00:00:04,530	Was ordering the right Uh, good afternoon, everyone. It’s four o’clock on Thursday may 9th 2024, and this is the time and place for the Renaissance zone. Authorities meeting Um, the first order of business on the agenda is to consider the consider the minutes of the march 14th meeting. And. Does.

00:00:31,500	Anyone have any questions, Comments corrections on the minutes If not Is there, a motion to approve said minutes. Move to approve. 2nd 2nd of Sandra B’s got that It’s been moved and Seconded that we approve the minutes all in favor. Please say, I. I oppose same sign that motion carries I will move on to the regular agenda.

00:00:51,570	We do have a request for a Renaissance zone Approval project which Isaac is gonna walk us through for joe Mulhouse. Where the I’m not even gonna see it. I’ll let Isaac do it. Yes. Thank you chair Christensen and authority members.

00:01:09,800	So our first regular agenda item today is also our first Renaissance zone project of the year and it comes to us from Chong Thai group LLC, who are requesting approval of a rehabilitation Renaissance zone project at 515, East Main Avenue, along with the Associated local property, tax exemption and state income tax exemptions. So the goal of this project is to rehabilitate an existing commercial space for a new business.

00:01:34,230	That would be a Combination coffee, tea house and restaurant at this time, they are not requesting downtown design review, as all proposed work is interior. And just as a reminder to you all as you can see the the building, uh, on the screens in front of you as a rehabilitation project, all necessary. Approvals must be obtained before construction work begins.

00:01:58,830	The adjacent land uses in the area include offices, bars and restaurants on all sides, and, uh, the applicant has described the scope of work to include a replacement of the roof and introduction of a fire suppression. Sprinkler system, interior framing and new concrete flat work to create the seating sections as well as relevant office kitchen and bathroom spaces.

00:02:21,770	Additionally the relevant electrical, mechanical and plumbing work will be conducted, including the building of a Vent Hood system with an exhaust motor on the roof for the kitchen area. Uh, these were also included in your staff report packets but on the screens before you.

00:02:42,030	You can see some, uh initial renderings of what the interior of the space is proposed to look like the estimated project cost for this application is approximately $1 million, which exceeds the minimum level of investment required for eligibility of Renaissance Zone rehabilitation project.

00:03:07,630	Hm? City staff have communicated with the applicant that the program is in the middle of some changes to our development plan that will affect how the city offers property tax exemptions. We have described the anticipated new system to the applicant. As it’s described in the letter of intent, uh, between the city and the county, and we have done this with all inquiries for the program to maintain consistency as such.

00:03:30,100	As you can see on the screen before you and this was also, uh, described, hopefully coherently in the staff report, Um, the proposed property tax exemption described is using the framework of the existing development plan to meet the intent of the proposed changes for the development plan.

00:03:51,970	When We are offering the recommendation of the property tax exemption. So as you can see on the screen here, the proposed property tax exemption is only for the increment of the building. The base value the same th, uh, bracket on the left describes what the old system would be taxing, Uh, tax exemption for everything except the land value new system being just that increment.

00:04:12,870	So the best estimate we can come up with given the information available is to say that under the framework of the development plan right now, the exempting just the increment would be equivalent to offering a 70% income. Uh, property tax exemption on the Whole building value, So. That’s Why.

00:04:36,300	We’re recommending that 70% there? Um, a few other notes for for housekeeping purposes to staff’s knowledge. The Applicant has, uh, not yet received their certificate of good standing from the North Dakota Office of state tax Comm., but that is in process. Additionally. The applicant is requesting approval of the state income tax exemption.

00:04:56,630	But as you maybe saw in the staff report there it it, uh, to be D. The income tax. Exemption portion is still to be determined because they have not operated this kind of business before and are not sure how to estimate what that benefit would look like.

00:05:15,970	The public has been notified of this request as well via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on April 27th and May 4th and 18 Letters have been mailed to nearby property owners on April 26th to my knowledge staff have not received any public comments regarding this project and as a cumulative result of the findings contained in the staff report in front of you.

00:05:38,400	City of Bismarck staff find that this proposed Renaissance Zone rehabilitation project would not adversely impact Public Health safety and general welfare and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive plan. Bismarck code of ordinances and relevant state law.

00:06:04,000	Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rehabilitation Renaissance project at 515, East Main Avenue as a 70% property tax exemption on the building for five years to try get at that only exact exempting the increment value as well as recommending an exemption from state income tax on Income derived specifically from the location for five years with the following conditions that a certificate of good standing from the North Dakota Office of state tax Comm.

00:06:27,370	is received prior to approval by the Bismarck Board of city commissioners and one other, UH, note, which is listed as a Condition of approval, but this is ultimately up to the prerogative of the authority. Staff made a note there that, uh A possible condition for appropriate work occurring on that western, uh, wall there the exterior portion of the wall that faces the, uh, parking lot there.

00:06:53,230	The parking lot is not associated with the property specifically. But staff noted that that wall if anything, could, uh, possibly use some work to ensure structural integrity and removal of any visual blight. But the having communicated some of this with the applicant.

00:07:12,370	They have stated that at this time they are not proposing any work. To be done on that wall. Um, no painting. Nothing of that kind. But if the authority believes that something should be done there, that is ultimately your decision.

00:07:31,430	Um, does the authority have any questions for me at this point before we open up to questions? I’ve got just a couple of things, but go back to that photo before I lose. My train of thought, Is there anything proposed for the mansard that’s standing sea metal. Awning on the front or not, To my knowledge there is no work being proposed for updates. Their, uh, will likely be signage to be put up there. But. That would be, uh, done once the sign permit comes in. So.

00:07:47,370	Uh, I think everybody at this table understands that we’re operating right now in transitional period, We’re still operating under the old Renaissance Zone development plan, as we hopefully today, approve the revisions to said the plan and send it up to the food chain for review by everybody, including the state and that process if you’d

00:08:06,470	refresh us Get our new development plan in place. Would take approximately how long So Uh, there is a memo. Uh, that is included in Uh, the staff report, and Daniel can speak more to this later, but the rough estimate right now would be to discuss the proposed revisions to the development plan at this

00:08:27,570	meeting hold the public hearing in June and then go forward to get those approvals from the City Commission County Commission School Board Park board. Uh, those approvals would come through from the relevant boards between July and September and then we would send it to the state in October. That is this timeline. OK.

00:08:47,900	Thank you? I just want everybody to kind of be aware of that that time frame because it and for people watching if there is anyone watching from home You know we did enter into a letter of intent with the county back in December.

00:09:05,370	Um and I think it’s important for people to understand that the approach this is our first project. That is correct. We’ve received some inquiries, but this is the first actual application since we’ve reinstated the Renaissance zone. You know we’re kind of straddling both worlds.

00:09:23,700	We can act under the old plan, obviously, but we’re trying to honor the letter of intent that the city inked with the county and that’s how you arrived at the 70%. Yes chair. That is correct. Just. So. Everybody understands that after that, I’ll open up to anybody’s questions. Comment. I. I think that the the way that you outlined and diagrammed how you got to that 70% that that is a good approach. And.

00:09:44,970	I think that that should be included in the future analysis in the in the written packet in the future for these things, Uh and that, uh, you know that the issue of the storefront exterior uh It.

00:10:05,770	They’re gonna spend a million dollars on the inside and just leave the outside that way I can is that their intent or do they intend to upgrade it later on down the line? The applicant through the applicant is here, but I can try answer a little bit. At. First the information that was, um communicated to staff was that yes, all the, uh, work that is proposed at this point would be interior.

00:10:25,430	Um, only that that is what has been communicated to us, which looks very attractive, right? I mean it looks really nice. So Questions. So I. Don’t. I don’t have any concerns about the project. I think it’s great it, It’s looks very attractive and I’m anxious for Vietnamese food in town, but, um, I am really kind of concerned about Using the new or our our proposed but not approved.

00:10:55,900	Exemption option without having Approval from all the taxing entities or at least even the city commission. Um And so I have a couple of questions like does our current development agreement allow us to do something like that? Uh, authority member Guy and authority members.

00:11:17,330	Yes We do have the authority to offer some level of, um less property tax exemption less than the full building value under the current development plan. Right now that is that is true, OK? So then. I know that this this is a a better Option for taxing entities like the county because they had some heartburn over the previous, um Exemption that we were using. But.

00:11:41,300	Uh, if we go ahead and do it before we have the plan approved by them or the amended plan, Comm. munson, do you think they’re going to be upset by that? I think they’re gonna be ecstatic that they’ve taken the time staff has taken the time to try to work that compromise in there, OK for me that that was my biggest issue with the old

00:11:59,430	plan and what Isaac just explained. Definitely satisfies my concerns. OK And how about you? Comm.? Zanker? Do? You mind if we do this before the commission approves the amendment? No? I, don’t because I mean, uh, community development spent an exorbitant amount of time just trying to get it back.

00:12:16,130	To where it is today, and I would hate for one decision just because we don’t have everything done to derail that progress, so I would I don’t have a problem with this at all. Um If. We’re if we’re not if we’re to delay Applications.

00:12:37,830	We’re going to be There’s no sense in us even meeting until October and and I don’t disagree with that. I just want to make sure that we don’t you blundering forward, and then we’re making a good case. But I think that this is What I had envisioned for how we would implement this and so I think it’s better to do it now.

00:12:59,170	And, then kick it up there and then because if they have a problem with it, it’d be better for them to have a problem with it now than later. So you know, this can be the trial run, and and we’ll see how the county reacts.

00:13:15,300	Well and and, honestly, I think this is a great example of how city has worked hard to make this right. For the county’s concerns, joe A. Couple of questions on your procedure on there, Isaac. Would you propose or looking at what you’re proposing A million dollar investment on the renovation would increase taxable value by a million. So authority member. Think and authority. This is all some level of estimation.

00:13:38,770	Still, we won’t know the actual final assessed value of the building until the project is done and assessing the assessing department goes out and assesses the value. So. There is a little bit of, um Uncertainty in the in between until that project is finished, and it is assessed, But. This is the best estimate.

00:13:57,970	We have given the information we have. I. I mean, I. I I want to question or push back a little bit? I mean I? I don’t think It’s realistic. To see a million dollar investment on existing property, especially on the in the interior of it reflect full taxable value increase. Um, So.

00:14:23,570	What I’m concerned about is if they have a taxable base of 375 3, and we’re exempting 75% of that 70% of that and their new taxable value is 750,000. Their new taxable value is going to be less than their current taxable value, right? Mean just how math works.

00:14:46,270	So authority members think if I may What, do you What? I believe I’m hearing that you’re getting at is yes, there is uncertainty here and we are the way the development plan is written right now unable to say whatever The Just. The increment is that is what the exemption will be. That is why we’re again trying to give this best estimate. Uh, exemption.

00:15:06,830	Given the information we have Under the fact that you know we are still technically working with the old current development plan, but not the newly approved trying to trying to meet what the letter of intent was saying on there. I guess my my, my question might be to follow up with that is what is there? Is there a different approach.

00:15:22,070	We might be able to take in saying the taxable value above their current taxable value is 100% exempted rather than saying, 70% of whatever the current whatever the new value is gets exempted, and I think that’s the Lord’s going to Letter of what the county was asking there.

00:15:42,700	Uh and because of the uncertainty that’s involved in what that taxable value will be when it completed Daniel or Isaac, If. You can put that screen back up with the graph with the graph at the end of the day. We’re only exempting what’s north of the current valuation. Letter of intent, correct, correct, correct. And. Honestly, if you took the equals off instead, approximately That’s But, But.

00:16:04,970	That graph shows exactly what we’re exempting the value that’s above current. What the proposal in the in the staff recommendation is to exempt 75 70% of the new taxable value. So if if the I I think this is a marginal versus effective rate situation Looks like an income tax.

00:16:32,370	Um so you you’re exempting 100% above existing value, and that equates to an estimated 70% of the the final value, But. The exemption is not 70% of the final value. It is everything above the current dollar value, right? That’s not what this is saying. I can ask that one so to to answer that question.

00:16:55,830	30 member Gallo the the 70% would be assuming the You know New. Total value is that $1 million, then 70% of that, you know, building value. The total building value. The Final building value would be the exemption as described here that that is the intent of what we are trying to get at if there is a better way to, uh, write that or more clear way to

00:17:17,770	write that. Is there any statutory reason that we can’t just say it’s 100% of the improvements? I will, from an standpoint to address that Is there a procedural thing that causes a huge issue here. So, a 30 member members that that is possible the way it’s written or development plan is simply states.

00:17:37,300	You may grant a partial exemption in the past. We’ve only granted it on these terms as a percentage of the total, however I I don’t see any reason a development plan not to just stipulate that the improvement value the difference between a total assessed value and the baseline value.

00:17:57,570	You could Do that in anticipation of the changes, it’s certainly clears up something that we know currently is uncertain, which is the value when completed. As long as it still meets the threshold, right? The 50%, and I think that the formula that Joe is proposing is ever so much More understandable than that one up there. I mean it.

00:18:21,200	Just it would make sense to the average person who doesn’t have any experience with this stuff. Well, and that’s fine, but it’s still based on construction estimates that the applicant brings to the table so and assuming it all gets completed next week. They certified. We’re making a lot of assumptions on there. I just wanna make sure that we’re we’re not basing a percentage on something.

00:18:41,470	We don’t know what it will end up being and I think it’s unrealistic to assume 1000 or a million dollar investment is going to result in a million dollar increase in taxable value. It just won’t happen. I don’t think that’s real this year is not showing a million dollar. Increase just to be clear.

00:18:58,130	So this is assuming that it would be a little bit less than the total estimated valuation here is saying a million dollars but again uncertainty so that makes sense. So The.

00:19:17,300	Other question I had was to follow up with Dustin’s question if we could have the applicant can answer any questions about the exterior that Dustin, uh, proposed or asked him That’d be great. Come on up, please. Yeah. So. Um my name is Leo and, uh, what do you want? Come on up, Leo. We don’t bite. Zinker sometimes, he said, Try it over there. Close to the Couple of people. Um, So.

00:19:45,570	My name is Leo and, um Uh, the reason why we don’t wanna change anything outside because, um, we wanna keep the history building. Uh, before. It’s a warehouse, So, we gonna keep it that way. So the exterior, uh, on the on the West wall, we we We gonna keep the same. But in the front. We’re gonna paint the different color and we put a signage.

00:20:05,230	And, then for the roof. We’re going to change a completely new roof, and that’s it. So if we could we do have a technical consultant here. Liu Zhong is up there. Eric is an architect. Um and he’s one of our technical consultants and he I don’t know if he has questions or Comments or if you want to.

00:20:21,770	I mean? I agree? Be great to see Some improvements to the exterior. Um I. I don’t know. Does. He need to bring the color selection to back to to our group. Where.

00:20:38,430	Should we have what are you painting? You said you’re gonna paint the front or Yeah, it’s gonna be the same vibe, uh, as an interior, So it’s gonna be a little bit gray. What. Are you painting the entire front, including the brick or just the metal, Just, just a metal things the man up above. OK, well, that As a correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s a whole different design review right when we start dealing with exterior improvements.

00:20:56,430	Which we’re not doing today. So Authority member Think. Yes, certain things. Um Exterior alterations could be, uh, that are visible from the right of way are the general criteria for triggering design review? Um, So.

00:21:25,000	In this case we would maybe request the applicant return with those, you know? Uh, Final designs in this case, if it is just the color seems fairly straightforward, but To be consistent. We would request that yes, but that those processes can happen separately. They don’t necessarily have to have to happen at the same time, even though they are requesting Renaissance zone.

00:21:41,900	So hearing what the applicant said with the with the authority members like to see the color palette come back for the man. Mr Chair. Couldn’t. We just leave that up to staff and technical advisors, so we want it might be just a little bit more fluid for the owner. I would lean that direction.

00:22:01,100	OK, if everybody’s comfortable with that, Kristen and just out of curiosity does that does the wall the outside wall have any like structural issues? Or. Is it just It’s just not very pretty looking. Uh, authority member Barack staff are unaware of any specific structural issues with the wall. But. We, of course, have not examined it that is outside the purview of our department.

00:22:21,370	But if If those issues are in place. That’s another story, but we we, of course, do not know at this time. Other questions. Comments, questions. Anything else. Eric from your department. What are your wishes? Uh, I’d take a stab at it. Uh, I’m move to approve the exemption at 100% above current taxable value. Uh, OK.

00:22:49,170	Is there a second as long and include the other staff recommended conditions conditions. Second moved and seconded any further discussion on the motion. Comm. does that include the, um Staff and technical advisor reviewing the paint, That’s a design review to faith thing. This is just the exemption. OK, fantastic. Further comments or questions or discussion on the motion.

00:23:12,700	I know you want to call the roll on that one. Sandra Please. Authority members anchor Yes, yes. Yes Gavrilo. Yes guy? Yes. Munson Christensen? Yes, motion carries. Thank you. Um, thank you for your undertaking the project and best of luck for that now to to clear the air.

00:23:38,830	Are we asking him to come back or are we delegating the authority on the pain If. You want a separate motion? I thought by consensus. We delegated that authority. That’s Why as long as nobody objects.

00:23:57,430	That’s fine, OK? Are you chair ken, if I may, you know, does there need to be a A separate motion for the income tax portion of the exemption, OK? Thank you, Isaac. Appreciate it, we’ll move on to other business. Uh, I skipping anybody? No. Other business being review of the ordinance, the bylaws and the development plan.

00:24:18,370	Daniel Good evening chair Christiansen 30 members, So, as you know, we are working through the letter of intent that was previously referenced and some changes to the way the program is run. Uh, while we’re in this one year extension period So you know, Last time we brought this to you, and we did the development plan first and the ordinance and the bylaws After that, on the pen is the thorniest of this since we had a lot of discussion at last meeting. Um, However At.

00:24:31,670	This time We flipped it to cover some of the easier things for. So. The. The Ordinance, Um, basically the the only changes to those and I should say, uh, this was all included in the digital packet. It’s not included it. Uh, At least The development plan wasn’t printed for this one.

00:24:48,870	Just to save some paper. I do have a couple of extra copies if anyone would like one. We’re going through. Um, but OK, so the only changes to the ordinance It’s very simple we simply remove the word. The word. Appointed and changes to designated for the city Commission.

00:25:11,630	Uh, because the city commission is not the only board of appointing to the authority, and then we added a reference to the Renaissance Zone development plan in the ordinance itself. And, so that’s the only change to the ordinance. Uh, if this doesn’t necessarily have to go to this board, we’re asking for your feedback. Uh, but officially it would be sent to the City Commission for two readings.

00:25:28,800	And So, If. You do Wish to, uh, we will move this forward. Questions daniel, So. I got one There was discussion that we would have to list the political subs and who and and whether they have their appointment or designation And. I’m not seeing the listing of the other subs in here.

00:25:52,270	Was there a reason why that was reversed in the thought process. Sure, uh three member Gallo. So simply the is simply because that’s covered in the Renaissance development plan. So. The the the numbers of seats and the terms and all of those things are covered there, so we felt like by reference it could be dealt with.

00:26:09,930	Other questions. Anyone. What are your wishes on the ordinance, the action would be to move to a Recommend approval and forward its stairs. Move to approve and send it to the city Commission for Approval. 2nd 2nd moved and seconded further discussion. Hearing none. Would you call a rule on that one, please. Sandra. Authority member Fink. Yes, Dvorak.

00:26:45,800	Yes, Gavrilo guy? Yes munson Zenker Chair Christensen. Yes motion carries next item bylaws. OK, uh, three members. This. This. You do have unilateral authority over so you can today vote the change it however you wish. Uh, so there are just a few housekeeping changes We are recommending here.

00:27:07,030	One is to simply remove, uh, interest of the city of Bismarck to interest of the general public because you will now have a representatives beyond the boundaries of the city of Bismarck and, uh, other changes are simply changing The numbers of members from four to a majority because those Will change, uh as well as, uh, just some references to the appointing body, So that’s

00:27:30,100	basically it if you have any questions, I can answer those questions on the bylaws. Any questions? What are your wishes? Move to approve as presented moved in seconded that we approve the bylaws. Well, the Bismarck Renaissance on authority as presented any further discussion hearing. None call the roll, please. That Joe Fink second.

00:27:59,000	Actually, it was Comm. munson. Thank you. Yes. Comm. Devora. Yes Gavrilo? Yes, Nancy guy? Yes. Munson. Yes Zenker. Yes Think Christensen? Yes, that motion Curries. Thank you next, daniel. OK. So.

00:28:27,570	Finally The Renaissance on development plan, So if you do review, uh, this proposed document there are you’ll notice a lot of strike out and underlying, uh, that’s not anything to be alarmed of. I hope it’s a lot of these changes are basically being more precise and consistent with our language. Um and actually, thanks.

00:28:44,700	Author member fink, who really helped with a lot of this, Uh there’s a new definition section and so really any reference to these terms throughout the document has been changed to to align with those definitions. So that’s what a lot of the changes are that you notice. Um, the A couple of the more substantial ones.

00:29:00,800	I’ll I’ll touch on that were discussed at length at a previous meeting, so just to to remind you and to tell you how we’ve tried to capture that discussion in here, uh, how demolitions are captured. In the baseline valuation. So, uh, the way this is written, Uh, it provides some flexibility to you and the City commission in determining to what extent or whether to include demolition or not in the baseline value, and that includes presently or devolutions from the past.

00:29:25,400	So if you have a project that, um, that has demolished the building in recent years, You may choose to look back and include a prior current value assessed year.

00:29:50,300	Uh, and use that, however, if you deem the building to have poor condition or a blighting impact or or some other factor, uh, you may choose to include the demolition value in in the baseline, and so so it provides a little bit of flexibility, and I believe that’s where the consensus was at the last meeting, uh, there are some criteria to use. For example. If it’s historic. You do not want to encourage destruction of historic buildings.

00:30:05,630	Uh, however, if it is blighting you may Want to encourage that demolition, so that’s how how we dealt with that topic. Uh, maybe I’ll pause for any discussion on that first. Questions comments. What page are you on? Oh? Ok? Let me Find that, um If I may I believe that is page 54 of the Web version of the packet.

00:30:27,700	Thank you, Isaac. 54 of the packet and 30 of the development plan, depending on which When you’re looking at Got it. OK questions. Questions or comments on that section. OK. OK proceed then the other item that was discussed at the last meeting was how the amendments of development plan would be determined.

00:31:25,000	We know that we’ll go to multiple political subdivisions, not just City commission but also park schools and county. Uh, previously the way this was written is basically each board would be voting in a majority vote would, uh, select the amendment, but I believe perhaps a third member Glo or maybe some others brought up some issues.

00:31:44,230	With that, uh, because we do require community support from all, uh, political subdivisions that has been changed to state that the development plan should be approved by all of them. Um, it, uh, for for practical purposes, Uh, there was some discussion about the parks district.

00:32:02,230	Uh, the letter of intent did note the park Parks district would be, uh, asked to be, uh, involved in and that was the wish of the county as well. Uh, I know that there has been some discussion with the Park board. They do have a desire to be involved.

00:32:18,770	Um, so they Draft are included as part of this, although as a reminder state law does not actually the park sport. However, there will be a local option to do so. Uh so I will pause on that one as well. Questions. So far. Proceed, please.

00:32:43,500	OK and then the final topic that was discussed is, um the last meeting was, uh, whether to implement the letter of intent A as written in state that the baseline value would remain taxable for all political subdivisions or to apply that just to the to the burly county commission, but then ask each of the other political subdivisions whether they would choose to exempt a higher ah, proportion of that baseline value. Uh, in in which, uh, In theory each of the political subdivisions could have their own own percentage.

00:33:04,630	Uh, so that was discussed at the last meeting. Um, we did reach out to LV Meyer. He. He chose not to come to this meeting, but he did speak to me and and I. Sort of I’m Sorry. Yes.

00:33:22,770	He is the burly county tax equalizer so he would be the one implementing this for burly county. Uh And. So. We wanted to, uh, get some information from from him whether it would be feasible to to do so. So. Perhaps I’ll. Let, the 30 member think because I think he spoke with you yesterday on that topic, Yeah. Uh, and maybe a couple of days ago.

00:33:41,130	But, he said there really wasn’t an implementation issue with being able to do, um each separately, the county at zero and the other is at, uh at 100. And. I. Guess. That’s what My understanding was, uh, speaking with him last time as well, the the issue arises. Because. He’s ideologically opposed to incentives.

00:34:01,300	His recommendation to the county board and his his comments to me was that his his board if we went down that route, would you’d have this last until December and then the program would end the county would never approve someone else’s taxes, not just the counties being exempted. I, Don’t I. Don’t see what choice we have.

00:34:23,200	If if he and and his board Mr munson can can comment on that. I mean I was flat out, told his board would not support that. Well. He can’t speak. I know he knew he clarified that with me as well. Uh, under his recommendation, it would not be approved and he did not believe his board would support it.

00:34:45,100	Good news to me When it comes to, uh, I. I think that it would be just too unwieldy to to let There be different exemption percentages for each political sub. So it does have to be across the board, and I think that What. What.

00:35:04,970	We’ve come to the conclusion here as far as the exemption is on anything beyond the baseline value. You know that’s what the the county agreed to as far as I’m concerned. So we’re honoring the letter of I mean, we get we send it to him, explain it to him, And. You know if they change their mind that’s in their ballpark.

00:35:23,630	And there’s an election coming up, so to get that so All right? Um my my only comment to that is I. I find it terribly unfortunate that the city in in implementing a a program that it uses to encourage redevelopment in communities that need redevelopment. Isn’t able to exempt its own taxes.

00:35:48,330	The Park board can’t choose to participate in that because the county says we don’t want the park board to have that choice. The school board, which is the the highest tax that you see on your property tax exemption.

00:36:07,770	Also supports the program, but because the proposal would be to allow them to have some of that exemption or to further that exemption to make the projects that apply for this succeed or have a better chance of succeeding that the county wouldn’t support it. If. We allowed them to have that choice. And. That to me is incredibly unfortunate. I’m actually dumbfounded. We have followed the county’s request. Right down to the letter. I.

00:36:36,800	I really don’t understand where S comment is from Um, how every, uh every other entity chooses to do theirs. Should be there just their choice. For Burly County, who’s been very adamant about how they would like theirs handled. We’ve met that. But according to According to Al. The agreement was no one is allowed to Exempt taxes above current taxable value.

00:37:06,570	And if and if that is changed in any way, not just the county and I made that the pretty good discussion with them. Um If that is changed or proposed that this will not get approved again for a five year renewal in January December by the county. He did not believe his board would support it.

00:37:25,830	And if as a recommendation He wouldn’t he would recommend Not supporting it. OK, we will see. If. I May Authority members, Um and and perhaps, um, that I remember, I. Think of I’ll mention this to you as well. But to me. He did state that it could be implemented.

00:37:47,100	However, there may be a cost involved in software upgrades or some something that would be necessary to differentiate by taxing district. I’m not sure if he got into that we got into a little bit. You said. Yes. It was it’s not an implementation is it was a two seconds into the conversation. Was this not an implementation issue.

00:38:01,570	We’re able to set up different different districts to be able to accommodate such a tax structure. Um, it’s I. It’s ideological. That’s And so far as I know about state law, each each political sub if it wanted to do ad hoc exemptions could the city could decide to exempt its share of anybody anywhere in the city, just like they did

00:38:25,030	with new new construction build 100 and 50,000 back in the day? Um So, you know. I. I think that when it comes down to that The. The level handedness of the development plan. Treating. Everybody equal probably is the best way to go.

00:38:50,100	And You know I can’t imagine any of the subs would want to give away. It the extra beyond that, anyway, so it’s it it seems like it’s might just be Worth just, you know. Taking it from the state treating everybody the way that the county is asking to be treated, and then Going with that.

00:39:12,170	And if the county has a problem at that point, then you know you’re not gonna get anywhere anyway, so it’s not worth arguing about. Well. If if we’re offering this option to the coy we need to offer it to all the political subs in order to be fair to everybody so as unwieldy as it might be.

00:39:31,270	You know it may turn out that everybody’s happy with, you know the same. The same, uh, direction that we’re going so I. I. Don’t think we should assume it’s gonna be all over the map. Other comments. Anyone. OK the annual proceed, please. Or you OK. Those are the three issues that were discussed at the last meeting. And. Of course. Maybe.

00:39:54,130	I’ll leave some time if there are any other things that people notice while reading through, But. Those are the things I just wanted to highlight, Um And if you are, uh, at least mostly comfortable with this. We do need to hold a public hearing on the development plan.

00:40:10,830	So that, uh, if you wish to proceed, I will advertise that and we can hold that next month. So. The action today would be to Ah, approve the plan as revised and presented and call for a public hearing. Well, just a call for the public. The approval would come post that I’m sorry. OK.

00:40:31,030	What are your wishes? Um, there were two things I noticed when I was going through the the second draft here. The First thing is on page 11 of the planned There is underneath this graphic of the zone. There’s a Uh, caption that says completed Renaissance zone projects and then in parentheses, it says no projects are currently underway.

00:40:56,170	So do we need to say that there is a project currently underway now? I thought I. Remember a guy? Sure. We could do that the the when when this was created, there were no underway. Well, we I I’ll update that. No, that’s that’s a fair point. Tough question. I’ll update this mad for today. Well then then on page 28 in the first draft. So this is, uh Section.

00:41:23,300	II I sub a It’s talking about minimum investment of $40 per square foot in capital improvements and in the first draft or permanent cosmetic improvements with struck out It’s not struck out here is that Do? We intend that so? And? I don’t care Either way is it? I just wanted to make sure this

00:41:44,500	was accurate. Sure, uh, three more guys. So so the the inclusion of permanent cosmetic improvements was done all 10 years ago or so I’m, Uh, chair of Christensen may recall, uh and that Well I don’t know if anyone else was on the board at that time. Um You.

00:42:07,630	You’ve been you’ve been the long standing here. Um and so the, uh that that was, um I’m not sure why? In the previous draft, it was struck out, but I think it just seemed like without discussion over that should be kept in. We can strike it out if you’d like. But No II. I don’t have any strong feeling. I just noticed.

00:42:26,330	It was different. Yeah, so it’s fine if it stays in fine with me. Other questions. But my comment on that is I mean I? I’d rather see not. I’d rather see the qualification for the problem go or project in the program go into capital improvements rather than um, like cosmetic improvements.

00:42:47,100	It’s certainly gonna have cosmetic improvements. It’s a matter of Are. You meeting the letter of what we’re trying to do, and we’re trying to do is make the building last as long as possible and extend its life. Cosmetic improvements. Don’t add to that. OK other comments or questions.

00:43:01,730	So again the action, the action would be to call for public hearing on a motion for that. Yes, please, or a motion to Some sort of 2nd 2nd moved in seconded any further discussion on that motion hearing. No call the roll, please. Sandra Authority member Gavrilo. Yes guy. Yes. Munson. Yes Zenker. Yes. Think yes. Yes J Christensen? Yes a motion carries. Thank you.

00:43:28,870	So, um We’re going to have a regular scheduled meeting on June 13th, or are we gonna have a public hearing? The. Same time. I’m sorry If. I May I. I should have mentioned this before, but, um and you don’t need to include this in the motion.

00:43:46,670	But, perhaps if you could direct staff, uh, to which option you wish to include in the version to the public hearing, we had included two options option one being to stick with the, uh, baseline exemption for everyone. An option two being, uh, to vary by political subdivision, So I.

00:44:05,100	Just want to know which one you’d like to include in the version, uh, going to the public hearing? I think. The consensus of the baseline option two Option two that has the the different opportunity for different if the county is not going to approve the plan, which is what we need. I’m sorry. If the county. We need the county’s approval.

00:44:26,500	And if and if the county will not approve this plan, the program doesn’t exist. It’s The old. My neighbor’s cow is bigger than II. I would also recommend that some extra effort be made to invite the, uh elected members of those political subdivisions to that hearing. So that if they want to have this discussion, especially the county commissioners, that would be the time to do it.

00:44:46,830	It would help. I mean it really would help. I hope that answers your question, though you want to present both options at the public hearing. Is that kind of what you’re saying we’d prefer it to present so I must have the right to change a public hearing. Yeah. So the consensus of the board.

00:45:12,330	Is that it’s the baseline of the sure OK, very good. Yes. All right, um Anything further for the good of the order. Maria. Quiet over there. Nothing from the Downtowner. OK Anybody else have anything any other business? Any other business hearing and seeing none. Third and final call for other business. All, right? We stand adjourned until, uh, June 13th.

00:45:39,630	Thank you Everyone appreciate