The Economic Development Committee met again last night to look at the landbanking program. There is a last minute hand out, again. (sorry about the crooked scan, oops!)
Mark Clear says that the group met again, minus Mark Olinger and they dealt with the fact that they missed the sales criteria last time and they came up with recommendations which he hasn’t seen yet. Matt Mikolajewski handed out the new version.
Mikolajewski says that they took the suggestions from last meeting, the internal staff comments and revised the document. He explains the changes:
– First, they put the objective of the program in it.
– Under the selection criteria, after EDC input, eliminated tiers and provided weights to criteria for total score of 20 points, applicant doesn’t need to get 20 points but a way to differentiate between applications.
– Added a third bullet that the property should be developed in 5 years, don’t want to tie up funds indefinitely. Just picked it, but input appreciated on length of time.
– They added marketing guidelines
– Added property sale guidelines
Ed Clarke verifies that these are guidelines not requirements, could miss one but could still get it.
Clear says only absolute is council approval.
Tim Cooley noted that property sale guidelines not in order or exhaustive, something could come up that isn’t favorable to city but it could prevent the city from moving forward.
Vicky Selkowe says much clearer and likes tiers removed.
Joe Boucher says that city can do joint venture and co-development with the city, right? Staff answers yes.
Clarke wants to see that sales guidelines go back to reasons doing this, look at selection criteria, blight, neighborhood language, it should guide who they sell it to.
Doug Nelson asks if purchase side requires council approval as well. Staff answer yes.
Nelson asks if intent is to approve.
Clear says budget language didn’t require EDC to bless this, but no reasons not to if majority agrees.
Don Marx, Real Estate staff says that property sales guideline, in the 5th bullet is says sold or conveyed – it should say sold or leased at market rate and says inconsistant in 5 and 6 when sold at market rate but compensated at or above original cost – could be inconsistent.
Nelson says market could change this, better to sell at market.
Cooley says guidelines but send message that goal is not to make a profit.
Clear says yes internally inconsistent, but wants to keep both.
Marx says should combine them
Clarke says market value is sell it publicly and get what get, at market value, doesn’t say market value good bad or indifferent, tells them how to sell it, and 2nd says goal is to make as much as we got.
Clear says that goes back to original language, recover costs of acquisition and holding costs.
Clarke says that city could make a judgment that get more in tax benefits even if sell at rate below, says these are guidelines.
Nelson says it still need Council approval.
Selkowe asks about bullet all lumped together on top of page 2, why only three points?
Clear says didn’t want to make those goals overwhelming, get too many points for each of those and that could be the majority and not meet other guidelines.
Selkowe says the end part belongs with 2nd bullet point.
Clear says second bullet point on top of page two is different than the first.
Selkowe says a lot in the bullet.
Clarke had similar thoughts, says language could be changed to say that the redevelopment will create benefit for they such as, and then list the issues, indicating this is the bucket of things we want to look at.
Selkowe says written as an “and” and not what had in mind.
Clear says hard to imagine project doesn’t meet all or none.
Nelson asks if language Doug proposed is ok, but could be all in or all out.
Selkowe says some project could meet economic development and tax goals but not neighborhood goals.
Clear says could be a series of payday loan shops. Selkowe says it could be a McDonalds.
Selkowe asks if they would get all three points.
Clear says that is an argument to keep “and”.
Clarke asks if blight is always a requirement. Blight requires a study done and documented.
Clear says if talking about TIF that is true, but this is not using same definition, to some extent in eye of evaluator.
Clear wants to keep the and, doesn’t to make it hard, but all elements have to meet proposal before get those three points.
Clarke asks if Royster Clark is blighted, they all think it is.
Cooley says Union Corners might be a better example – is that blighted? Does that have to be there?
Clear says can take it out, not in original language.
Gabriel Sanches says assumed blight.
Clear says take those two words out.
Clarke moves to approve guidelines with the addition of the sold or leased language and eliminate blight language and add Council approval in first bullet set, and clarifying that it is a joint venture with the City.
And with that, they approved the guidelines.
