Plan 2026 08 26

All right. Good afternoon everybody. It is 4:00. I will call our plan commission meeting to order. I'll call the role. Mike here. >> Kevin here. >> Joe here. >> Kim here. >> Braden here. And Jerry is excused. If folks could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Any conflicts being noted today? Hearing none. >> One. >> All right. Sounds good. Next item. Item four, approval of minutes from our last meeting. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor of approval of the minutes state I. >> I. >> Any objection? Minutes are approved. All right. We have two hearings for this afternoon. First hearing is regarding proposed amendment of the boundaries and project plan of tax increment D district number 21. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item? Lisa, if you want to give your name, address, and then you'll have three minutes. Thank you. >> Okay. Lisa Salgado, Ellis Neighborhood. First of all, I want to say that I'm disappointed that the city um held two meetings on these TIDs today um during work hours on the same day when a lot of residents could not attend. Second, isn't over 400 million in TID city cost obligations enough for roughly 21,000 households in Shbboan? As the inflated value of the city increases due to TIDS, the 12% limit keeps going higher. When is the spending going to stop? State statute requires an attorney's opinion that this plan is completely and legally compliant. Why does the page say sample? Where is our verified legal statement? Why is this amendment today for the 21 boundary change needed in the first place? I don't know if you've personally compared the TID 21 May 2025 to today's August 2026, but there are a lot of discrepancies that I hope um Ellers will explain. The report states that there are no prior project plan. It says no changes. Last year it showed an issuance of four geo promisary notes which is very deb. The principal was 79.9 million. The interest was 52 million and a total debt service of 132 million for May of 2025. Today the total debt service is down to 47 million on page 30. That is a reduction in 85 million in little more than a year. So what changed? Today's cash flow does not show the issuance of the four GO promisary notes. On page 26, if you look at date to spending in 2025, it lists 17,000 for the pedestrian bridge, uh 5 million for the South Point land purchases, and the Commerce Street reconstruction. Today, those numbers are missing. Ellers is counting the original total as if nothing was spent in each category. the amount of developer incentives included in TID 21's projected cash flow on page 30 increased. So the incentives increased by 28.2 million May 2025 it was 19 million and approximately 47 million in the August plan of this year. Why did the August 2026 cash flow on page 30 suddenly add another 22 million labeled potential future incentive allowance even though amendment number two says on page 25 that no changes to project costs are planned. Also, the professional administrative costs increased by 1.4 million. May of last year, the administration costs were 545,000. Today's um cash flow sheet shows 1.9 million. So that's a lot for um administration costs. That's a huge increase. >> Lisa, you are at time. I'll let you wrap up. >> Okay. Thanks. Um the report last year said it would pay off all project costs, liabilities, and obligations. And today it says it will pay off portions of eligible project costs. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this matter? >> Anyone else wishing to be heard? Last call. Seeing none, is there a motion to uh close this hearing? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor? State I. >> Any objections? Chair votes eye. That is closed. Next item six, public hearing regarding the proposed creation of tax increment district number 27, the proposed boundaries of the district and the proposed district plan for the district. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter? Lisa, >> name address 3 minutes. >> Okay. Lisa Salgado, Ellis A um Ellis neighborhood. Um on page 25 is the cash flow chart. uh there is a thin financial margin of only 149,334 as a cushion over the next 20 years. What if there's a valuation shortfall, construction delays, unexpected expense, or higher financing costs? On page 25, balances to the right. The TID cash balance is projected to remain negative for almost its entire life, beginning in 2026 and remaining negative through 2045, finally becoming positive in 2046 and reaching the 149,000 balance in 2047. The $2 million developer incentive consumes nearly 2/3 of all projected revenue of the 3.1 million. So about 63% of every TID dollar is going to incentives. There's a financing of 650,000 in water and sewer infrastructure plus an additional 320,000 in financing interest in administrative costs. It also allows this work to be located outside of TID 27. The report states advance from utilities. Um, I encourage you to find out what that what does that mean. Um, it read on page 21, it says that the project costs can increase or decrease. New project costs can be added and changes in the project cost totals or types do not require the TID plan to be amended. These are today's estimates, but the amounts can change. Those changes alone won't necessarily be brought back to you. The TID plan expressly allows sewer infrastructure outside of TID 27 to be treated as a project cost if construction outside the district is necessary to implement the TID plan. And lastly on page 21 there, it lists water and sewer. 650,000 in TID 27 isn't is it intended to build or contribute to the phase 3 on Footh's plan along Weeden Creek Road um in which it will convey approximately 15.7 million gallons of water per day and if so what exact portion of phase 3 will it fund? Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this matter? Anyone else wishing to be heard? Last call hearing and seeing none. Is there a motion to close the hearing? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor state I. >> Anyone opposed? Chair votes I. That hearing is closed. All right. Next items for discussion and possible action. Item seven, architectural review of exterior remodel of paper box co, excuse me, paper box and specialty co. located at 1505 Sibi Court. Elise, do you have a staff report? >> Paper Box and Specialty Co. is proposing residing the east portion of the paper box and specialty company. The current exterior sighting is vertical aluminum in green color. The product is no longer available. The new sighting will be uh McElroy metal multi-v panel in patina green color with accent areas panels in evergreen. >> Is the applicant here? Paper box. Any additional comments you guys like to add? >> Yeah, if you have Yeah, if you have anything else, just want to introduce yourself. >> Yeah, Joe Vanderpie and my wife Jessica were the owners of Paper Box and Specialty. Um, I was hoping Gary Gartman was going to be here today to kind of shepherd us through this, but you're stuck with us instead. So, >> no worries. >> Um, in your comments, uh, let me try to find it. You ask a couple questions about the AI renderings. I don't have it actually about a door being added and then a uh a couple windows being deleted. Um a couple of those are errors in the rendering. Um the bulk of the features of the building are going to remain the same. We will delete a couple windows that actually are no longer in service. They've been closed off for years. But what we're hoping to do is preserve the original kind of historical look of the building with a more modern product and update the paint and, you know, bring our 1960s facade into the modern day. So, I think Quashes has a pretty good plan in place for us and we'll do a good job. Um, hopefully that kind of explains the intent here. I don't know what else you guys need. >> Yeah, no worries. Questions from commission members? Go. >> I just had one question and I think your comment about AI photos probably answered it. >> Yeah. >> Um, page 13 of the package, Elise, if you could bring up that photograph or rendering. >> It's showing um should be that one. This one uh down >> down that one right there. Uh that appears to be the >> that would be the south elevation >> east elevation where I imagine is >> Imagins is missing in that photo and that is not our intent. >> Okay. >> To eliminate our neighbor. >> That that was my assumption. >> I'm not sure where that came from actually. >> Yeah. >> And then there's another photo in there that shows a door being added. That was in your notes. That door is not being added. >> Okay. AI taking over. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. I just needed to clarify that. Otherwise, I had no issues with everything else. Thank you. >> Okay. Questions from commission members? >> Comments from commission members? Motions by commission members? >> Motion to approve is submitted. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Final deliberation. >> All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of approval state I. >> I. >> Any objections? Chair votes I. That is approved. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Next item eight, application for special use permit and site plan review by the mighty Three Stripes LLC to construct a 72,15T industrial building located on the northeast corner of Weeden Creek and County Highway A. Alisa, >> due to substantial business growth, the current the company's current site can no longer accommodate planned expansions. The submitted documents include an optional Northern Bay expansion that would bring the initial construction footprint to 90,142 square feet. Northern Plastics is currently com completing a space utilization study to determine if this expansion is necessary. >> All right, Northland Plastics, any additional comments you all like to add? >> We're here for any questions. Perfect. Questions from commission members? >> Motions, questions, comments. >> Approved. >> Moved and seconded. Final thoughts hearing none. All those in favor of approval state I. I. >> Any objections? Chair votes I. That is approved. Thank you. Next item nine, architectural review and new of new construction located at northeast corner of Weeden Creek Road and County Highway A. Elise, >> the exterior features a cool color palette designed to align with Northam Plastics's branding while visually harmonizing with surrounding properties. >> Thank you. Additional comments. >> All right, cool. Questions? Questions or motions? >> Motion to approve is submitted. Moved by Joe, second by Braden. Final thoughts hearing none. All those in favor of approval, state I. >> I. >> Any objections? Chair votes I. That is approved. Next item 10, determination if the amendment to 120 vol SIP is a minor or substantial change. Elise, >> the plan commission has previously approved the Rachel Kohler specific imple implementation plan for property located at 120 Worth Boulevard. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the previously approved SIP. The plan commission must determine whether revision is minor or substantial. A minor change would include small modifications to the approved SIP. A substantial change would include major modifications to the SIP or modifications to the GDP because the change materially affects the intended design of the project and the impact of the project on neighboring uses. Based on the significance of the revision, the plan commission shall also determine what public hearings may be needed to review the change. If the change is determined to be a minor adjustment to the SIP, the plan commission shall review the request and may approve the change without a public hearing. If the requested change is determined by the plan commission to be substantial, a public hearing shall be held at the plan commission to review the proposed changes. If the plan commission determines that the change is minor, the commission may take action on item 11. If the plan commission determines that the change is substantial, item 11 must be tabled until public hearing can be scheduled. >> Thank you. Is the applicant here? Any additional comments or is >> I can't hear. What did he say? >> Anyone else online? >> Yes. Can you hear me, Mikeer? >> Yep, we can hear you. Any additional comments? >> Nothing in addition. And I believe John Joyce, the architect of record, was going to be in the room with you this evening. Okay. Questions from commission members then. So the item we're discussing is the fence, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Questions from commission members. Joe, >> it seemed to me that >> the the fence along that south property line significantly changes the the feel of that property to the neighborhood. I would be interested what the neighbors and uh neighborhood feel about that. I guess could you explain a little why you feeling the fence is is a major change for the whole project? >> Uh there are several variances requested for the fence. It's a lot more imposing than uh what the ordinance calls for. Uh it essentially makes the property fairly fortress-like. Uh, and I'm I'm not sure if that's the the feel that the neighbors would want for that site directly across from the park. I understand the property owners wanting a buffer >> from the park, uh, but whether that specific fence approach is the way to do it, uh, I I feel that some neighborhood input would be appropriate. >> Okay. Any additional comments from other commission members? Kevin, >> I kind of agree with Joe. Um, it seems like could be fortress-like. Um, I'd be I'm curious if the fence could be moved off the property line to allow for some sort of plantings to soften that fortress-like fence and just make it a little more appealing. Okay, >> other discussion Kim. um thinking about this and remembering a comment that um Miss Kohler made when they presented this the first time. As other properties are purchased within that block, will that fence be con barrier be continued? Will it be stopped and started? Will they expect it to be able to move as they purchase other properties or how will we deal with that? Okay, I guess we're looking for a motion then to determine if this amendment proposed amendment is a minor or substantial change. >> Yeah, additional Yeah, >> you just want to introduce yourself. >> John Joyce, GMX architecture architect for the project. I guess in com in return to that comment, it's only the south facade, right? Only not adjacent to any neighbors. the actual prop the actual fence adjacent to the neighbors specifically to the west is a oh sorry >> okay sorry uh the one directly to the west is is straight open metal all the way around the neighboring property so directly from the south fence going north and then going west towards Third Street is remaining open and then open again until it actually gets to the stone >> entrance off of Third Street which is set approximately 40 feet back so obviously not subject to the ordinance It's really for that barrier which there aren't any neighbors across from it. And I think we've seen since the property's been under development, the increased traffic, the onlookers, how many people stopped by. I was stopped even on my way over to talk about the property. Um, so it's under intense scrutiny. Um, uh, and if it were across from neighbors, I get that if it was a a residential district directly across, that does change it, but it is a park. Um, notwithstanding your comments, I understand those, but I think that's one of the things we took into consideration >> as a neighborh. >> Mhm. >> It is there is intense scrutiny. There is a whole lot more um travel in that neighborhood. To me, it is more than half of that is all of the construction workers. They have infiltrated the streets. Yes, they mostly stay on Fallrath Boulevard, but they have also gone up as far as Gily Avenue to the west of Third Street. Um, so there is a lot of traffic that has been introduced to the neighborhood just because of the construction. >> Absolutely. >> Overwhelming at times >> for sure. I I just happen to be there after hours and at different times that there's no one under construction and I just see that added traffic for that and and I'm approached on site about it. So >> that's why I noticed that aspect of it and you're right about the contractors. >> Yep. And the third street is now not functioning as smoothly as it had. >> Right. And I think that once it gets restored, we'll be back to that and that will, you know, there won't be any traffic off of for the for the Colers off of Volwrath actually. I mean, that'll just be some incidental from a gate that's there. Um, and I think to the point about landscaping, there is increased landscaping that will be put in front of the fence. Um, that's the intent to break it down and being a cedar fence that it's commensurate with materials that are all being used on the buildings itself. So, it's harmonious with what's being developed. Elise, can you just color in the commission a little bit? I'm sorry. Just color in the commission a little bit about what the fence general fence ordinance would be for or the zoning ordinance would be for for this neighborhood. >> Yeah. Scott, can I get my um image up on the screen? So, right here is where they're looking for that 6ft solid fence. And this is what we we need the the SIP for. If they were to do a sixoot solid fence here, they can do that because it's on a it's not on a street side. Um they're looking at a fence here, but it's back to the setbacks required. And this area is also going to be able to go right up to the um property line. It's just this side that that will have any issues. So there's no other fence on the property being proposed or even if they accommodate this side that would need additional approvals. >> Okay. Additional questions from commission members. >> Mike. >> Yeah. So you said the south facing fence is what would need the approval for this action. >> Correct. It's it's just the southside fence that's that's not meeting ordinance. >> Okay. And >> just correction. We're not making approval. We're making a determination. >> I apologize. Um, and that fence is a solid fence through out or is that what's the level of opacity are we talking about here? >> Scroll. >> Yeah. So, it's it's I believe it describes it as a solid masonry fence. >> Singlesided cedar. >> Sorry. >> Here, please. >> That fence is um single-sided um cedar. So the ordinance would say 4 foot 50% opacity. So we're both taller than it and less opaque. We're at zero opacity from the corner. Right at the corner it springs to a iron picket fence going north. >> Um and then along that >> maybe one more >> pole south and then it tilts up to the northeast slightly to a gate they have down >> that's already there on site. >> Where where's I guess the image on the screen. Where's where is this fence? Does it look stone? That's facing Third Street off of the setback. >> Off of the setback. Okay. Thank you. >> Correct. It's both open. It's open metal towards uh the neighbor to the south. Then it goes stone. Then it has the cedar gates for the driveway. Uh more stone person gate and then stone again. Okay. >> Joe, you want to? >> Yeah. I just clarification that it's not just the south fence that was seeking a variance. There was also a portion of that west fence uh I believe as it uh I forget specifically what it was but there was some aspect of that >> talking about that >> as it got closer to the property line >> um right right here it within 25 ft of the property line in this area would require that um variance to the to the zoning ordinance. this right here because we have a residential property right here doesn't it's not a street yard. So we have two two street yards right here and then >> a little bit on the other one. Okay. Yeah. >> This street yard there the proposed fence is back the past the setback line. >> Reading from the fence and wall permit notes on the drawing set. They reference the now I've lost it again. The north five foot three and a quarter inches section of the wall extends past the north property building setback to the north property line. So requesting a variance to allow this section of wall within the building setback zone. >> I believe that's that's this I don't know if you can see my mouse. >> Wouldn't it be the it would be the metal fence that's over the 4ft height for the distance to the setback off of Volwrath. So I guess that would be the solid wood all the way along Bullwrath and as it turns the corner until it hits the 25 foot mark it is the right opacity but taller than the four feet. And if I can jump in and add just one other item, John, you may be able to shed some additional context. You know, I can appreciate the um response to uh I guess reacting to the fortress comment. I think intent is not to harden this edge, but simply create additional privacy uh along what we know is an very active park and uh what we've obviously observed in terms of amount of traffic uh going down Volrath. Um you know, I being mindful that we don't have sidewalks along this north north edge. Uh we are still 20 almost 20 ft off of that curb. Um you know I think the team was mindful also about the landscaping there. John, can you speak at all to the landscaping intent along that edge as well? >> Well, landscape I mean yes. I mean it's just to be built up and and to be more natural. I mean there's already a number of trees that have been preserved. um pines in the area where the old entrance was to it and additional trees to the west neighboring the uh neighbor arrives. I mean it was an extensive preservation of the large mature trees and and an intent to put back additional um to do more natural screening but at least on that barrier or on that road as Mike said one we're set back further because it is a deeper uh property but to just give more privacy from that edge. So just share that just in terms of that edge is not we don't see it um the intent being to harden up to the curb line by any means but create a more natural buffer between the curb and then the proposed fence. I be it more solid of a fence but by design for increased privacy not necessarily to to fortify if you will from a security standpoint or harden the edge along uh along that park by any means. Kevin, >> I guess I'm a little in general I'm I'm I'm okay with this if as a as a minor change if the fence were put back off the property line and the landscaping was placed on the private property. placing your own landscaping in the public rightway. I mean, there's nothing stopping us from clearing it out if we had to. So then there's no protection of that fence. There's no hiding the fence. >> True. That was we we talked about that early on with the development. We'd like to come back at some point to, you know, present a landscape plan, something that the owner would take care of on the on the public way to maintain that. Of course, it could be cleared out for utility work or something that the city needs and there'd have to be an agreement that the owner then puts it back. I I don't know if that's something that could be broached. Um or otherwise we have to look at a distance as you're suggesting. >> It's you know it's always something we can look at. Um >> I just tend to be protective of the rightway. >> Um because it's it's everyone's right away, >> not just the neighbor. >> Correct. Um, I think the sole intent was to only increase it and to decrease the visibility of the fence, knowing that they were asking for a fence for the privacy that they would put forth more landscaping to soften that edge and keep it uh more as it is now um or has been. Yeah, I in my mind I'm I'm a lot more comfortable if the fence was not on the property line so that the landscaping could be placed on the property. Mhm. >> Um I I guess I guess have concerns having it right on the property line. >> All right, other questions, motions. Joe, >> just that the comment that this is a a situation where you're facing the park, so not technically a neighbor. Um to me that I don't agree with that. You're you're facing a neighborhood amenity and the neighbors in general. Uh, and there's a reason why there is an ordinance that your streetyard fence is only 4 foot and 50% opaque. And I think it's so that we don't have these these walls screening off properties that you can't tell what's going on in there. So, I understand wanting the privacy. I'm just concerned what that environment then becomes from the neighborhood side of it. Uh, and that perhaps there are better ways to do it. I mean, would a six-foot fence with 50% opacity provide enough screening? If the intent is to just kind of discourage people from from looking in, that's at least a a move in that direction without going extra height and the full opacity. Uh, so it's something that I would like to have more input from the neighbors. If if the neighborhood in general has no issues with it, then so be it. Um, but I I think they deserve the opportunity to have some say. So, based on that, I would make a motion that this would be considered a major adjustment requiring uh a public hearing uh before we can approve it. All right. There's been a motion to say that this is a substantial change for the site specific plan. Uh is there a second? >> Moved and second by Alder Close. Under discussion hearing, no more discussion. All those in favor state I >> I >> any opposed chair votes I extension one abstension. Abstension noted. All right. Item 10 has been determined that that is a substantial change. So item 11 we will table uh till a future meeting and hearing are noticed and published. >> And mayor may I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> For clarification. If uh if there was a a revision per I think Joe your your recommendation, would that still need to go to public hearing or is there a a means of doing that back in front of this body without doing a public hearing? >> So, at this point, the plan commission did make a motion that was voted on affirmatively that this is a substantial change. So, any proposed changes that have been presented will need to be moved forward with a public hearing. So even if we went to a 50% opacity or changed the height, mayor located it back in the site, if we made a fundamental change to what you just took action on, that would still have to go back to or it would still go out through public hearing. >> I think >> if if you resubmit that is within the ordinance and the zoning code, then you will not need a public hearing. That would be a new item for separate consideration. >> Noted. Thank you. and then work with staff to decide if you want to proceed with what's proposed or if you want to submit a different plan. >> We'll do. All right. All right. Item 11 will be tabled without objections. Hearing none, item 12, consideration and possible action on resolution approving an amendment to the project plan and boundaries of tax increment district 21. And Greg from Aaylor's will make that introduction. Thank you, mayor. I'm going to bring up a summary presentation here in a moment that does not include any new content. It just summarizes uh the information that was in the project plans, but just to make it a little easier to go through what was identified in those documents. We're going to start with the boundary amendment uh for TID number 21. Uh there are two types of amendments for TIF districts. There's a boundary or territory amendment where you're adding or subtracting territory and then there's a project plan amendment when you're adjusting eligible costs and expenditures within the district. This is a boundary amendment only. We're just adding uh territory to the proposed district. We've included some financial analysis uh to give an update on the TIFF district, but there's no changes to the eligible project costs. So the purpose of this amendment is to add 7.4 4 acres of territory to the district. This was a rehabilitation district and we verified and we'll show that that at least 50% of the area still meets the statutory criteria of in need of rehabilitation. There are three parcels that are publicly owned that have no current value that are presently in t district number 17. They're going to be incorporated into uh t district number 21 if this amendment is approved. As I mentioned with the project costs, there's no additional legal eligible project costs being added to the addi to the district. Uh the total eligible expenditures based off of the original project plan and prior amendments uh was approximately 182,418,000. So that still remains the cap on eligible expenditures within the district. In terms of the but for analysis, it's really applying the same criteria that was applied when the district was created and amendment amended just by adding the territory is that there's anticipated ongoing public infrastructure investment uh potential covering of extraordinary costs associated with demolition of structures or redevelopment sites uh to really make uh redevelopment efforts within this uh district palpable uh to bring those projects to fruition. So that remains the primary objective of this district. And then we'll go through the financial analysis. It's really just an illustration, an update of where things stand. Again, we're not adding any eligible project costs through this proposed amendment. So the parcels that are being added that were identified in the project plan are the parcels that are shown here in red. Um so you'll see that parcels majority are on uh and then there's the river. There's one parcel that's on the other side. Uh so these are all the parcels that are proposed to be added uh for additional redevelopment opportunities within the district. Anytime a boundary amendment or TID creation occurs, there needs to be demonstrate compliance with what's called the 12% valuation limit. So even though we're looking at amending TID district number 21, and we'll talk about the creation for TID district number 27, this test gets applied independently for each of those proposed TID actions. So what the 12% test is is it's a statutory requirement that states that the incremental value of all the city's existing tiff districts plus the value of the territory that we're adding to this district to 21. Those two numbers combined cannot exceed 12% of the city's total valuation. Uh so 12% of the city's current total market value is uh almost a little over 661 million. uh the incremental value of existing TIDS plus the base value of this proposed district is about 202 million. Um so we're under that uh cap in terms of value which just means that the city is in the legal position to add additional territory to this district uh just for the TI 21 amendment. That leaves the 12% uh valuation to seize at 3.66%. So well under that 12% limit. What can >> Sorry, Greg. What was that again? >> 3.66%. 66%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. So included in the project plan was a listing of all the parcels to be added to the district and then we've identified those parcels which meet the statutory criteria for a need of rehabilitation. Uh those parcels identified largely fall under uh the first condition identified in statutes. It's areas identified for carrying out plans uh for a program of voluntary or compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements which is really a common objective in areas and tid districts uh designated to promote uh redevelopment opportunities. So it's this finding stays consistent with the original objectives of the district uh just by adding uh these additional acres. The eligible project costs within the district are not changing. We've just provided the original list from the original project plan and the first amendment just for reference. Uh what has actually been expended so far is shown in the cash flow analysis for 2025 and 2026. So since we're not changing the eligible project costs, we wanted to restate what the maximum project costs are. So as I mentioned, that's a little over 182 million. Uh so that gives the uh expenditure limit uh in terms of how those funds can be spended expended. You'll see there's some specific infrastructure projects that were identified and then allowances for development incentives. Uh this plan amendment as well as original uh the prior amendment in the original project plan does give the city flexibility to move expenditure authority between these types of projects uh without amending the plan. That just gives the city flexibility to act and accordingly to new development opportunities as they come forth. If the city wants to expend more money on development incentives versus public infrastructure but remains within this cap, the plan gives you the authority to do that. Same happens if the situation reverses itself. If more money is needed for public infrastructure, those dollars can be directed there. We've updated the incremental value projections uh based off of timing of development projects within the district. Uh so in the far lefthand column we show the actual amount of incremental value that's been generated in the district uh since it was created. That's about $2,148,000. And then the values in this chart represent the projected increase in taxable value in various areas within the district. So you see we've identified them kind of by geographic area based off of uh projects that are anticipated to occur uh you know from now until 2031 construction year. Um there's opportunities for additional development beyond that but we've kind of focused our uh financial analysis on projects that are anticipated within uh kind of that planning horizon. So if all those uh projects come to fruition, uh we show what the uh district would generate based on the current tax rate of the district. That's the financial analysis. Uh the tax increment that shows uh how much project uh revenue would be available to pay for project costs. Uh so that uh totals uh about oops, excuse me, 116 uh million. So that's kind of a projection based off of construction occurring just through 2031. So in the cash flow model uh this is really just for illustration purposes to kind of up up update kind of where the district uh is looking uh from a financial perspective. Uh so we worked with staff to identify kind of key capital uh projects um within the district and that overall project list identifies what can be expended within the district but we've updated the cash flow model to reflect uh priorities uh for those projects. Just an important reminder about a TID project plan. So when we identify project lists and expenditures, approving a project plan amendment itself does not authorize any of these projects to automatically be approved. That all requires separate approval by the city council. So any development incentive requires a development agreement. Any public infrastructure costs, that project has to be formally approved by the city council. So the project plan identifies what's TID eligible. What the city chooses to undertake uh is really at discretion of the city over the life of the district. Uh so we've identified several uh what are called pay as you go development incentives which are identified in existing development agreements with uh the city. Uh what those how those incentives work is specific developments. the tax revenue generated from those developments can reimburse uh developers for project costs incurred under the terms of the development agreement. The city's development agreement uh template includes several protection provisions. Uh certain milestones have to be met in terms of construction and completion of the project. And the development incentives only get paid out in full if the developer generates enough tax revenue to do so under the terms of the development agreement. So if a developer has a maximum incentive but that project doesn't generate enough tax revenue uh over the life of the tiff district the city has no legal responsibility uh to make up that shortfall. So in terms of the capital outlay projections we've listed you know which projects were identified as kind of higher priority and several of the projects we've shown the cash flow model uh are funded uh on a cash basis so less debt uh being issued. Um so if as development gets generated you really have two options to finance infrastructure projects through the issuance of debt or if you build up enough cash in the cash flow model uh you can pay for those projects on a cash basis. Uh so in conversations with city staff we kind of identified the the current priority projects within the district and kind of identified when those could be funded uh based uh in large part on cash. But some projects in the future uh might require some uh debt issuance. that this gets evaluated as development proposals come forward. And then in the cash flow model, we just included uh some future development incentives just for illustration purposes. Uh again, that's not a commitment at this point in time. Just shows what uh potentially could be uh funded if approved by the city council. Uh so we show kind of the cash flow performance o over the district over its maximum life. Um based on the capital priority projects of the city at this time, the district is projected to remain open for its full maximum life. Uh the total expenditures are about 145.8 million uh which is less than the maximum that's allowed under the project plan. Uh so that'll get adjusted as priority changes occur going forward. So just to kind of summarize the TID district 21 amendment, um again it's just a territory amendment. There's no changes to the eligible project costs. We're adding 7.4 acres to the district to expand redevelopment opportunities. Uh and the district uh is eligible for two additional boundary amendments. Uh four permitted by statute per district um if needed. So this is the second boundary amendment. So that's the overview of TID 21. I'll pause. Happy to answer any questions or city staff has additional comments certainly want to give them a chance to interject as well. >> Thanks for any additional feedback or comment from staff. >> Okay. questions from commission members. Alder close. >> Thank you for the presentation. And I just wanted to clarify on page 33 of the of the packet on 104 of the overall packet. Um there is a uh looks to be a sample of a letter to clarify that the city attorney has reviewed the project plan and the changes that are made. Uh this looks like a sample. I just want to clarify, has the city attorney's office had the chance to uh go over this and uh approve of it? >> Yes, the city attorney's office has been involved. Additionally, the city has also used Von Breezen and Roper Brian Brian Winters as as well. >> Great. Thank you. >> I guess Craig, just overall the TID 21 in general is financially doing well, good. What would your professional assessment be on that? I think the district is there's been significant investment in the district since it was created which is not unusual. There's been development opportunities. So the city has been responding to those in terms of infrastructure investment and then the development incentives you know again are all payo. So those only get paid out if the developer meets the requirement in the development agreement. So you know the city is reacting to development opportunities and using incentives based on those opportunities and the infrastructure investment. Uh, also there's provisions in development agreements that require specific developers to generate tax increment for infrastructure financed by the city that benefits their project specifically. And if that isn't generated, then they're required to make up that difference. Um, so the district, you know, it's a 27-year district, so there's lots of additional opportunities for redevelopment, but I know city staff monitors this and, you know, we we update these cash flow models as often as needed to react to changing circumstances. >> Okay. Thank you. Other comments, questions from commission members. Motions from commission members. >> Moved. Is there a second? >> Second. Moved and seconded. Under discussion. Braden. >> Yep. My question is actually more just for staff. Is there any specific project that this is tied to or is it just, you know, looking at the list of properties? There's a lot of this that is RDA city county. So are we just trying to make it easier for future potential redevelopment or is there specific project potential that we're trying to to fit into this district right now? >> Future nothing is set in stone yet. >> Okay. Thank you. And then if I can I'll just add a comment that there is um the Riverbend neighborhood uh plan already out there from 2019. So this isn't an area that we're going in blind to. we have a pretty good basis for for what the expectations are for what development would look like here, investment in the the neighborhood. So, I'm aligned with moving forward with it. >> Thank you. Final thoughts. It's been moved and seconded then seeing no more discussion. All those in favor state I. >> Any objections? Chair votes I. That is approved. Thank you. Next item 13, consideration and possible action of resolution establishing the boundaries of and approving the project plan for tax increment district number 27. Greg, >> so similar summary presentation um just recaps what's in the project plan. So TID 27 is a proposed new TID district. Um it is an industrial TID district. Has a maximum life of 20 years. Incorporates about 36 acres which is targeted for a new facility for Northland Plastics about a 72,000 square foot manufacturing facility. The project costs are identified in the project plan are about $3 million. It includes water and sewer improvements uh within the boundary of the district. um potential allowances for development incentives which require a development agreement and then interest expense and administrative costs. Since this property was previously in the town of Wilson and was annexed by the city, uh the city is required to pay the town of Wilson for a period of 5 years, their share of taxes that they were collecting on the property prior to development occurring and just the town portion of those taxes. That's really just based off of the uh land value of the parcel. Um that's a TID eligible expense. We'll show that in the cash flow analysis. In terms of kind of the butt for analysis, really kind of focused on the infrastructure, the site needs infrastructure uh to bring the manufacturing facility uh into operation. Um that's the primary purpose. Uh the facility is planned to retain the existing 36 jobs um at their present facility. there is the potential for four additional positions. That information came from Northland Plastics directly. I mentioned the 12% test. Um so we applied this separately for TID 27. Um the existing value of or the base value of that land is about $234,000. So, if we take that plus the approximately 200 million of incremental value in the existing district, again, this doesn't include the amendment for TID 21 because that's not considered uh official yet until that is approved. Um, so again, the city is still well under that 12% valuation limit. Uh, which means you can add territory to existing districts or create new districts. That's a legal requirement. So, the boundary, this is a single parcel TID district. Um so that's the sole um boundary of the district again just to facilitate uh the manufacturing facility. All of the project costs are listed in the project plan. These are all located within the boundary of the district. There's no project costs that are outside the district because those would be required to be identified on this particular list. Uh so we have water and sanitary sewer improvements of estimated $650,000. There's an allowance for a development incentive. uh there's been no development agreement executed as of yet uh which would be required for that type of an incentive. So it's again just an eligible expense uh subject to future uh common council action. I mentioned the payment uh to the town of Wilson for 5 years based on the current land value of the district that totals about $1,575. Uh there's some interest expense which I'll explain in the cash flow and then allowance for ongoing planning and administration. So total eligible project cost is approximately 3 million. So the financial analysis the estimated increase in value from this manufacturing facility is $10 million. Uh the cash flow illustrates how all those potential eligible project costs uh could be funded. Uh the projected closure is in 20 years the full maximum life of the district. So, we've projected that incremental value being constructed over a 2-year time frame based on input uh from the uh developer. And then if that incremental value is achieved over a two-year time period, uh we show the estimated uh tax increment that's generated from the project, um that's a little over about $3.1 million. So in the cash flow model, we've illustrated if all these eligible project costs were funded, how they could be financed. Um the city, you know, has alternatives and to in terms of how it will do that. Uh but this is an illustration of how that could work. So the water and sewer improvements total $650,000. Um the city has options in terms of how those can be funded. the city could issue debt uh to pay for those improvements or the city could use uh revenues of the water utility and the sewer utility to pay for those uh capital extensions. So in this illustration we're showing that second option that the water and sewer utility as they construct other water and sewer improvements uh that benefit the utility they would uh provide the funds to uh pay for those improvements and then those funds would be reimbursed back to the water and sewer utility uh with interest. So that repayment uh shows how that repayment would occur over 20 years u back to the utilities. Conversely, the city could issue debt to finance the projects as well. The development incentive is an illustration only um if $2 million is paid out. It just shows potentially what those payments could be, but again that would have to be subject to a development agreement. And then just the ongoing cost since it's a single parcel TID. uh we're just looking at, you know, some initial uh costs associated with creating the district and and any uh legal uh fees and then just ongoing uh cost for audit and do reporting. Um so if the investment is made up front in the district, all tiff districts, um there's that kind of that initial two years before tax increment is collected. Um that's the way all TI districts work. You create a district, your first year of increment collection won't be until two years later. Uh so you typically expend some funds over that two-year period and those get recovered over time. Uh so the cash flow shows that you know the uh district recovers these costs uh over its life. Uh but again this illustrates if everything was funded um if a development incentive is issued that's subject to the terms of a development agreement. As I mentioned in my prior comments, the city through its development agreements require developers to hit certain construction milestones um often have tax increment guarantees in place for particular cost. So there's protections in place and again the developer only gets that amount if they generate enough tax revenue. If they don't, the city has no obligation to make up that shortfall. Uh so to summarize this particular district um it's uh again kind of facilitate uh manufacturing uh expansion for Northland Plastics fund some infrastructure improvements and if there's development incentives those would be subject to a development agreement and excuse me in terms of the overall to timeline uh we're it's all prescribed by statute uh the initial joint review board meeting occurred earlier today that was organizational no action taken at that meeting and we're at the require required public hearing and plan commission consideration. Now, um if it's approved at this level, it goes to common council for their consideration on Sep September 21st and then I'll go back to the joint review board for a meeting uh to be scheduled at a later date. So, that's the overview of TID 27. >> Thanks, Greg. Staff, any additional comments, directors on? >> Yes. Something that I mentioned to this body before is that Northland Plastics is a local based company here. They have been open for 73 years. they are a third generation business. Additionally, um with this move, this is something that the planning department is excited about just just because it itches that that part of our bin planning brain of making sure that alike um places are by al like places. So in this case making sure that the manufacturing spaces are by the manufacturing spaces the current the current space that is held is surrounded by residential. >> Thank you. Okay, open it up for questions from commissioners thoughts, comments. Braden, >> I have a couple. So, uh, one, the advance from utilities, you mentioned that how it's payback with interest. So, just to clarify, that is in lie of debt or bond issuance. It's just a different correct way of doing it. Okay. >> And then there is no signed development agreement, right? Okay. Um, and then I'm actually going to flip it over to Kevin here. Couple questions on infrastructure just because I like to look at the the costs of ongoing maintenance versus the revenue this will generate regardless of if it's in a tiff district or not. So the roads that are there today, those are county owned and maintained. So even with our um annexation recently, no changes in how those are maintained. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then generally speaking, water sewer infrastructure, we're talking a lifespan greater than 30 years once we put that in the ground. That's we're not taking that out. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think the lifespan of the water man is well over 50 years. >> Got it. So, uh, the reason I ask is looking at this once the the TID closes, we're looking at roughly $150,000 a year in in revenue. If we get that going for 20 years, that more than would pay for when it's time to to go back and replace or maintain the infrastructure. So to me it seems like good sound investment not just because it closes out the TID in a reasonable manner but also is providing ongoing revenue for the city in excess of what those capital expenses would be plus notes that Taylor had. So I'm I'm all in favor and I'd move to approve. >> All right. There's been a motion to approve. Is there a second? >> Moved and seconded. Still under discussion. Other questions, comments, thoughts? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of approval of item 13, please state I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Chair votes I. That is approved. Thank you, Greg. >> Welcome. >> All right. Next is item 14, discussion for the plan commission on the proposed comprehensive plan. Director Zer. >> Hello all. Um, so we had finished up our ninth community engagement session after the direction that this had the direction that the board here had given us. Uh, we did have an event at at Paradigm. Uh we did have a signin portion. We think um roughly 50 people showed up. Not not all participants sign signed in. So it's hard to kind of gauge that. Um we did we did collect feedback. We did then present it to Bay Lakes Regional Planning Commission. Um we asked them to incorporate as much as they could. I will say we did get a lot of contradicting feedback. A great example is transportation. Some quotes that were given were concerns about the lack of ridership. Um and a direct quote was do not expand transit services. On then the flip side um people had asked for expanded routes specifically to Plymouth, Johnsonville and other alike spaces. And then further a different um group had asked for routes specifically to local airports and Brewers games. Um so lots of contradicting feedback there. Uh we then had asked Bay Lake to make as many adjustments and to kind of find that middle ground. You may note that the last community engagement session was on July 9th and today being our August 26, we did have a lot of feed feedback with them to find that middle ground there. Um, you will also note that in the updated copy there are some photos of of the community engagement added and and worked into that p um worked into the newest draft. With that all to say that this is the newest and latest and greatest draft. Um, is this something that you feel good about? Um, if so, then staff then will move forward with a a notice and then we'll bring it for formal adoption and things of that nature. Um, but with this being a uh passionate topic, I just wanted to make sure that we got y'all's feedback. >> Alder close. Thank you. And I just want to commend your office as well as all of the feedback that we provided, the outreach. Uh, clearly the community is extremely passionate about this. They're extremely protective of their home. They want the best possible comprehensive plan to be brought forward and that shows in a lot of the community engagement. Um, the only thing that I would like to point out is, uh, like a good millennial, I went back and looked at the rubric of the assignment and went back to the state statute on comprehensive planning and I was looking over the implementation element section of it and the only point that I would bring up is there's a lot of different implementation elements. Um, but I'm not necessarily seeing uh a mechanism to measure how those progress are going to uh achieve those different items. I think a lot of the different items are exactly reflective of what the goals of the city are. Um but I would love to see a little more fleshed out um mechanism for measuring how we're going through it as well as the stated sequence of how we're going to achieve the different items uh how we're going to prioritize those different implementation items going forward. And um but beyond that that's really the only commentary that I can think of. Taylor. Yeah. >> Uh just a follow-up question then when you had asked for how for how we are going to achieve different um items and options. Do you have some in particular that you would like outlined? >> I don't think I don't have a specific example. However, um when I'm looking through I'm showing the different implementation items. um they're listed, but I'm not showing like a a matrix of achievement or anything uh that's being measured against in order to show that we're making positive movement toward the goals in the implementation. Um so I'm just looking at it establishes the roles uh and it does an inventory of the different existing land use controls and efforts. Um and then it has the priority actions and it divies them up by housing and neighborhoods. Um, so for example, just looking at the first one, affordable housing expansion, uh, what would be the specific goal? What would be, how would we measure it? Um, how would we report back on that? Those kinds of things. How can we make this specific, measurable, um, so that we're able to report back and say, "Yes, we're making progress on affordable housing expansion. Yes, we're making progress on uh, neighborhood renewal." And I don't have a specific measurement in mind for any of those. I think that that would be up to your office. I trust your judgment. Um but the I think that having a a goalpost to aim for would be really beneficial. Uh so that we can show our progress through the through the comprehensive plan and when we go back to review it year in year out um we can say that was achievable that was not achievable and we can amend as necessary. >> Gotcha. Thank you >> Braden. I also am interested in in tracking our progress to goals, but I I do have a couple questions then because I'm not sure if this is the right tool for that. So, we today we don't have a strategic plan in place. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Right. So, I was I watched the the what the meeting was the other day with all the directors going through their work plans. So, could you kind of quickly help us understand what what a strategic plan would be and when because I think if I'm understanding correctly that would be a little bit more specific and hopefully tie back to some of these goals. So could you maybe speak to to what that looks like? >> Yeah, absolutely. I I think there I think there's two things. So the first thing is the strategic plan. Um that's something that the city is looking to pursue at the finance and personnel meeting on Monday. The finance and personnel committee did approve and hopefully then will be sent to council a contract for strategic planning and things things of that nature. There also is the city the manager's work plan that outlines specifically what things can be done. those things directly align with the comprehensive plan. So when we talk about home or when we talk about home affordability and things of that nature, uh the sanity manager work plan does outline a down payment assistance program that the city is working towards. Um that would be a great way to have those smart goals as I always call them the specific measurable achievable you know those those types of things. Um so that's really where you would see that outlined. >> Got it. Yeah. So I think then in that case I don't know what your feelings are alder closely I I don't think I would add additional specifics into this plan. If I look through I'll use housing as an example because that was where I posted up during the last um input session. There was also a lot of disagreement there. Um there and there are also points of agreement. So there are points where most people agreed seemed like or almost unanimously that we needed to have more options for smaller homes on smaller lots, starter homes, single family housing that is that is able to be built compact and cheap, duplexes, ADUs, things like that. There was also a lot of disagreement about whether or not we needed more apartments, fewer apartments, larger apartments, smaller apartments. Um, we have all that kind of built in here now with those points of feedback. I think we have enough information here to use this as the tool to go and and make those more specific recommendations. So I wouldn't look to make this document more specific. I would look to make sure that we hold the strategic plan and the city manager's work plan accountable to this. Are you are you amendable to that? What are your thoughts? >> No. So um my goal here is to make it more in line with the state statute governing comprehensive planning. So, and I'll read off the wording, so I'm not ad livinging here, but it says, "A comprehensive plan shall include a mechanism to measure the local government units progress toward achieving all aspects of the comprehensive plan." Um, I don't know what that looks like in practice for other communities and how that's been implemented individually for other municipalities, per se, uh, but I would believe that that would include some kind of specific measurable goal and have a mechanism for measuring it. So my worry would be that we're in statutory compliance as opposed to um any kind of deficiency in the plan itself. I think the plan is sufficient as a vision statement. Um but in order to bring it into compliance with the wording of that section of the state statute, I would like to see that measurement so we don't have any issues going forward with any kind of requirements for for comprehensive planning at the state level. If I if I could chair, >> go for it. >> Um being in state compliance is something that we've really um presented to to Bay Lakes as a key key goal. Something that I mentioned in time and time before is the last time that the comprehensive plan was updated was 2011. Um it is it is supposed to be up updated each each 10 years. We find ourselves now here in 2026. Um I have been affirmed by Bay Lakes that this current um draft does does meet all of the the statutory requirements. >> Okay. Thank you. Other additional comments from commission members overall about the comp plan and next steps. >> Okay. I guess just general consensus then. Is the commission ready to proceed with publishing of the hearing notice and then it'll come back to the commission in 30 days? All right, sounds good. We've exhausted our agenda then for uh today. What is the pleasure of the commission? >> Move to adjourn. Moved and seconded. All those in favor of adjourning, state I. >> I. >> We'rejourned at 507.