09-29-2020 JFC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Toth asked who owns the land; Applicant Briggs stated that Sun Rae Apartment, LLC. owns the land. Ms. Huot presented the but for analysis. The group discussed the “but for” analysis. Mr. Tveite asked if both phases are in the application and what happens if Phase II does not happen? Does it cut the TIF in half? Ms. Huot analyzed both Phases. Ms. Huot stated based on the number it would be in the best interest for the developer to try to absorb the upfront costs throughout the entire development. The other scenario of absorbing all land and site development costs it looks worse if it was only absorbed in Phase 1 and not over the entire development. Ms. Othoudt indicated that the policy states the maximum term is 15 years. Mr. Briggs asked the commission to explain #5 in the policy where it states “TIF District’s shall be limited to the minimum term necessary to meet the project needs. Only projects exceeding the objectives identified in this policy will be considered to exceed the following general thresholds: Redevelopment District 15 years (Max is 26)”. Ms. Othoudt further explained the reference to the 26 years, is the maximum term allowed under state statue for a redevelopment district. The JFC must find that the project exceeds the objectives identified in the policy to deviate from the 15 year maximum allowed. Mr. Briggs stated his lender is stating that 26 years is needed to get the banks funding and questioned if the interest rates go up in 2026 or costs go thru the roof, or there is a change, and we can’t get this to pencil out, in this type of situation the developer would come back and request a TIF amendment to allow more time to put together a list of investors so complete the Phase II. So a TIF amendment would be another instrument in his toolbox in order to complete the project. Mr. Briggs also stated that the policy would need to be amended in order for the commission to accept the 26 years TIF request. Mr. Hardin provided a clarifying statement, unless the city approves the 26 years the applicant’s lender would not support the funding for the project. Mr. Blesener asked about redevelopment vs. green field. Ms. Huot explained when she referenced a green field site, what she was referring to is this being a redevelopment district what they are looking in extra ordinary costs associated with this vs. if the developer purchased a green field site the infrastructure would go vertical instead of paying for costs associated with getting it ready to be a green field site. Mr. Hardin asked if there were any environmental studies completed. Mr. Briggs stated that there were contingencies in place and that the MPCA reviewed the Phase I and Phase II Environmental studies. Ms. Othoudt stated that a Phase I or a Phase II report was not provided to staff. Mr. Toth asked about the number of units that the Maxfield Study reflected as a need and if Phase II of the redevelopment project was completed that the number of units needed would be achieved. Ms. Othoudt stated it would be roughly over 30 units.