02-27-13 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 Work Session
02/27/2013
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Tom Lund — Serving as Chairman in the absence of Marc Rold
Suzanne Faubert
Murphy McMahon
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
Possible URA Committee Applicant, Chris Hall
Work Session:
Ms. Thompson prefaced the meeting by asking if everyone had reviewed the draft document
from the previous URA meeting, and stated that she would like to know if the committee was
willing to move the March 13 regularly scheduled meeting to March 6 in order to allow time to
add Paul Roybal's TIF request to the March 18 City Council meeting. All agreed. The next URA
meeting will be held March 6, 2013 at 4:00pm.
Ms. Thompson handed out a West Side Core Area TIF Guideline proposal listing 7 possible
funding options and briefly explained each section:
1. Shared Utility Extension (Possible uses are water and cable lines)
a. Matching grant (50%)
b. Up to $50,000 grant maximum
2. Rehabilitation/Code Compliance (Possible uses are for fire code)
a. Direct loan at 3% interest, up to $100,000
b. Interest buy down option
c. Gap financing option
3. Fagade
a. Combination direct loan and matching grant (50%)
b. Up to $50,000 grant maximum
4. Historic Restoration (eligible in addition to fagade)
a. Matching grant (50%)
b. Up to $50,000
5. Technical Assistance (feasibility, architectural fagade, preliminary building assessment,
landscape)
a. Grant $5,000 maximum
6. Site Preparation/Demolition/Cleanup
a. Matching grant (50%)
b. Up to $50,000 grant maximum
7. Sidewalk/Street Tree Placement/Replacement (The City currently has a small program setup for
this)
Mr. Jentz stated that this handout is intended to pair goal statements in the plan and state laws for
the private side, not public issues like streets and railroads. A different realm will be developed
for the public sector. This proposal could be expanded to other TIF districts and the ideas of the
loans and grants are only there for discussion. He feels if the public can benefit from a project it
would qualify as a grant, if it's a private use project it may be a loan option.
Questions were raised about the criteria to apply on section 5 (technical assistance), and Mr.
Jentz stated the intent is that an architect, engineer, landscape artist, etc. would give time to the
City to assist applicants and help them with ideas. It is meant to give direction to applicants who
aren't sure what direction to take.
(Tom Lund arrived at 4:20pm)
Mr. Nalty suggested there be an explanation of each section and that the City demonstrates how
much funding is available for each section and possibly add a clause similar to "subject to
availability of funds."
Ms. Thompson stated that staff will incorporate the committee's feedback and set priorities of
funding on an annual basis.
Mr. Jentz suggested an annual review and setting of caps on each funding option.
Discussion was brought up about how this would apply to other City TIF's and that each TIF
may need to have its own guidelines and general criteria with sub programs for each. The
committee decided to table that discussion and focus on the guidelines at hand for the West Side
TIF during this work session and give feedback to City staff for each section of the proposal.
Discussions were made about the following proposed sections:
1. A single utility line may qualify for a loan; a public or shared line could be grant, or 50/50 match
2. Private businesses looking to make improvements to their building such as ADA compliance, etc.
on an individual property could have a list of options such as grants, loans, and gap financing.
3. and 4. These sections could tie together, and help with blight and historic restoration
5. Other communities have tried this. Architects give their time and there could be a pre list of
who would be available to help the applicant. There were concerns about this section having
potential for abuse.
6. Removal of blight and vacant buildings. This section has several capabilities such as leveling and
clean up after building removal and preparing the site for the next build and redevelopment. It was
discussed that the City could reimburse for the demolition or pay after the work was completed, the
City would also want to review the demolition plans. The idea of a low interest, or no interest for a
period, loan was discussed as well as the benefit of this section to preventing fires and safety
measures of vacant buildings.
7. This section could tie into the program the City currently has in place.
Mr. Lund had some concerns with the draft policy handed out at the last meeting and will
forward his notes to Tom.
The idea of a shared water line or public use option for Mr. Roybal's request was brought up
and Mr. Jentz stated it was a possibility and he has looked into options and believes it can be
done.
The final TIF proposal will be reviewed for Mr. Roybal's application at the March 6 URA
meeting and then presented before council on March 18.
Suzanne will not be able to attend the March 6 meeting but will be calling in via phone.
Lindsey will meet with Mr. Roybal to solidify his request and review the numbers again
before the March 6 meeting.
The work session was adjourned at 5:15pm.