Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yep. All right. I have 12 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Roll call, please. Here. Here. Here. Here. here. We have any conflicts of interest to declare Hearing none. We're moving on to approving the agenda. Move to approve. Second. First and second that we approve the agenda. Is there any further discussion on that item in the audience want to address the agenda? We're ready to vote. Then all in favor say I.

I. All oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Next item would be to approve the previous minutes. Any corrections to make hearing? None. We're ready for a motion. Second and a second to approve the minutes. Any further discussion in the audience? All in favor say I. I. All oppose? Nay. Motion carried. Next meeting would be a Tuesday, May 26th. Memorial Day is on Monday. Set the date.

Second. Move. Second that we set the date. Tuesday, May 26th. Any discussion. Ready to vote. Then all in favor say I. I. All oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Next item on the agenda is a plat, excuse me, for Sean and Karen Gerenecker. Uh legal description is in the packet.

This is outside city limits but within three miles of city. Still have some in front of this board as well. Um or excuse me, it's county zoning jurisdiction for this. The applicant is um fighting out two lots out of their existing ones. Um there are some variances that go with it at the county level. Nothing for the city level with it. Planning commission recommend approval of the the variances for it. County commission board adjustment will hear it tomorrow at their like I said it is county jurisdiction. It's just within three miles. No concerns from city then. No concerns. Move to approve. Second.

We got to fight for a second, but we have a move and a second. Any further discussion? Anybody in the audience want to address the plan? We're ready to vote then. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? Nay. Motion carried.

Next item is a hearing and action on establishing the boundaries and approval of the project plan for tax increment financing district number 46. So, we'll establish the boundary first. Um, you have three pages in front of you that were an amendment to the project plan. We did a review on another project or another tip and came up with the things that we needed. So, we thought we'd give you the most updated as well as we go through the project plan. I'll bring those up as what the changes are that you have in front of you. Um, staff did a internal review with this. Um, gave notes and comments back to applicant. Applicant is Legacy Point LLC. um they made their changes. Um when it was notified out to the public in the paper, um it was still in the county, but it has since been annexed into city limits that was reported last week. So that's all city limits for this 5th. Moving through the plan, um this is an affordable housing classification for the state. Um the description of this would be 38 apartments with mix of one bedroom, two bedroom and threebedroom fitness center, cleaning lounge, outdoor patio, breakfast area, conference rooms for residents, um coffee bar for residents and guests, mailbox security. Um there will also be an attached indoor garage parking as well as outdoor parking as well on that location. Um on page four gives you kind of a pretty view of it with also the parking garage on to the right side of this to be where your open parking would be as well. So in garage and out parking on page five has above four statements stating that this project would not move forward but for the tip general definitions the developer is legacy LLC. Um, right now though, JT Property LLC is the current property owner of it. Um, but they do have a

purchase agreement in place with Legacy Point for this property if the tip is approved. Uh the boundaries which would you could be setting today are the highlighted gear lot 4/1 subdivision of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 32104 north range 6 west city metro D county South Dakota and the 66 ft of irregular track number one parallel and adjacent to the above described lot 4 all in sections 32104 north range 6 west keeping city mitchell uh Davidson County Southakota. That's the map for where that location is. You have National Guard Armory right over here to the east of it and they are on North Carman Drive. Um this is one of the handouts that was changed for you which is page nine. We updated a couple of the the figures for the previous tax increment districts. Um but as you can see the Mitchell taxable value is $1.75 billion. Um per codified law at this time has to be less than 10% for uh tip base values and we are well underneath that. We don't reach the 10% we're about 2 and a half% or so. So really didn't change anything for the percentage wise. It was just giving you an updated table on that. The tip itself is for 1,394,413. That's eligible project cost of that. There's discretionary costs and grants of1,144,413 and then administrative costs of $250,000. Um, with the developers agreement that would have to be approved. Again, the total amount of the tip would not exceed $1,394,413. Um, there is no interest projected with this tip at all. The length of the tip is not to exceed 20 years from the date of creation. Expiration of it will be at

the end of the 20 years or when the one wheel $94,413 have been paid out in tax payments. Legals if the state of South Dakota is not classified as affordable housing that will not be finalized and will be ceased to exist. conditions. This was another change that we had on page 11 which you have in front of you. Upon completion of construction of a project involving the eligible project cost, the developer shall certify to city staff. Originally that was always finance officer. So it's just a procedural change that's looking after it to do those eligible costs. And then on page 12, we also added in the city and metro reserves right to charge an annual administration expense for the reimbursement of any fees or cost to other public subdivisions which now or in the future arise for state law. Um during legislature this year, there's talk of possibly implementing a fee that the county could recoup from the city or whoever is approving the tip. Um it's not on the books now, could be in the future. So, we wanted to make sure that we had that verbiage in here. If this tip is a droopy moving porch, that way it would come out of the tax increment financing. It wouldn't be the city that would be on the book for paying the $10,000 for every single tip or something. It'd be coming out of the tip itself.

This says will be reimbured, not may be reimbursed. Is that on purpose? Yes. Is that correct? since it's not passed yet.

Uh well, right. Yeah, we at this point there's not anything um in place for those types of fees. This is more perspective study was conducted internally um from Legacy Point LLC for the multif family project. Um further down again the total project cost is 7,834,336 of which 1,394,413 is uh eligible 600 6,439,923 is not eligible for this. Um then they have your schedule one which has a breakdown of estimated for their projects al together showing the total cost the developers cost and the tip requested which is the numbers that I just went over for you further broke out some of their water and sewer um some of the park lots things like that. Um, currently the pro, excuse me, the land is estimated to have a taxable value of $31,750. The improvements to be made to the property are expected to be added to this valuation with the estimated increment resulting from the improvements would be approximately $3.8 million once it's fully developed. So that's where you're getting your tax or your increment from is from the old versus the new taxing on that part. All the taxing that was at the 31,750 still continues to stay at that rate and goes to those entities the new would be coming to pay off this tip. Um

projection is that it will uh be 1,157,961.74 cents for what the projected um tax increment will be after the 20 years. They're projecting to have a project completed on or before May of May 1st of 2027. agreement the estimated capture of taxable values. This goes over where the taxing entities um what their values are at this point in time. Um they were all notified on the 29th of April that this meeting would be happening today. That's for codified law. Cathy one has the legal descriptions again. of a map showing where this would be at. Captain number two. Cat number three shows it's a little hard to see, but it's um Palo would be out on the site location. North Arman Drive is right here along this south part of it. Um building is parallel to North Arman Drive. You'll drive around and then there's a loop that goes that would go into the garages as well. Um As you may recall, this was owned into a PUB 2025. Um, this apartment complex is a permitted use within a PUB that was created. And then attach number five is a preliminary classification um from the Department of Revenue stated that this would be the affordable housing um for for this gift number 46. I can answer any questions that you have for Justin. Do you have anything? No, I think the only thing I would comment on is you saw uh a number of

references to the 250,000 in administrative costs. Those would be paid towards the city. Um those would not be going to the developer. Um and that's only after the developer's been paid. Um essentially a way to try to give the city some reimbursement at the end of this tiff if the increment allows for it. That applicant is also here if you have any questions.

Would the applicant like to add anything to the discussion? No. Okay. Our first motion before I bring the public would be to set the boundary. We'll get a first and a second and we'll open it to public input and then we'll vote on it. Move to set the boundary. Second. Moved and seconded to set the boundary. Is there any further discussion amongst this board before I open it? Anybody in the audience would like to discuss this? Either one. Come on forward. State your name at the podium, please.

My name is Leah Bisha. I'm the director of equalization. I just have a couple questions for you. Is the discretionary waved and is it an overlapping tip? It is waved and there is not an overlapping. Sounds good. Thank. Thanks.

Thank you, Chair Steve Simpson. Uh, hate to dis disappoint everybody, but I'm not here to oppose the tiff. I think we need to pass this tiff uh fairness because this particular project is in direct competition with the Mitchell Area Development Corporation on housing projects which also received his alert federal state funding. And recently they received a million dollar piece of property from the city for a dollar. So it would be unfair not to grant this turf to a developer that's in direct competition. I tried to fix the the problem of fairness with TIS at the state legislature uh this last legislative session and unfortunately our our tiff reform ideas got discussed behind closed doors with the South Dakota Municipal League uh elevate rapid city that lost the liberty land tiff to the voters and other economic development lobbyists. Um so six of the recommendations that came out of the summer study on property taxes were eliminated and um therefore the the situation is pretty close to what it's been. So there's there's no reason to pick on one or two developers and not allow them to get away with what others are getting away with. And if you can roll back to page 10, I want to just briefly explain my biggest heartburn over the issue of this as regarding the project cost. Uh if you uh at the bottom that 250,000 that's listed as administrative is is actually infrastructure. And if you look at the other project cost, 950,000 of that is also infrastructure. Those amounts belong on line the one as infrastructure

cost and instead most of it is listed as discretionary. Eliminating discretionary grants was one of the recommendations that we put forward and that was one of the recommendations that I got eliminated with the behind clos meetings. uh and therefore they can continue after July 1st and it makes difficult for somebody like me to do a foil request to find out actual project costs when the city does not have them because the city provided a grant that costs are being paid for by the private developer. I can't do a fully request on a private developer. So I can't get access to actual costs on these tiffs. So that's my biggest heartburn. Uh again, we should not uh we should have an even playing field with the statute the way they stand. So I recommend going forward with this. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission? Is there any other discussion amongst this board? If not, we're ready to vote then. All in fa, we're voting on the boundary. All in favor say I.

I. All oppose, nay. Motion carried. Next item of that would be the approval of the project plan. And I would put a caveat with it to approve the project plan as as amended. Recommend approval of districts district 46. That would be the motion to both. Do I have a motion in that order? Second a motion and a second to recommend approval of the project plan as amended. Is there any further discussion? Does anybody in the audience want to address that portion? Seeing no one, we are ready to vote. All in favor say I. I.

All oppose, nay. Motion carried. Any other business come before this board? Seeing none, we're ready for public input. If you need to address the board on an item that was not on the agenda, excluding personnel items, please come forward to the podium and state your name and your concern. Presentations are limited to three minutes. Items will be considered, but no action will be taken at this time. Seeing as no one is coming forward, we are adjourned.