Loading...
02-13-13 Urban Renewal Agency MinutesCity of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758 Urban Renewal Agency Summary of Activities 02/13/2013 MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Marc Rold — Chairman Tom Lund — Vice Chairman Suzanne Faubert Shannon Nalty OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE City of Kalispell Staff —Planning Director, Tom Jentz; Community Development Manager, Katharine Thompson; Community Development Administrator, Lindsey Simpson Daily Inter Lake Reporter, Tom Lotshaw TIF Applicant, Paul Roybal, and Felicia Roybal CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rold called the meeting to order at 4:00p.m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Members have been E-Mailed the following: • An agenda for this meeting. • A Summary of Activities of the 11/14/12 and 1/16/13 meetings. ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES Reviewed the prior meetings "Summary of Activities" and the documents were accepted as written. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment offered. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Westside/Core Area TIF Copies of the combined West Side Urban Renewal Plan and Core Area Plan were distributed to each member. Page 56, Chapter 4 was reviewed by all, and committee members were encouraged to review the plan before the next meeting. Copies of draft West Side Urban Renewal District — Core Area Tax Increment Financing Criteria for Review were distributed and discussed. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Jentz explained that this criteria has been formatted from other Montana city TIF's. Mr. Jentz pointed out that because the committee currently has no guidelines, this is a template and a starting point. He is currently drafting a list of projects that could potentially be used for grant or loan money such as building restoration, and City impact fees. He suggested there be set limits and percentages of the project costs set up as the standard. Ms. Faubert suggested there be a prequalification guideline. Ms. Thompson stated that in the draft for initial review, page 4 addresses the guidelines. Mr. Lund mentioned that USDA has a prequalification process also. Ms. Thompson stated that she hopes to have a universal application that incorporates the revolving loan fund as well the TIF. Mr. Jentz stated that when the new guidelines are formed they will apply to all the TIF districts and the City can promote the TIF's. The board can then decide whether or not to fund the project based on the guidelines. Mr. Lund asked if there are criteria for each TIF, and Mr. Jentz stated yes, but those requirements can be merged to fit one set of guidelines. Mr. Nalty stated it would be wise to educate council and the community as to what defines a TIF and how it operates. Mr. Jentz agreed and stated the City would like to see more applicants. He feels that if council adopts and understands the policies set forth, the URA can tell staff how they'd like to move forward. Mr. Nalty stated that in his opinion for the past 20 years there has been a lack of definition as to what a TIF is. Ms. Thompson suggested the URA schedule a work session to further review the drafted guidelines on February 27. The committee agreed to meet on February 27 at 4pm for a work session. 2. Application from Paul Roybal, 11 Main Street A spreadsheet outlining Mr. Roybal's estimated project costs, TIF request, and owner equity was distributed to the committee and reviewed. Ms. Faubert asked if 11 Main Street was in the Core Area. Ms. Thompson stated yes, it is. Mr. Rold inquired as to why the total project cost stated it was for lst floor occupancy only, however under owner equity, plumbing supply lines it showed the third floor being serviced. Mr. Roybal explained that while plumbing lines were being installed and repaired it made sense to service the third floor at that time to prepare it for further renovation. Mr. Nalty asked if fire suppression was a requirement. Mr. Roybal stated no, but the City requires him to have one in order to bring in carpet rolls and supply. Mr. Rold stated that without a fire suppression system it would be a showroom instead of a warehouse. Mr. Roybal stated that was correct. Ms. Faubert asked where the current water to the building was coming from at this time. Mr. Roybal stated he was sharing a water line with the adjoined building at 7 Main Street. Mr. Rold asked if the entire TIF request of $170,000 was eligible. Ms. Faubert asked what the committee was basing their decision on. Mr. Lund stated that the committee needs to know if this request is eligible for grant, or loan funds, and questioned the appropriateness of the request. Mr. Nalty stated that the committee is setting a precedent for the future. Ms. Thompson replied that this was not a precedent, but more a pilot project. She has spoken with Charlie Harball regarding that issue and he feels that Mr. Roybal's application happens to be running concurrent with the forming of TIF guidelines by the URA. Mr. Jentz stated that he prefer the committee look at this application more as a test model than a precedent. One that is forcing everyone to think about the parameters of the program. He feels this is more crafting and determining the guidelines. Mr. Rold asked if water service was the most important of Mr. Roybal's requests. Mr. Roybal stated yes, water service will allow him to move his current business in and hold his grand opening. Mr. Nalty asked the committee their opinion on what the intent of the TIF is for downtown. Ms. Faubert stated she felt it was blight. Mr. Rold stated bringing new business in; in this case moving a business from the county to the city. Mr. Lund stated bringing up the neighborhood. Mr. Jentz stated if the project is for public benefit, to improve facade, and help with issues like water suppression then TIF funding should be reviewed, but if it benefits the private owner a loan should be reviewed. Mr. Nalty inquired if it was feasible to continue sharing water with 7 Main Street. Mr. Roybal stated no, it is not, he has already addressed that with the City. Mr. Nalty asked if there were other issues that could be addressed during the water line project that would benefit other businesses or the City. Mr. Rold asked the committee if they wanted to help with the water line and if so, to what extent. Mr. Lund stated that if this project were funded, he would prefer it benefit more than one property. Ms. Faubert stated she felt this project does qualify for single use of TIF funds because it is improving blight. Mrs. Thompson stated that fire flow could be an option. Mr. Nalty stated it was also a project building for the future. Mr. Roybal mentioned bringing more water lines to existing businesses nearby and that the owners of 7 Main Street might be on board to work with this project as well. Mr. Jentz stated he would see what direction could be taken with that idea, and he feels update to the facade is key and will entice others to begin facade improvements as well. Mr. Roybal mentioned his plan to install new windows on the building to restore it to its original look. Mr. Lund asked if facade would be a loan or grant option. Mr. Jentz stated it could be either, or both. Ms. Faubert stated she feels TIF was designed for a project such as this. Mr. Nalty stated he felt that cosmetics of the building would fall under a loan. Mr. Lund stated that reviewing the draft guidelines it states that 10% of the project cost can be given and asked if that would be a cap. (Ms. Faubert excused herself from the meeting at 5:03) Mr. Rold stated there would be $48,000 available for funding this project per the draft. Mr. Nalty stated that the committee needs more time to set a precedent. Mr. Rold asked about the impact fees and if they could be waived. Mr. Jentz stated they could not be waived and must be paid by some source whether it is the TIF or loan, but they cannot be forgiven. Mr. Rold stated that this issue is not yet resolved and they the committee will readdress this at the work session February 27th. He adjourned the meeting at 5:10. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Thompson stated that New Business items A and B could be tabled until the next meeting, and addressed item C by stating that Mr. Nalty's term will expire April 30 and he is eligible to be re -appointed by sending a letter to the City Clerk. NEXT MEETING Work session will be held February 27th, the next URA meeting will be held March 13, 2013. End of Summary of Activities 2/13/13