My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/24/00
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000
>
01/24/00
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:48:23 PM
Creation date
3/2/2000 10:21:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
1/24/2000
SESSIONNUM
1773
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Session 1773 <br />January 24, 2000 <br /> <br />LEGISLATION ORDERED FOR LINDELL PARKING PROBLEM: <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner, referring back to the Lindell parking problem, wanted to make sure <br />that Mr. Ollendorff understood that Council wanted to see a draft ordinance <br />change that permits resident parking in areas adjacent to universities and to <br />allow permitted parking only from loam to 2 pro. <br /> <br />TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REFORM PROPOSAL: <br /> <br />Mayor Adams stated that Mr. OIlendorff had sent each councilmember a packet of <br />information regarding the recent TIF reform proposal. He had met this afternoon <br />with other area officials, the County Municipal League and East-West Gateway <br />about this issue. He wants Council to be conversant on this issue and asked if <br />there were any questions or directions. Basically, East-West Gateway is <br />proposing to limit statewide the availability of TIF to specific items to basically <br />get rid of the concept of questionable definitions of what is blighted. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that the basic reform that has been proposed by East West <br />Gateway and our state senator is to redefine the term blight to include some <br />measurable, unambiguous standards so you could not have a TIF taking tax <br />money and giving it to a private development, unless there were, for example, <br />pervasive poverty and unemployment, economic benefits that would be area wide <br />and that they would be limited to expenses that would not be covered by private <br />investment without this kind of assistance, but the main thing is setting up the <br />blighting standards. This is just a couple of examples. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams stated that two other criteria were asked for, one being the loss of <br />population if it reaches a certain level and secondly, in the instance of a natural <br />disaster. Something mentioned today at the meeting, which was interesting, was <br />what could happen if a TIF was placed in an area of St. Louis County, that is <br />under a school district which is not hold harmless. The City is hold harmless. If <br />the school district realizes a reduction in revenue, because of that TIF project, <br />then that district could receive extra money through the state foundation formula. <br />Hold harmless communities would not. This is not right and certainly, does not <br />make for a level playing field. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman mentioned that it was important to note that University City is one <br />of those communities that have very diligently observed the intention of the <br />existing TIF laws of the state. He believes that the reforms will eliminate TIFs <br />from the good communities who do want to take advantage and can take <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.