Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks $10.6 million in local incentives to finance 95th Street project; council asks for alternatives
Summary
Colby Capital presented a 15-acre commercial proposal and requested a mix of TIF, CID sales tax, a sales-tax exemption on construction materials and a transient-guest-tax rebate to finance public-infrastructure costs (estimated $4.6M) and project support ($6M). Council asked the developer to return with alternative scenarios and staff to explore funding and precedent issues.
Developer Tyler Oliver of Colby Capital and financial adviser John Hanson presented a preliminary financing plan for a mixed-use development on the newly rezoned 95th Street site and requested multiple incentive tools to close a financing gap.
"We're proposing improvements to 95th Street and signalization at Lexington; that segment is nearly $5 million," Oliver told the council, adding the site plan shows a convenience store, restaurants and one or two limited-service hotels. John Hanson, Colby's adviser, said the project would require about $50 million of private investment and estimated a financing gap that incentives could close: "Net development costs are about $36 million," he said, and the team is seeking roughly $4.6 million for public infrastructure plus about $6 million in project support through a mix of tools (TIF, a 2% CID sales tax, partial city sales-tax rebates and a transient-guest-tax rebate).
Councilmembers expressed several concerns: precedent-setting if the city uses tools not currently in its incentives package; the impact on existing programs funded by transient-guest-tax revenue such as the chamber and local non-profits; whether it is fair to expect a single developer to shoulder an entire intersection upgrade that benefits a broader corridor; and the need for traffic and service-level studies. One councilmember noted the developer had reduced a prior request from 100% to 75% on a component of the TIF request, and several members asked for multiple financing scenarios.
City staff and the developer identified options: the developer said the transient-guest-tax rebate and sales-tax rebate requests could be removed if the developer fronted the 95th-Street improvements or other mechanisms were found; staff noted TIF requires additional procedural steps (a blight finding and possible school/county review) and that the school district and county have veto rights for TIF.
No incentives were approved at the May 21 meeting. Council asked the development team to return with more than one scenario, asked staff to analyze impacts and precedence for the requested tools, and described a roughly one-month turnaround for initial follow-up conversations.
The matter remains in the review/negotiation phase; council members said they support the concept of development in that corridor but want alternatives that reduce fiscal exposure and preserve funding for existing programs.
