9.1 HRSR 05-01-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Joint Special City Council & HRA Minutes December 2, 2013 Page 2 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 TIF 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. NATUREI