12-02-2013 HRA CC JOINT MTG MIN city of
Elk Joint Special Meeting of the Elk River City Council
River and Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Held at Elk River City Hall
Monday, December 2, 2013
Members Present: Mayor Dietz,Councilmembers Wilson,Motin,and Westgaard(6:27 p.m.)
HRA Commissioners Chuba and Toth
Members Absent: Councilmember Burandt and Commissioner Kuester
Staff Present: City Administrator Calvin Portner,Community Operations and
Development Deputy Director Manager Jeremy Barnhart,Director of
Economic Development Brian Beeman,and Senior Administrative
Assistant/Recording Secretary Jennifer Johnson
1. Call Meeting to Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the meeting of the Elk River City Council was called
to order at 5:46 p.m.by Mayor Dietz.
2.1 Discuss Housing Survey and Develop Housing Tax Increment Financing
Scoring Worksheet
Mr.Beeman presented the staff report.He introduced Springsted Consultant Mikaela Huot,
reviewed the draft application scoring worksheet with the Council and commission
• who members.
The following areas of the worksheet were discussed and adjustments suggested:
Under question 1 of the application worksheet,"The policy meets the criteria set forth in
Section IV of the city's Tax Increment Financing policy,"Ms.Huot reviewed the TIF policy
sections asked if the overall policy should be adjusted. She noted the policy as currently
worded remained in compliance with state statute.There were no comments regarding
question 1.
Under question 2,"Ratio of Private to All Public Investment in Project,"Councilmember
Motin suggested no points be awarded if the ratio was less than 2:1.Discussion ensued
regarding whether or not to assign 0 points versus 1 point if some aspects of a project don't
meet specific thresholds.Ms. Huot stated some projects may have areas that still qualify it as
a worthy,viable project,but may have areas that don't meet all thresholds even by assigning
0 points. It was decided to consider each project in a case-by-case basis.
Under question 3,"Job Creation in the City of Elk River," Commissioner Chuba noted his
concerns with the number of jobs retained being viewed as significantly less valuable than
the new creation of jobs. He felt it more a penalty not attempt to retain businesses who may
wish to relocate. Councilmember Motin felt it important to remain consistent between both
industrial and housing project types. Ms. Huot agreed and noted other cities differ across the
board, depending upon whether or not retainage of current jobs is more important than
creating new jobs. It was decided to lower the number of existing/retained jobs divided by a
lower number instead of 10.
Joint Special City Council&HRA Minutes Page 2
December 2,2013
Under question 4,'Wage level of new jobs created/retained,"Councilmember Motin had •
concerns with requiring a certain minimum number of jobs and felt an emphasis was placed
on higher paying jobs. Commissioner Toth asked if these jobs were considered temporary,
part time,or full time positions.Ms.Huot gave an example of a healthcare wage in an
assisted living or memory care setting would produce a full time,higher wage job than a
manufacturing type of job. She noted these figures come from the existing policy,which was
based upon old figures and should be adjusted to a more current salary market. She stated
the positions created would be on permanent,full time-equivalent positions.
Under question 5,"Market Value/Tax Base Generation,"Ms. Hout stated the focus should
be on per unit value,not cost to construct. Councilmember Motin stated he felt the range
from$95,000/unit to$135,000 was too narrow and suggested a higher price per unit would
also increase the quality of the unit.Commissioner Chuba noted values increase and decrease
based upon the economy,and if these values were set in stone,it would be difficult to have
gotten these figures about 4 years ago but felt a$40,000 variation isn't too far out of line in
this area. Councilmember Wilson asked if the building's other amenities were factored into
the unit cost.Ms. Huot stated it would depend upon how the assessor applied the value of
the unit along with any amenities the building offered such as a community room. She also
noted the project intention would also drive the per-price unit, such as if the project were an
income-based property.
Question 6,"Project provides housing that is restricted to persons 55 years and older"and
question 7,"Project provides that at least 30% of the total units are three-bedroom or more"
were discussed together.Ms.Huot asked the members to consider the focus of TIP and if it
be towards senior housing projects or a multi-unit housing projects. Councilmember Wilson
referenced the senior housing flowchart included in the staff report and asked if using the •
term"55 years"was proper and should be reworded to"senior housing."Ms.Huot
recommended eliminating question 7 if the desire was to focus housing needs on senior
housing. She then recommended changing the points for question 6 to 5 points instead of 3
points if the project provided housing that is restricted to seniors. Commissioner Toth
expressed concerns with discrimination if only awarding points to senior housing.Ms. Huot
stated the project could still generate enough points to qualify for financing even if the
project wasn't specific for senior housing.
Question 8,"Project proposes rehabilitation of existing housing,housing stock,and
maximizes utilization of existing infrastructure"and question 9,"Project proposes a location
near existing jobs,transportation,recreation,retail services,social services,and schools"
were discussed together,and targeted areas of redevelopment. Commissioners Toth and
Chuba asked who determines the criteria of the meaning of the word"near"in question 9.
Ms.Huot states this was based upon comments received of the importance to position
housing in areas of the city where the use a sidewalk or transportation services were already
available. Commissioner Wilson felt this zeroes in on certain areas of the city that would
qualify for that type of a development but felt society had decent means of transportation
available to them. Mayor Dietz suggested changing the number of points in question 9 to 2
points instead of 4.
Question 10"Type of project"was discussed and the question was discussed if it matters if
the property is owner-occupied or rental.It was determined to leave the points as is.
Question 11 "Use"was discussed;the consensus was to eliminate question 11. •
rtIERED 8 ATURE
Joint Special City Council&HRA Minutes Page 3
December 2,2013
Councilmember Westgaard suggested removing question 11 and suggested incorporating
• into question 10 or 11 more areas of use,such as mixed use or owner-occupied housing.
Question 12"Likelihood that the project will result in unsubsidized, spin-off development"
was discussed. Question 13"Bonus points"was discussed. Both questions were consistent
with current policy.
Ms. Huot summarized that based upon the comments this evening,the total points would
adjust moderately from 45 to 38.
After discussion,Mayor Dietz asked what the next steps would be.
Ms.Huot stated she will make the final adjustments to the application worksheet that were
discussed,make any final adjustments to the policy,and bring back to both the HRA and
EDA for final review and approval. Once that is completed,the Council will have the final
say in reviewing and approving the final policy and worksheet.
There was some question as to the need for both HRA and EDA to review the final
application and policy revisions.It was the consensus of both the Council and Authority to
have the HRA and EDA review before bringing back to Council for final approval.
3. Adjournment
There being no further business,Mayor Dietz adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
• Minutes prepared by Jennifer Johnson.
,
1
J1 n J. ''ietz, CO.ryor
Stewart Wilson,Chair
Housing Redevelo.ment Authority
Tina Allard, e k
•
I EKE ® 1 �
NATURE