Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weston board refers TIF incentive question to attorney; development-agreement rewrite fails
Summary
Trustees voted to send a request to the village attorney about releasing a portion of a TIF incentive for 2302 Schofield Ave after staff reported assessor valuation and that some funds had already been disbursed; a separate motion to require tax-liability language in all future development agreements failed.
The Village of Weston Board of Trustees voted to refer to the village attorney a request concerning the board’s determination to release a portion of tax-increment financing (TIF) development incentives for property at 2302 Schofield Avenue (project 20240110).
Trustees discussed whether funds had already been disbursed, whether the developer had provided a detailed list of construction expenditures, and whether outstanding property-tax delinquencies on other parcels should block disbursement. Staff told the board that some funds had been paid and that the village assessor’s current valuation for the development was $2,018,800. Trustees noted the developer had other parcels with delinquent taxes listed on the county website and questioned why staff had not contacted the county or developer earlier.
After discussion, the board carried a motion to refer the matter to the village attorney for further review and direction. Trustee Jim Pinsonault said he wanted to see stronger contract language going forward to prevent disbursement to parties who owe the village money, but a subsequent motion to refer development agreements to legal counsel with that directive failed on a roll-call vote.
Trustees emphasized the need for due diligence on development agreements and said they would seek revisions that clarify payment and compliance conditions going forward. No formal amendment to existing agreements was adopted at the meeting; trustees debated whether changing an agreement after funds had been partially disbursed would be legally effective and potentially subject to challenge.
