My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-1981 HR MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
>
HRA Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
03-18-1981 HR MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2015 3:12:09 PM
Creation date
9/1/2015 3:12:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
HRM
date
3/18/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
* Ike 2 <br /> Meeting 1/1F/81 <br /> 6. Cont. <br /> area and front end the cost of planning (which is a big drawback). The feasibility <br /> plan coat can be rei -bursed (5 1 of the total package can be applied to administrative <br /> costs). The developer takes oner'i ce of the redevelopment plan and buildson that, <br /> (3) This Procedure is a joint venture by snecific developers and the City. The City <br /> And the developers share in the front end costs. The City perhaps nays 6n% and 2-3 <br /> developers pay L1 with escrow account reimbursement out of tax increment at the other <br /> end. The procedure rfNuires more work between the developers and the city and requires <br /> a firm commitment from the developers. <br /> The Orocelure time period of 2; months was discussed. Mr. Johnson commented this was <br /> 0. <br /> based on getting through( the'CitY.Process in 'a-reasohable amount of time and Public <br /> objection is not great, Commissioner Winkle commented he felt there 'Cull be some <br /> public objection. In this plan the City or uRA asks the staff to Produce the pre- <br /> • liminary feasibility plan and district feasibility plan. The PRA then holds public <br /> hearin-s to review the redevelonment and tax increment plans. The Planning Commission <br /> has to review and comment on it, but does not hold -public hearings unless there <br /> a e chances to be male. Prom there the City Council holds a public hearing and reviews <br /> FRA's public hearing and the Planning commission's comments. The City Council has to <br /> apProve or disapprove of the plan within 61 days or it becomes fact. Under qtate <br /> Statutes the redevelopment Plan has to he suhmittei to the County Planning Commission, <br /> which nroviles certification of district and th t the numbers a accurate, and th- <br /> 7A. , A <br /> -77 <br /> State Planning "ommission. 4,4.1 <br /> ,9111-e <br /> Page 7 shows a man of the suggested redevelopment area. 71c.< Johnson suggested this <br /> line may fluctuate ; to 1 bloc7< and may he subdivided into two or more elements. <br /> The last two Pages are procedures for esti ating a tax increment district. A tax <br /> increment distriat can be developed without a redevelorment or economical district. <br /> IIIA redevelopment district is concerned with removing blighted and underutilized land <br /> (211 of substandard housing to be removed). An economical district functions on the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.