <br />with respect to the Olive and North & South properties for residents and Council to <br />express their preferred use and the City has adhered to these preferences and <br />turned down development that did not adhere to these preferred uses. Ms. Riganti <br />said as to the future developments, the Council approved the hiring of a manager of <br />economic development whose duty will be to market these properties to developers <br />as well as to hear back from residents and Councilmembers. Ms. Riganti stated that <br />transferring the properties into a single ownership makes it more attractive to <br />developers and the Council has more input as to who these properties can be <br />transferred to. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft asked what was the difference if the property was in a T.I.F. or if University <br />City owns it. Mr. Martin said this T.I.F. is unlike any other he has seen, as they <br />usually are for a specific property with a specific purpose with a specific developer. <br />HE noted it flows through the Council with the T.I.F. Commission being the <br />recommending body. Mr. Martin said the Olive T.I.F. Commission was established <br />as the City’s agent in 1988. He said he would have to review the T.I.F. to see if they <br />were permitted to sell the acquired property. Mr. Martin said as far as the uses, the <br />T.I.F. Commission would have to have it approved by the Council. He said if the City <br />has the title, the City could then decide who they would sell it to. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert asked if the City had overtures made for some of the properties. Mr. <br />Walker said that was correct. He said over the past twelve years the City has done <br />comprehensive plans that coincide with the redevelopment plans. Mr. Walker said it <br />has always been the idea of the T.I.F. and the L.C.R.A. to acquire the properties. He <br />said he would provide Council what the preferred uses are and some of the <br />discussions that the City has had with some of the developers. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci said that it sounds like the City is doing the prudent thing before letting it <br />expire. The City is doing something that will allow it to acquire the property with the <br />greatest of ease. Mr. Martin said again it was to bring the City in compliance with the <br />law and to resolve any issues and remove any questions about competing T.I.F. <br />Commissions, and to just move on. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said what bothers him is that the City is in the same spot on Olive as it was <br />eight years ago. Mr. Price said a study session worth coming to would be on the <br />redevelopment of Olive. Mr. Price called for the question and was seconded by Mr. <br />Kraft. <br /> <br />Roll Call vote was: <br />AYES: Ms. Ricci, Mr. Kraft, Mr. Crow, Mr. Glickert, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Price, and Mayor <br />Welsch. <br />NAYS: none <br /> <br />Roll Call vote to approve Bill 9119 was: <br /> <br />