03-18-1981 HR MIN 11111111111'
NOUSTM( ANT) PPT)FVFIPPmFMT AUTFPRTTY mPFTTmG mTm1T7S
FELT) AT TFF ETT PTVER PUPLIC LIBRARY
MARCH 18, 1981
members Present: Commissioners Toth, Finkle, Schumacher, and Pusch
Also Present: Bob Middaugh, City Administrator
1. Ca 1 Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schumacher at 7:3!
2. Agenda
There were no additions to the agenda.
3. Minutes
The minutes of the March 11, 1981 meeting were approved as circulated.
li. Open Forum
There were no questions from the public.
5. Election of Vice-Chairman
Commissioner Finkle nominated Commissioner Toth. Commissioner Busch seconded the
nomination. Commissioner Toth nominated commissioner Finkle. Commissioner Schumacher
s,-conled the nomination. nominations were closed. Fa'lots were t-,ken, the vote was
tied and defe-red to the newt meeting.
6. Zack Johnson Pecommendations
mr. Johnson presented his first draft of the redevelopment reliminary Plan. Page one is
primarily concernel with how to annrlch producing the Clan needed for a relevelo-ment
plan in the downtown area under the current economic conditions. There are three
different approaches to doing the plan: (1) The City or FPA requests) through adver-
tisement or letter private developers to submit a procedure, review anA adopt it as
a redevelopment plan. FP sid under this Procedure the City might see on'y snots of
the community i-nrovel with no general improvement of the entire area. The developers
would take all the risk in the front end plan and nick out one or two blocks to deveTop.
From the CiVis standloo!nt it is very difficult to administer this procedure. (2) The
110 City is to to the complete Planning Procedure. This is the tyPicql system used by
most cities regardleos of size. The city designates the FP! to -lan the redevelopment
* Ike 2
Meeting 1/1F/81
6. Cont.
area and front end the cost of planning (which is a big drawback). The feasibility
plan coat can be rei -bursed (5 1 of the total package can be applied to administrative
costs). The developer takes oner'i ce of the redevelopment plan and buildson that,
(3) This Procedure is a joint venture by snecific developers and the City. The City
And the developers share in the front end costs. The City perhaps nays 6n% and 2-3
developers pay L1 with escrow account reimbursement out of tax increment at the other
end. The procedure rfNuires more work between the developers and the city and requires
a firm commitment from the developers.
The Orocelure time period of 2; months was discussed. Mr. Johnson commented this was
0.
based on getting through( the'CitY.Process in 'a-reasohable amount of time and Public
objection is not great, Commissioner Winkle commented he felt there 'Cull be some
public objection. In this plan the City or uRA asks the staff to Produce the pre-
• liminary feasibility plan and district feasibility plan. The PRA then holds public
hearin-s to review the redevelonment and tax increment plans. The Planning Commission
has to review and comment on it, but does not hold -public hearings unless there
a e chances to be male. Prom there the City Council holds a public hearing and reviews
FRA's public hearing and the Planning commission's comments. The City Council has to
apProve or disapprove of the plan within 61 days or it becomes fact. Under qtate
Statutes the redevelopment Plan has to he suhmittei to the County Planning Commission,
which nroviles certification of district and th t the numbers a accurate, and th-
7A. , A
-77
State Planning "ommission. 4,4.1
,9111-e
Page 7 shows a man of the suggested redevelopment area. 71c.< Johnson suggested this
line may fluctuate ; to 1 bloc7< and may he subdivided into two or more elements.
The last two Pages are procedures for esti ating a tax increment district. A tax
increment distriat can be developed without a redevelorment or economical district.
IIIA redevelopment district is concerned with removing blighted and underutilized land
(211 of substandard housing to be removed). An economical district functions on the
.. n.oe 3
A 'PA veeting 3/16/bl
411 6. Cont.
rest of the blighted area, creating more shops and jobs. The basic difference between
the two is an economical district pays off in 8-1' years and a redevelooment district
in yearlealt section. Fe suggested keeping the tax increment districts small
Which would be easier to administer and any area not developed within the three year
time limit loses out on the tax increment.
Commissioner Finkle asked about financing a redevelopment Plan. Suggestions were
made it could come from the General Fund or be tacked onto a Public imnrovement or
tax increment. It could be financed through joint venture of PP and develoPers
as in Procedure 3. The cost for a redevelopment olan would be around k11-12 thousand
depending on Plan used, Plus 4t5..6 thousand in attornies fees. The Authority decided
it would like to meet with vre qellergren to discuss how a redevelo -ment -lan can
be financed, where to find monies to ray back cost of redevelopment plan, inter-
411 pretation of public imnrovements, does he agree with tax increment plan and borrowing
from the General Fund and reimbursing this fund, can the PRA contract with a developer
and can it be done as a team, and commitments to be expected from each party.
4 feasitilit7 study w-s discussed. 7ack Johnson commented that it would be relatively
easy to cut one together because of -'he new Land Use yaps, the subdivision uodatet,
the Chamber of Commerce Market 7tudy. He also mentioned the Sunshine )erot and
Fnterprise Buildingx remode'ing prole-ts could be included in the tax increment (Any-
.P
thing done with' 1E' months perior to redevelopment Plan can be included. \
7. )owntown nevelo-ment Task Force
he status and relationship of the nowntown nevelopment Task Force to 9.A was discussed.
Commissioner Schumacher said he will attend their next meeting on "arch 19 and advise
them of what is hannening as far as the Tm4 is concerned. The Commissioners felt the
Task Force is an important part of the downtown development and should be relognired
Page LL
.t.mA fi'eeting 3/1h/81
43m4t
fb 7. Cont.
by the T.TPA. Mr. Middaugh will draft a resolution for the next meeting.
8. 'Txpenliture Peview and approval
Handling of expenditures wns liscussed• It was decide 611 check should be signed
by Chairman Schumacher ,
0,7
9. Next -%eeting and mentative Agenda
It was decided to set un a work ess4nri with lack Johnson and nave Selle--gren for
Tuesday, April 7. mr. Middaugh also commented the League of Minnesota Cities might
send out a renresentative to talk to the kuthority. They also should have some
case studies of other cities' relevelopment projects. Commissioner Schumacher said
it would be advantageous if the Authority could talk to representatives of other
cities that have one through this process.
10. Adjournment
411
The meeting 1.1.-s aliourned at 9:52 p.m.
Deq0eCtf,111Y submitted,
•