Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blair CDA reviews revised TIF plan that separates the SJAV project into three conditional phases
Summary
The Blair Community Development Agency reviewed a revised tax increment financing (TIF) redevelopment plan for the SJAV tenant redevelopment project that splits the project into a committed phase one and two later phases contingent on future City Council approval and market performance.
The Blair Community Development Agency on June 23 reviewed a revised tax increment financing redevelopment plan for the SJAV tenant redevelopment project that divides the work into three separate phases and makes phases two (commercial lots) and three (potential additional multifamily units) contingent on later City Council decisions and developer agreements.
Phil Green, Blair’s city administrator, told the CDA the board is acting in a technical, financing role and not as the City Council, and that the CDA’s review should focus on the TIF structure and cost‑benefit analysis rather than broader policy judgments. "The biggest change in this one is the details in the phasing aspect of things," Green said, noting that the revision separates phase one from later phases so the council would only consider committing TIF dollars for phases two and three in the future.
Michael San Farnum, the city’s special attorney on TIF matters, outlined the plan’s three components and the revised approach to implementation. He said the first phase is the initial multifamily component (described in the plan as 110 units) and that the commercial component would sit at the site boundary as phase two. San Farnum said Section H of the plan includes stipulations that require the redeveloper to establish "mutually agreeable" land‑control parameters or restrictions on permissible commercial uses before the city will commit TIF dollars for phase two.
San Farnum also said the plan treats the third phase—possible expansion of multifamily housing—as contingent on how well phase one performs and on market demand several years in the future; the transcript records the attorney saying the question of expansion could be five to six years out. He said the plan’s structure is intended to allow the city to avoid repeated public‑hearing steps if a redevelopment contract for later phases proceeds under the baseline plan.
The attorney read TIF dollar figures for each phase, but the meeting transcript’s audio/text of those numbers is unclear. The transcript records a figure for the first phase that is not clearly transcribed, a second‑phase figure given in a format that appears to be garbled, and a third‑phase figure spoken as about $1.66 million. The CDA record will need to be checked against the final written redevelopment plan and contract documents for precise TIF commitments.
No formal CDA vote on the redevelopment plan appears in the provided transcript excerpt; Phil Green reminded the public that the City Council will hold the formal public hearing later in the evening and that ultimate decisions about phases two and three would rest with the council. The CDA’s review emphasized the technical TIF commitments, the centrality of the cost‑benefit analysis (identified in the materials as Exhibit E), and the contingencies tied to land‑control agreements and market performance.
What happens next: the plan will be considered again in the City Council public hearing later the same night per staff, and any redevelopment contracts to implement later phases would be negotiated and returned to the council for future action.
