authority meeting. It is Monday, July 14th at 7 p.m. and I'm calling the meeting to order. I'm looking for a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. >> I'll make that motion. Motion by Francis. >> I'll second that motion. >> Second by Bureick. Any further discussion or questions? >> Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I >> oppose. Same sign. >> Right. The eyes have it 6 to zero. Next item of business is um approval of the economic development authority meeting minutes from March 10th and would just like to make note that um Commissioner Warden's name was spelled wrong. Staff has been made aware that will be corrected um throughout the permanent records. And then if there were any other um changes, corrections, additions to be noted. Okay. Hearing none. With that change, I'm looking for a motion to approve the March 10th, 2025 EDA meeting minutes. >> I'll make that motion. >> Motion by Berk. >> We'll second. >> Second by Francis. Any further discussion or questions? >> Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Same sign. The eyes have it five um to zero with um Commissioner Henrik abstaining since he was not at the meeting. All right. Next, we'll move on to old business. And tonight's old business is the downtown purchase agreement. And I will turn that over to our city planner, Mr. KZ. >> Thank you, honorable members. [Music] >> Okay. Um, as you as you all know, earlier this year, we had recommended as an EDA to the city council approval of a purchase agreement and a concept plan uh presented by Northshore Development Partners for the redevelopment of the city's property um at Maine and Maple. At that time, the city and the developer were still working on uh u possibly obtaining a purchase agreement on the for the property located at 5210 Main Street East and also uh to finalize a few issues with our purchase agreement between the developer and the city. Following additional discussions that we had with city council relating to the acquisition of the property, an offer was presented to the owner in the beginning of June. And at the time we wrote this memorandum, we had not heard back from the owner of that property um relating to that offer. And so we had um moved forward with trying to identify an alternate site plan or concept plan that could be considered for the redevelopment of the city-owned property um without including the 5210 Main Street. I will note at the meeting that I did get a response today from the owner. Um, but it was outside of the parameters presented to me by the city council. Um, so for the purposes of what we're presenting, I think it's still relevant because um, the response I got was a counter offer that was not inside of our numbers. the um so with that um we have um tonight a revised concept plan that the that Northshore Partners put together trying to work around the 5210 property um and work just solely on the city's property. The the concept plan that's presented your packet then you can see um has access coming into the property from Main Street. Um but it has to then shift the building around the corner essentially further to the north which takes away that um corner retail coffee office opportunity that we had previously discussed. Um without you with the 5210 obviously we we'd have more latitude to be able to expand the site further to the east and then recapture that corner. We looked at a couple different ways and and whether or not that could be done. Um what this does though is it kind of flips the orientation of where possible redevelopment could occur for either a city hall or for public parking. Um it it takes the Bud Avenue right ofway, the library parking and the 5210 and gives us an opportunity to do something in the future with those uh properties depending on on what happens not having control over 5210. Um we don't really know what that looks like. This proposal has 71 unit market rate apartments. Um a breakdown of the units was included or can be seen right there on the plan. You can see how many uh one, two, threebedroom uh I'm sorry, studio one and twobedroom apartments that are shown. It's uh concept is a three-story building. So, it's a little bit lower than what we've talked about. We've talked or seen proposals all the way up to five stories in the past. This site plan still does provide for the possibility of a standalone city hall. Obviously, the city has the ability to acquire 5210. the city has the ability to work with the library to build on a portion of their property or do a joint or combined project if the city wanted to. We still control Bud Avenue and have the ability to vacate um in the future if we choose to do that. Um with that the purchase agreement that we had put in place for the most part is um the same as what we had talked about. We have not finalized TIFF calculations or anything like that. that would be a next step um in the city, but we have looked at tiff eligibility to ensure that we still can meet coverage requirements on the existing city property without including the 5210 and we're we're confident of that although we have to do the proc or we have to go through the process of establishing that district. So with that kind of all the terms we had talked about in the agreement stand really one of the biggest items that we worked through um was the idea that the city would have the ability essentially um to um take possession of or retake possession of the city property should the developer not uh be able to um um meet the requirements that are set forth in the development agreement. That's a that's a provision that took a lot of back and forth between our attorney, their attorney, and trying to work through that language. But I think it's a really important uh um kind of reversionary interest in the property that gives the city the ability to kind of get back to that property if their project uh if they were to um get to a point where they just didn't perform um in and pretty late in the process. So with that um we worked through the language. Okay. The agreement um covers that now in paragraph 13 if you were um able to either read or understand any of that as a lot of legal ease. All the other terms that we had talked about previously are in place. We wanted to just bring this back. We had already approved the purchase agreement. We had already approved a concept plan. But given the change in the 5210 status um and then what this represents, we thought we needed to come back to EDA and then council to get confirmation that we can move forward this plan. Um that said, I I know we've we've tried to maintain, you know, the option to have some other um retail or um retail office opportunities in order to get enough scale in a project. we've seen consistently that 70 to 120 unit project if you start getting below that it starts becoming um not feasible and so in order to do that Matt and his group went back and looked at what is the footprint they need um and this is what they came back with and I think it is fairly close to realistic as to what that site allows for this also just like we've talked about before in the past um this site eight plan um would um only be feasible if the city were to look at reconstructing Maine and Maple. Um as we've talked about before, the concept plan shows some angled parking. I don't know if that's exactly where or what that parking looks like andor the sidewalk, but it's representative of what we try to accomplish um with on street parking on both Maine and Maple um as well as then the off streetet parking um that comes off of Maple. I'm sorry. It comes off of Main Street. So, that's kind of a high level overview. Um, if there were questions, um, I'm happy to answer the developers here tonight as well. There's any questions regarding the site or concept plan. So, really looking for discussion and then ultimately a recommendation or to move forward with this and the revised purchase agreement. >> Thank you, Planner Cultus, for that update. We will start with Commissioner Duca with some questions. Uh Mark, I obviously try to focus on the changes from the last time we had and at one point we were talking about having potentially city hall a corner of this facility. Has that discussion kind of ended at this point that we could take 1500 square feet or whatever number and lease to the city? >> Yeah, the the discussion hasn't ended. I don't want to speak for I think we can keep talking about that. Um we have we have in some terms said let's look at whether or not we can accommodate a standalone uh site as well. That's one thing but we but there's no parameters on that. There's no detail on that. There really hasn't been um further consideration. I think if EDA or I it really would be council I guess that would go back and say we really want to have a corner of this building. I think that's something we could talk about. Um, we've talked about it. I think it's a it's a possibility. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions? >> Questions from commissioners? Commissioner. >> Um, I don't know how to ask it though. Sorry. Can you explain why we would need 26 year? >> So with the tiff that we've considered, there's kind of two components to the tiff. One is tiff that would help the developer fill the gap in their financial um proforma for the project. The second piece is that the city wants to utilize tax increment for the public improvements required to facilitate this project and that would be the redevelopment of Maine and Maple. So we would project utilizing the full 26 years that is offered to the city. We would identify the expenses that would be paid for that. We'd identify what percentage the developer would get, what percentage the city would get, and we would project out how much we would need to utilize to pay city debt and then how much the developer would get in their agreement. If we com if we satisfied those or fulfilled those amounts, we would be able to put it back on the tax roles sooner. that does happen often with tax increment financing is that valuations increase um maybe higher than what we had projected. Um and if that's the case, you know, sometimes we can close these districts early, but because we're trying to use the money for both the developer and the public improvements, we would be projecting the need for 100% of the tax increment financing generated from this project for that full length. Just a point of clarification that at this point that is not a final number. >> Well, and yeah, I would point out I mean that's how we've looked at it, but certainly that decision isn't made yet. And the amount that we'd give the developer exactly and the amount the city would utilize is not done. That's that's all done through our TIFF plan, public hearings, and then that TIFF district development process, which is kind of its own animal all together kind of outside of this So this is a draft working document and we're >> yeah this this gets us what this gets us is a purchase agreement and it gives the developer in the city the kind of reassurance that they can proceed forward with this plan in concept and then go through the process of developing all the details gives a city staff assurance that we can start then uh doing the pieces we need to do the the proforma analysis tiff district development, the environmental piece, and and we can start doing that with confidence that if we can put it all together, we can we can do the project. None of this says that we can do it yet, though. >> And you also said something that it had under 50 m want to hear this right that under 70 units would not make this project feasible. >> I don't want to speak for the developer. And maybe I don't know if Matt if you'd want to speak to that. >> Mr. Alexander, you're welcome to come to the podium if you'd like to speak. >> Thank you. Uh members of the uh EDA, I appreciate your time. Uh thanks for having us back in here. I've been working diligently with with uh Mark and Jacob and staff to come up with some plans. Uh there's some challenges that we've been working through with the uh 5210 parcel and I think we're um come came up with a plan that satisfies that. As far as the number of units, it's it's it's more of an econ um operational economies. Once you get too small, it's just not very it's just it gets so inefficient to run uh an apartment building as a for anybody, it just becomes more challenging. So there's not a magic number that it doesn't work under, but it this this one we we threw some um or pulled together some numbers from our construction budget and the costs that we're aware of and what we've made some assumptions on future taxes values and uh did a tiff run and kind of experimental on our side because we've done this before so we have some experience doing that. So, um, after this step, I think we sit down with Northland and really vet that tiff number out, make sure the gap can be covered. So, that answers your question. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Any other questions for Mr. Alexander for Mr. Coltus or Mr. Kander? >> Chair, if I if I could, um, we're gonna throw up one other image. I just We do have an image. It's not in your packet. We do have it. It's not really a image we're floating, but I do want you to see it just for purposes of our discussion. >> Oh, you had it. >> Yeah. >> There you go. Perfect. Um, so this is a this is what could happen on the property if you were to develop then parking and city hall. This isn't the plan, but this is a a concept that starts to show what that could look like. >> Thank you. >> So, tonight you have come before us asking um us to consider a recommendation approval of the revised purchase agreement and concept site plan presented. If there are no further questions, I am looking for a motion for that. Be moved. >> I'll make that motion. Motion by council member Bureick, second by council member Duca or commissioners, sorry. Um, any further questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Eyes have it. Six to zero. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here, Mr. Alexander. Um, any other business to come before us this evening? Hearing none. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make that motion. >> Moved by Commissioner Francis. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Henrik. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. >> Same sign. Meetings adjourned at 7:17.