Village Board of Trustees

Village of Weston, Wisconsin MEETING NOTICE Special Work Session of: BOARD OF TRUSTEES & PLAN COMMISSION Board: Ermeling {vp}, Fiene, Maloney {p}, Meinel, White, Xiong, Zeyghami Commissioners: White {c}, Meinel {vc}, Cronin, Guerndt, Jordan, Marshall, Mumper Staff: Keith Donner, Administrator, Jessica Trautman, Finance Director & Jennifer Higgins, Director of Planning & Development Date/Time: Tuesday, February 8, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Location: Weston Municipal Center (5500 Schofield Ave) – Board Room Agenda: The agenda packet will be sent out at least 3 days prior to the meeting. Attendance: All Village officials are encouraged to attend. Commissioners, Committee members, Department Directors, and guests, please indicate if you will, or will not, be attending so we may determine in advance if there will be a quorum by sending an RSVP to the assigned Administrative Support person: RSVP: Valerie Parker, Plan Commission Secretary (715) 241-2613 vparker@westonwi.gov Questions: Keith Donner, Administrator (715) 359-6114 kdonner@westonwi.gov This notice was posted at the Municipal Center and was e-mailed to local media outlets (Print, TV, and Radio) on 02/03/2022. A quorum of members from other Village governmental bodies (boards, commissions, and committees) may attend the above-noticed meeting in order to gather information. No actions will be taken by any other board, commission, or committee of the Village, aside from the Village Board and Village Plan Commission. Should a quorum of other government bodies be present, this would constitute a meeting pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis.2d 553,494 N.W.2d 408 (1993). Wisconsin State Statutes require all agendas for Committee, Commission, or Board meetings be posted in final form, 24 hours prior to the meeting. Any posted agenda is subject to change up until 24 hours prior to the date and time of the meeting. Any person who has a qualifying disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that meeting or material to be in accessible location or format must contact the Weston Municipal Center, by 12 noon, the Friday prior to the meeting, so any necessary arrangements can be made to accommodate each request.  VILLAGE OF WESTON, MARATHON COUNTY, WISCONSIN SPECIAL WORK SESSION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES & PLAN COMMISSION TO DISCUSS A POSSIBLE PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TID #2 Weston Municipal Center Board Room 5500 Schofield Avenue, Weston, WI 54476 Tuesday, February 8, 2022, at 5:30 PM A quorum of members from other Village governmental bodies (boards, commissions, and committees) may/might attend the above-noticed meeting to gather information. Should a quorum of other government bodies be present, this would constitute a meeting pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis.2d 553,494 N.W.2d 408 (1993). No official actions other than those of the Plan Commission shall take place. Some or all of the members of the Board of Trustees, Plan Commission, applicants, or members of the public, may participate in the meeting remotely by teleconference or videoconference via the Zoom links listed below. If you need an interpreter, translator, materials in alternative formats, or other accommodations to access this service, activity or program, please call the Village Clerk at 715-359-6114 immediately. Join Zoom Meeting by Computer: Join Zoom Meeting by Phone: https://zoom.us/j/5445915099 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 544 591 5099 1. Special Work Session called to order by Village President Mark Maloney. 2. Roll Call and declaration of a quorum by Secretary Parker of Village Board - MALONEY{P}, ERMELING {VP}, FIENE, MEINEL, WHITE, XIONG, ZEYGHAMI 3. Roll Call and declaration of a quorum by Secretary Parker of Plan Commission (PC) –LOREN WHITE {C}, STEVE MEINEL {VC}, STEVEN CRONIN, GARY GUERNDT, JOE JORDAN, GAYLE MARSHALL, ROY MUMPER, ALTERNATE 1 – MARK MALONEY, ALTERNATE 2 – HOOSHANG ZEYGHAMI. 4. Approve/Acknowledge Minutes from January 10, 2022 Joint Plan Commission and Extraterritorial Zoning Committee Meeting. 5. Discussion and direction to Staff on possible TID #2 Project Plan Amendment. 6. Announcements & Trustee and/or Commissioner Remarks. 7. Adjourn. Joint Board of Trustees & Plan Commission Work Session Agenda, February 8, 2022 Prepared by Jennifer Higgins, Director of Planning & Development  Village of Weston, Wisconsin OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION held on Monday, January 10, 2022, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board Room, at the Municipal Center AGENDA ITEMS. 1. Meeting called to order by Plan Commission Chair & Village Trustee Loren White at approximately 6:07 p.m. [1:31:50 Full Zoom Meeting Recording] 2. Roll Call of Village Plan Commission (PC) by Secretary Parker. Roll call indicated 7 PC members present and 1 Alternate was present. Member Present White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES (Zoom) Maloney, Mark (Alt. 1) YES Zeyghami, Hooshang (Alt. 2) EXCUSED 3. Roll Call of Joint Village & Town of Weston Extraterritorial Zoning Committee (ETZ) by Secretary Parker. Roll call indicated 6 ETZ members present. Member Present Olson, Milt YES (Zoom) Meinel, Steve YES Christiansen, Randy YES Cronin, Steve YES Hull, Mark YES (Zoom) Guerndt, Gary YES Village Staff in attendance: Donner, Higgins, Trautman, Wodalski, Wheaton, Tatro, and Parker. Audience participation included 5 people in-person and there were 5 people present via Zoom. PUBLIC COMMENT [1:34:49 Zoom Meeting Recording] James Russell, of 5907 Tricia Avenue, was present via Zoom. He gave a statement about where Wisconsin rates amongst the 50 states in real estate taxes. He commented on levy limits within the state and how they are supposed to work. He then commented on property taxes within TIF Districts and how those are supposed to work. He pointed out some historical information on the Village’s TID #1. He pointed out proposed expenses listed in Table 2 of the meeting packet. He then brought up and made comments about the Camp Phillips Centre Project (in TID #1). He commented spending should be on the basics of providing water, fire safety, and EMS. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS [1:41:24 Zoom Meeting Recording] 4. Approve minutes from the December 13, 2021, PC Meeting. (PC) Motion by Jordan, second by Guerndt: To approve the December 13, 2021, PC Meeting Minutes. Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 1 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110  Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES 5. Approve minutes from the December 13, 2021, Joint PC and Board Meeting (PC) Motion by Jordan, second by Mumper: To approve the December 13, 2021, Joint PC and Board Meeting. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES 6. Approve minutes from the October 11, 2021, Joint PC and ETZ Meeting (ETZ) Motion by Cronin, second by Meinel: To approve the October 11, 2021, Joint PC and ETZ Meeting. Yes Vote: 6 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (ETZ) Present Olson, Milt YES Meinel, Steve YES Christiansen, Randy YES Cronin, Steve YES Hull, Mark YES Guerndt, Gary YES COMMUNICATIONS, DISCLOSURES, AND RECUSALS [1:43:07 Zoom Recording] 7. Written Communications Received. There were no written communications received. Maloney asked for Agenda Item #11 be moved forward. Motion by Cronin, second by Mumper: to move to discuss and act on Agenda Item #11 at this time. Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 2 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110  Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES At 6:27 p.m., the Commission returned to the order of the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS [1:50:44 Zoom Recording] 8. Reconsider TID #2 Project Plan Amendment Donner went through and explained his draft slideshow presentation, attached in the packet, on the proposed TID #2 Amended Project Plan (presentation attached to these minutes), stating that if the Commission approves moving an amendment forward to public hearing, this is essentially what would be presented. He stated this presentation includes slides from the September presentation but, has been updated with information intended to address comments received at the last (December 2021) Plan Commission meeting. He pointed out how a decision had not been made by Plan Commission to close TID #2, and Plan Commissioners have expressed sentiment to reconsider a project plan amendment to take advantage of development/redevelopment opportunities being noticed by some Plan Commissioners by adopting a plan amendment that would include developer project incentives and redevelopment incentives which could be used for blighted properties (as identified within the adopted Schofield Avenue Corridor Plan). Some of the comments/discussion made during the presentation: Donner explained to Guerndt the Table 2 columns, as to what the number represent: Column (1) is approved project costs in the original project plan from 2004 plus Amendment #1. Column (2) is the actual expended costs. Column (3) are the proposed additional expenses in Amendment #2, and Column (4) is the total of the expenditures to date and proposed additional eligible costs. (Should be sum of Column 2 + Column 3 not sum of 1 + 2 + 3) Donner clarified to Guerndt, if the Village closed TID #2, an estimated $70,665 would go back to the general fund for operations. However, net of administrative costs being re-allocated back to the general fund, it is estimated that only about $17,800 would be available for other general fund expenses. The impact to the Village portion of the tax rate would be a reduction of about $0.09/$1,000. Staff contacted the other taxing authorities (Marathon County, NTC, & DCE) but, were not furnished their estimated tax rates. Village staff did a cursory look at this (the calculation will be different for each) and estimates the combined effect for all 3 taxing authorities would be about an additional $0.10/$1,000. Donner cautioned not to take this as anything more than a rough guess though. It was clarified to Guerndt that the estimated $46,400 of administrative costs that would be transferred back to the general levy, if TID#2 were closed, are from portions of current staff salaries being diverted to TID. Trautman explained that if TID #2 were closed, then that $70,665 coming back to the general tax levy would cover those administrative costs coming back onto the general tax levy. (Donner pointed out the math for the totals coming back to the general fund was a bit off and needed to be corrected). Guerndt brought up projects versus incentives, and how there was discussion last month about holding back on fixing Schofield Avenue, until development comes, and asked for clarification on if we are required to spend Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 3 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 money now on a project in order to not have to close the TID #2. Donner stated, if keeping it open, there are some expectations that there are some expenses and justification to keep it open. Donner stated you can have commitments. Donner stated how JRB has some oversight on this, and if they see we do not have any expenditures, they may question why we are not closing this. Donner confirmed we just need to have a project plan in place, with expenditures to occur by 2026. Maloney confirmed that if the plan shows the Schofield Avenue project along with development/redevelopment incentives, and if all we end up doing is the incentives, that we are not required to do the Schofield Avenue project. Donner stated just because it is listed in the plan does not mean we have to do the project. Jordan stated how we are currently expending some money towards TID #2, when you consider the time that staff is spending on projects within this area, such as Wodalski’s planning of details and costs of a potential Schofield Avenue reconstruction project. Guerndt confirmed that in order to keep TID #2 open, at this time we just need to approve an amendment. White reiterated how if we don’t have the Schofield Avenue project in the amended plan, then we can’t use the TID #2 to pay for it. Donner brought up the Plan Commission discussion from last month of how to market this TID. He explained an option would be to partner with a consultant such as Redevelopment Resources (Principal and CEO, Kristen Fish-Peterson) who had provided a statement of qualifications which was furnished in the packet. Kristen was present on Zoom during the meeting but, was not called upon to speak. Donner explained how while this business is based in Madison, Fish-Peterson has roots in the Wausau/Central Wisconsin area. He stated she was formerly the Economic Development Director for City of Wausau and works with many area developers in this region. Donner feels she would be a good choice to help us with promotion and marketing of TID #2. He stated she has background in real estate and holds a commercial real estate license. Donner stated this is in no way a commitment, but he would be strongly in favor of considering partnering with her. Marshall questioned if the Schofield Avenue reconstruction project does not meet the “but-for” test, if that means the Village would not take on that project. She questioned if this project needs to be done regardless, how can it meet the “but-for” test? Jordan stated the idea is you put this project in this plan with the idea of using the money to facilitate the project based on the potential redevelopment customers that you will potentially get in the area. He stated funding it with TID will be moot as far as the taxpayers are concerned because they are going to pay for it one way or the other. He stated the “but-for” here is that Wodalski may plan to fix up the road next year, when that may not be the best route, when the reality is that if there is development coming through (that will tear up the road / change intersections). He stated that the longer Wodalski waits to do the project, however, the more expensive the project is going to be. Cronin asked how we know when the time is right to do the project. Jordan stated we have a 1 to 2-year window for something to happen on Schofield Avenue. If we don’t get someone in here to help us with this within that time, we will be right back where we were at when this TID was formed. Jordan stated within that 1 to 2-year time limit, if we can’t get redevelopment going (and have to close the TID), then we can just use the general tax levy to reconstruct Schofield Avenue. Maloney brought up a question, that a Commissioner brought up to him in an earlier discussion, was what has Wodalski done as far as testing. Wodalski then discussed to the Commissioners the state required 2-year PASER rating study that is done on all our roads (“10” is good and “1” is poor/failed). He stated the roads are all maintained each year, and once you get to “5”, you start looking at the costs of maintenance versus reconstruction, and whether the maintenance over reconstruction is financially worthwhile. [2:32:29 Zoom Recording] Jim Pinsonneault, 5002 Arrow Street, commented on how he understands a TID is a financial tool to help fund infrastructure projects and to help grow a community. He questioned what projects have been identified and encouraged for development or redevelopment since the opening of TID #2 15 years ago. Donner explained to Pinsonneault this is the reason this amendment is being proposed, as we did not have the ability to have expenditures on development incentives. Donner explained there was a change in Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 4 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 administration that delayed action on this coming before the Board until last February. Guerndt explained that when the Village created this TID, there were no details included in that plan for development. Guerndt stated developers are not going to come without some type of incentive. He stated in order to make this work the way it is meant, we need cheerleaders out there to market it and planning that is flexible enough to get something done and moved into the Village. Pinsonneault commented on how he feels if we are going to work with an outside firm, that the firm needs to have skin in the game, such as “pay for performance”. Pinsonneault stated that while he supports money being spent towards redevelopment, he does not support the Village purchasing property. Jordan commented that if an opportunity were there that the Village could buy and clean up a sliver of land, and then Plan Commission having the ability to what is appropriate there. [2:40:09 Zoom Recording] Meinel brought up what happened in TID #1 with the Camp Phillips Centre project, and stated we need to look at what happened there, as we look at TID #2, and how even with new administration, nothing has happened in TID #1 yet. He also commented how he owns property in TID #1, and how he is trying not to influence anything in that TID, but also stated those on Plan Commission owning property in TID #2 need to be careful not to be influencing the decision. White stated that as long as it is a general issue that applies to everyone, then it is appropriate, but applies to a personal specific issue, then the person needs to recuse themself. White explained to Meinel that the developer that was involved in the Camp Phillips Centre project invested $2 million of their own money, so they did have skin in the game. [2:43:37 Zoom Recording] Duane Gau, 4304 Florlana Lane, was present. He introduced himself explaining his background in local government and his previous appointment on Plan Commission. He discussed the changes that have occurred in the Village over the years. He asked the Commission to restrict their discussion to the TID #2 topic on the agenda. He stated the Village first needs to have economic development, and to realize growth in a commercial area you first need rooftops (houses), as if you don’t have those, you don’t have commercial development. The Village also needs industrial development. So you have a mixture of industrial and residential tax base. He stated the most important thing is to have commercial. He stated when you have a small commercial business that comes into the community, the Village should do all they can to help them. Then you have a financial mechanism, also known as TIF’s. He acknowledged our TIF Districts have had problems. He pointed out how you periodically have new elected officials and Plan Commission members, with all different views. He stated how this TIF will only be open for a couple years and this TIF district gives us the opportunity to take an area and market it to see if you can get some development in. He stated you wait for development to come into place, and then you do a project plan, where you know the increment will come into place. He stated that incentives are good, but you have to use developer’s agreements. He stated you can use incentives for the development of infrastructure: parking lots, landscaping, utilities, stormwater, etc. He stated to be careful not to put incentives into the building itself. He stated you do not have to commit the Schofield Avenue project. You have it in the plan that you are going to, but you are not going to guarantee that to a developer. The developer then only knows it is in the plan, and then it is if you go forward with this as a community, you are not guaranteeing the plan for them. In summary, Gau asks that Plan Commission do amend TIF#2 for this short period of time. Take the opportunity to see what kind of development will come in that area; and then if development occurs, you have a reason to do the project. He stated when doing a TIF project plan, you load the plan with projects and costs, and then you can have the flexibility to do what you can do for your community. However, you do not just go hog-wild and do the projects. He explained his experience with Kronenwetter and their TIF districts and the troubles they had. He said that Weston has smart planning staff and smart consultants to help out. He feels this TIF amendment is very minute. It will give the Village an opportunity for that area. He stated if we have good marketing, with a consultant who should have skin in the game, this will work. He commented on one experience he had with a marketing consultant, and the agreement was written that the consultant did not get a Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 5 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 commission unless they got the sale. He stated it is basically an incentive, just a different way to put the package together. He then reiterated how important it is for the Plan Commission to stay on agenda, and not get off topic. He pointed out how discussing things that are not known to the affected residents that it affects those residents’ lives. He reminded the Plan Commission that it is the elected and appointed officials who have made all the rules over time, and staff has to carry those rules out. Donner stated we do need a decision from Plan Commission as to if staff should prepare a project plan amendment for a public hearing. [2:55:11 Zoom Recording] Marshall stated in the previous plan it included giving developers incentives for multi-family housing, and questioned if that is included in this too. Guerndt clarified that it referred to mixed use, not multi-family housing. Higgins stated mixed-use is part of the Schofield Avenue Corridor Plan, and it would be up to the Board as far as what projects they fund. Higgins stated this draft amendment just states “Development Incentives”. Guerndt commented that the issue he is seeing is that some of the Plan Commission does not want to pay to help someone develop residential/multi-family dwellings. He stated mixed-use developments are becoming more common and looked upon by communities. He explained the concept of mixed-use, where you have retail businesses along the ground level, and then above the retail areas are apartments. He explained the mixed-use development project he has in Stevens Point. Higgins explained that when the corridor plan was being planned, it was stated that we need people living nearby that can shop and keep the small & large retail shops, restaurants, etc., going. Cronin stated that he is not a fan of hiring a consultant from out of this area. Guerndt stated that he feels we should not limit to local consultants only, as you have some larger developers who work with outside consultants, and can help market here, especially if there is TIF money. Guerndt feels staff has the capability of coming up with these plans and negotiations and has the ability to put some skin in the game for consultants, as long as staff is helpful enough to get this pushed through, as far as not making the application process so cumbersome. Meinel commented on the Zoning Code requirements for things like security cameras and bike racks. Guerndt commented on how back in the day, the Zoning Code was not enforced as much for site plans, when the Business & Technology Park was being developed, but then the administration change and suddenly everyone has to follow the letter of the code to make any changes to their site or do any additions, which has soured the business community. He stated now we need to find a way to make processes easier. [3:08:00 Zoom Recording] Maloney suggested we table this discussion, and move on to the next two agenda items that include ETZ. Motion by Cronin, second by Guerndt: at 7:45 p.m. to table this discussion until later in meeting. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 6 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110  Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES [0:13:31 second Zoom Recording] Motion by Cronin, second by Guerndt: to bring this back up on the table at 9:05 p.m. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES Mumper stated that he is in favor of holding the public hearing, with the understanding that there will be an emphasis on project development versus infrastructure costs. Guerndt questioned if those who attended the original meeting have been notified yet of these meetings, or will they be notified of the public hearing. Donner stated those who attended will be notified for the next public hearing. Higgins stated we will also be sending this to all the property owners along there too. Guerndt stated how at that initial meeting, those who attended were under the impression this amendment discussion was done. Guerndt questioned what the impact would be to the taxpayers for the $3.5 million road construction costs. Donner stated that would be the $0.30 per thousand. Guerndt clarified if we did the project under TIF it would be just $0.20 per thousand, along with the ability to incentivize developers to bring more businesses in. Donner stated if we did not do Schofield Avenue under TIF funding, it would eventually get done somewhere down the line. It was stated that the $0.30 per thousand would be assessed on the tax roll for the term of the project borrowing (20 years). Cronin commented this changes things. Guerndt feels if we could get someone in here that can clearly explain the TIF to the residents in the audience, in a way to help them understand this, that we can accomplish this. Marshall stated people are going to want to know what has changed, since the meeting where Plan Commission initially voted this down. Guerndt stated we changed the scope of the project. Meinel stated once we change the plan and list the dollars, that does not mean that is what it will be used for. Guerndt stated you have to stay within the parameters of the project plan. Guerndt feels if we don’t amend the TIF to allow for incentives to bring development in, this TIF will ultimately fail, which is what the taxpayers assume will happen. He stated if we do this the right way, it will not fail. He stated we have to get the tax base in here, and we have to have incentives to do it. He stated we have 4 years to do this, and if it does not happen in 4 years, then it does not happen and there is no money lost, other than 4 years of time that money could have went to the other tax authorities. He reiterated this will allow us to bring in as much development as we can in that amount of time and redevelop Schofield Avenue. Meinel questioned how much will be spent on administrative and consultants? Donner stated the proposed amount in the amendment is $723,550, but that does not mean we are going to spend that much. Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 7 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 Guerndt feels we need a consultant that has ties to the community and skin in the game. Cronin agreed with a statement Gau made earlier about putting in some kind of clause that in order for a consultant to get paid, they have to bring in some kind of development. Meinel feels we had a bad experience with consultants (referring to the Camp Phillips Centre Project). Higgins stated Roffers was not involved at all in the Camp Phillips Centre Project. Donner clarified that we did not have a consultant for the Camp Phillips Centre Project, and that the group the Village was working with was JSD Professionals and Forward Development Group, who had skin in the game. Meinel brought up the Weston Avenue Corridor project. Higgins stated that was a plan that the Plan Commission just approved. Meinel stated regardless he is not in favor of spending $723,550 on administrative expenses, and referred to it as walking around money. Jordan questioned Meinel what he feels a reasonable percentage on administrative for an $8 million project would be. White commented we are not obligated to pay this amount to a consultant or on administrative costs. Jordan asked Meinel what number he would be comfortable with. Meinel stated he has not seen anything that has changed that would make him feel comfortable with that amount. He is concerned nothing will be accomplished after spending the money. Cronin questioned what kind of oversight the Plan Commission would have on this, if the amendment goes through. He confirmed any development agreements would go through the Board. Higgins stated any projects that receive money will be bringing their plans through Plan Commission. Meinel stated he is struggling with the mixed-use and having apartments here that we are financing. He stated as that would bring in another layer of obligation that we may not know about. He gave the example of the 55+ housing that received money from the Village, and how now we have to absorb the costs for the increased ambulance calls. He stated if each housing unit averages so many children, which then increases the DCE taxes, there should be some consideration to that. He is not in support of subsidizing any residential use along Schofield Avenue. Guerndt stated we can add a stipulation in the plan that states only a certain percentage of the use can be mixed use. Cronin asked if there was a way for us to put our own skin in the game. He stated we could make the amendment an earmark the $8 million for Schofield Avenue, but with a stipulation that we have to have a certain amount of dollars (increment?) that occurs in that corridor before we can rebuild the road. Guerndt stated once you advertise that you are open and willing to incentivize development to come to your community, things will happen. Jordan gave the example of the land price incentives and shovel-ready land that the Village offered him in the Business & Technology Park, which led him to build there. Marshall brought up the page in the presentation titled “what benefits would there be to landowners and business owner”, and stated she did not see anything in there on the benefits to our residents. Jordan commented on how, for example he needs 100 employees at Wausau Supply, but the issue is you can’t get them, and the question is where are they living. He stated he would like to see his employees living in Weston, and spending the money, that they earn from Wausau Supply, right here in Weston, as opposed to spending their money out of town. Marshall feels it is expensive to live in Weston, and how we are not making it any cheaper to live in Weston by adding additional net new development adds to the tax levy. She feels everyone’s taxes will go up if we are successful in the TID. Donner stated the net growth in the TID counts towards our tax levy. Jordan stated the alternative is that this area stays the same. Marshall questioned how do we sell to our residents that we increased their taxes so that we can bring in more development. Guerndt questioned would you rather pay the Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 8 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 $0.30 per thousand for the road to be fixed or would you rather see more development so that we do not have to pay that. White stated if there is no new development, we still have increase in costs to run the Village. Guerndt stated you can’t continue a community without growth, as it goes backwards. Jordan stated Schofield Avenue will have to be fixed at some point in time, and it will cost the residents one way or another. Donner pointed out the infrastructure projects did not go outside of Schofield Avenue. Guerndt brought up the Table 1 document showing the priority projects and asked Marshall what her issues were. She stated she is struggling with success within the TID falls upon taxpayers outside of the TID. Guerndt suggested to make a motion to move forward with making an amendment to TID #2, but with the ability for Plan Commission to have another meeting on this to make some stipulations on the dollar values and having someone on board that has skin in the game to market this, and to lean on Higgins and Wheaton to work with Plan Commission on getting development in here and be as open and helpful to get development in here. Donner stated we need to verify what type of notification we need to give (Class I, II, or II notices), as far as if this will need to be a special meeting or at regular meeting. Donner stated the latest we can have a public hearing would be in March. Cronin stated he is in favor of holding a special meeting on a night where we can just talk about this topic. [0:41:35 second Zoom Recording] Motion by Guerndt, second by Jordan: to move forward and have staff schedule another meeting where we can communicate together as a team on how to move forward to get TID #2 and Schofield Avenue moving. Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 2 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve NO Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle NO Mumper, Roy YES Higgins stated she will send a Doodle Poll out on meeting night possibilities. Guerndt questioned if it would be possible to have a consultant at next meeting? White suggested PC send list of questions to Donner. PUBLIC HEARINGS [1:38:54 Zoom Recording] Zoning Map Amendments, Conditional Uses & Related Requests 9. An Ordinance to Update Chapter 14 (Building Regulations) and make related amendments to Chapters 34 (Fire Prevention and Protection), 74 (Subdivision Regulations), and 94 (Zoning). (PC & ETZ) [3:09:00 Zoom Recording] Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 9 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 a. Open Public Hearing. White opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. b. Presentation by Staff. Higgins explained staff made changes to this draft ordinance based on feedback from the Commissioners. She explained how this needs to be updated because of it being part of our building code and fine tuning our processes. She stated there were a number of references to State Statutes that needed to be updated. Higgins discussed changes (shown in the Ordinance 22-001) related to address signs, telecommunications, and building inspections. She stated this is not creating any more permits. Permits added would need to be approved by the Village Board through the schedule of fees. Meinel questioned Section 94.16, regarding requiring a Certificate of Occupancy to use property, including vacant land, and questioned in cases of farmland, if the owner needs to get a Certificate of Occupancy to use their own land. Higgins stated that pertains more for a vacant piece of property, where the owner was going to change the use. Wheaton pointed out the clause in there that this does not apply to agricultural use. Higgins gave an example of a Village resident using vacant land for motocross. Marshall stated this basically is following State Statutes, why can’t we just note that here. Tatro stated the State does not dictate the procedures. Marshall questioned if the Village has made an attempt to make the processes more easy to deal with or more streamlined. Tatro explained the different options available for people to meet with staff. Staff is continually updating processes and the 2015 Zoning Code rewrite and online permitting software has assisted in this. c. Public Comment Period. [3:19:25 Zoom Recording] Pinsonneault brought up 94.14.7.3, regarding Telecommunications and how it refers to standard residential receiving antennas, and questioned what about sending antennas, such as internet routers, Bluetooth devices, etc. It was pointed out about how quickly technology changes, and it would be hard to keep up with changes in the code. Higgins stated the intent was for the large-scale things like cell towers, etc. Maloney suggested we just remove the Telecommunications section from this part of the code, and the members agreed. d. Close Public Hearing. White closed the hearing at 8:02 p.m. e. Recommendation from Staff. Staff recommends approval. f. Discussion & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees by the ETZ Committee. [3:26:00 Zoom Recording] Hull pointed out some changes to be made: *Section 94.8.13 (1) (3) there are references to “permit” when those should be changed to “certificate”. *Section 94.13.02(8)(a) noted as being amended, and how it is later amended during the next public hearing for Signs, and what is written here does not correspond with the changes in the next hearing. Wheaton stated the changes here would trump the changes noted in the following Sign code hearing. If the changes (in the next hearing) to the Sign Code are recommended, then those would be final over the changes in this ordinance. *Section 94.16.10 (2) the heading should change to remove the word “Permits”. Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 10 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 *Last sentence of SECTION 12 (page 5) of the draft document refers to “…amendments in Sections 6 through 11…” and asked if this should actually be “Sections 4 through 11”. [3:36:00 Zoom Recording] Motion by Hull, second by Cronin: to recommend amendments to the Board of Trustees for approval, from ETZ, with changes noted during “c.” and “f.” of this public hearing. Yes Vote: 6 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (ETZ) Present Olson, Milt YES Meinel, Steve YES Christiansen, Randy YES Cronin, Steve YES Hull, Mark YES Guerndt, Gary YES g. Discussion & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees by the Plan Commission. [3:37:00 Zoom Recording] Motion by Cronin, second by Mumper: to recommend amendments to the Board of Trustees for approval, from ETZ, with draft modifications and changes noted during “c.” and “f.” of this public hearing. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES 10. An Ordinance amending Section 94.13 Signs within Chapter 94 Zoning, of the Municipal Code [3:38:00 Zoom Recording] a. Open Public Hearing. White opened at 8:14 p.m. b. Presentation by Staff. Wheaton stated she received corrections from White. She pointed out she added 60 days for temporary signs. Marshall questioned it does not include 60 days for non-residential. Marshall would like to see that applied to both residential and non-residential. Wheaton stated we can change that, but have to remember we can’t regulate on context, so during the election periods, this would allow the non-residential to put up signs for anything they want. Marshall pointed out since it limits to 64-square feet, it makes it so they can’t put up as many signs as they want. Marshall questioned the language in 94.13.08 3., where it states “…a sign permit shall be required…”, and asked if this also pertains to political signs. Wheaton pointed out that it states signs that are less than 6 square feet do not require a permit. Marshall pointed out the average political sign in non-residential is usually 4’ x 8’ Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 11 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 sign, and feels we could run into problems charging people for their political signs. She has a problem with charging people to exercise their freedom of political speech. Maloney questioned about help wanted signs. Wheaton stated we could change it to state if a sign is less than 32 square feet, no permit is required. White stated it should be “no greater than 32 square feet”. Wheaton confirmed that the permit only applies to the side of the sign you can see at one time. Marshall confirmed we will only require a permit if a sign is greater than 32-square feet. Wheaton confirmed we are switching 30 days to 60 days for commercial. She stated Plan Commission just needs to recognize the addressing portion from the other ordinance. c. Public Comment Period. [3:47:10 Zoom Recording] Tom Salzman, 227521 Lahr Avenue. He questioned how we are going to enforce some of these regulations and who will enforce those. He feels, rather than using the police department, the most beneficial way of resolving the issue is to have the two people (someone from the municipality and the property owner) stand in front of a neutral judge. He stated to do this, you send out a letter, and if no response, or not the response you want, order the people together with an Order to Show Cause hearing, which puts the people in front of a neutral judge. He feels when it comes to enforcing the sign ordinance, we can’t be going onto property and taking signs, or fining people huge amounts of fines, until there is enforcement bringing the people forward to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Pinsonneault brought up the section of Flags, and asked what the intent of the restriction on flags are, which he stated a standard-issue flag is 3’ x 5’ (15 square feet) in size. He questioned what if someone wanted a larger flag. Wheaton stated this information was pulled off general U.S. flag sizing. She stated this is located under the “Signs Allowed without Permits” section, and basically is just giving a definition of what flags are. She stated we are trying to differentiate between flags and banners based on the material type. Maloney questioned if we could just add in that section “…excludes anything to do with U.S. flags…”. White questioned what if you want to fly a flag from another country? Guerndt questioned if we could just make a notation under “Banners”, defining that as anything that is not attached to a flagpole. Wheaton suggested she could remove the “…and not to exceed 18 square feet.” in the Flags section and then define under banners verbiage to the effect that flags are not banners. There was discussion on what occurred in Minocqua and what happened during the last Presidential election. Wheaton stated under the One-Time Event Signs, will add if on a flag pole, does not count as a One-Time Event sign, and does not need a permit. Pinsonneault brought up the “Off-Premise Real Estate” signs, under 94.13.08(1), and how it references residential and rural, and does not refer to other zoning districts. Pinsonneault brought up the “for lease” signage on Lokre’s property, which there are multiples of, and according to the ordinance, only 1 is allowed. After some discussion it was noted this could be changed to allow 1 sign per street frontage. Pinsonneault brought up Construction Signs and questioned if it is limited to one. Wheaton stated no limit on number, just in size. There was discussion that on the second sentence under Construction Signs to add “Commercial” to construction signs. Pinsonneault brought up the Fee Schedule, but it did not pertain to this public hearing. Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 12 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 d. Close Public Hearing. White closed the hearing at 8:53 p.m. e. Recommendation from Staff. Wheaton stated staff recommends approval with PC corrections. f. Discussion & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees by the ETZ Committee. Hull commented on the bottom of Page 3, subsection A, should correspond with prior action tonight, and then on page 21, a reference in the table under INT, where language was changed on Page 18, calling it Special Exception. [0:04:45 second Zoom Recording] Motion by Meinel, second by Cronin: to approve the Sign code changes with corrections to the Board of Trustees. Yes Vote: 6 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member (ETZ) Present Olson, Milt YES Meinel, Steve YES Christiansen, Randy YES Cronin, Steve YES Hull, Mark YES Guerndt, Gary YES Motion by Meinel, second by Cronin: to adjourn ETZ at 8:56 p.m. g. Discussion & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees by the Plan Commission. Motion by Meinel, second by Mumper: to approve the Sign Code with the changes as discussed. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES [0:07:40 second Zoom Recording] Moved down to NEW BUSINESS 11. Project #20210439 Dan Higginbotham, of Plover River Land C., Inc., on behalf of Lorraine Moran, 8504 County Road J, Weston, requesting a rezone of approximately 5 acres of land at 8504 County Road J, from AR (Agriculture and Residential) Zoning District to RR-5 (Rural Residential-5 Acre) Zoning District. [1:44:03 Zoom Meeting Recording] Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 13 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 a. Open Public Hearing. White opened at 6:20 p.m. b. Presentation by Staff. Wheaton explained we received a CSM proposing to divide 5 acres off from a larger parcel. She stated the current lot is zoned AR, which has a minimum lot size of 20 acres, and in order to create the 5-acre parcel, it needs to be rezoned to RR-5. She explained the proposed use for the 5-acre parcel is for the development of a future single-family home. She explained there is some wetland on the property, to the north. She stated that staff did request some supplemental information related to future land use, as the Future Land Use map shows this area to be AG, which allows for some Rural Residential-5 zoning, but on a limited basis. The supplemental information addresses that this will not impose on any future long-term development to this area. c. Public Comment Period. Dan Higginbotham, Plover River Land Company, 2625 Northwestern Avenue, Wausau, was present, in support, on behalf of property owner, Lorraine Moran, who was also present along with Matt Wesenick. He explained the existing ~2-acre residential property just east of this, which is zoned RR-2, and how there is other residential development south of this. He explained how this is this land is being divided so that Moran’s nephew, Matt Wesenick, can purchase the 5 acres to build a home on. d. Close Public Hearing. White closed the hearing at 6:24 p.m. e. Recommendation from Staff. Wheaton stated staff recommends approval. f. Discussion & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees by the Plan Commission. The Commissioners went through the Determination, and gave the following answers to the four questions: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. #2 & #3 apply 4. Yes Motion by Guerndt, second by Cronin: to recommend approval of Project #20210439 to the Board of Trustees at their 01/17/2022 Meeting. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES White then directed the Commissioners back up to Agenda Item #8. [1:50:38 Zoom Recording] Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 14 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 REFERRALS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. NEW BUSINESS [0:07:40 second Zoom Recording] 12. Project #20200439 – From the Forest Site Plan – Site Plan Amendment at 9004 Progress Way. Wheaton stated during an inspection, Property Inspector, Roman Maguire, noticed some deviations from the approved site plan and CUP. She and Maguire worked with the project manager to get things meeting code. Since the land was sold to FTF from the Village this needs to come back before Plan Commission. Motion by Guerndt, second by Cronin: to acknowledge the Site Plan Amendment. Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES STAFF REPORTS [0:09:30 second Zoom Recording] 13. Acknowledge Report re: December 2021 Staff-Approved Certified Survey Maps and Site Plans 14. Acknowledge Report re: December 2021 Building Permits 15. Acknowledge 2022 Housing Fee Report Motion by Cronin, second by Mumper, to acknowledge Items #13 - 15 Yes Vote: 7 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 0 Result: PASS Member Voting White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES MISCELLANEOUS [0:10:02 second Zoom Recording] 16. Project Updates a. Weston Avenue Public Informational Meeting – January 31, 2022 Donner stated there will be a Public Informational Meeting held on January 31st, at Dale’s Weston Lanes. Wodalski stated the presentation portion of this meeting will be recorded on Zoom. b. Park Impact Needs Assessment Higgins stated this still has to come back, as staff has had their time spent elsewhere. c. Metro-Wide Housing Study Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 15 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110 Higgins stated she found out the Northcentral Regional Planning staff member leading this study left her position recently, so this may be delayed a bit until that position is filled. d. Comprehensive Plan Update – Includes Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP) Update. Higgins explained to update for Housing, Land Use and CORP. [0:13:15 second Zoom Recording] At this time the Plan Commission moved back up to Agenda Item #8. 17. Announcements & Commissioner Remarks. [ Zoom Recording] a. Next Meeting Date – Monday, February 14, 2022, at 6pm. None. Cronin/Guerndt to put #8 on the table at 9:04 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 18. Adjournment of ETZ ETZ adjourned earlier at 8:56 p.m. 19. Adjournment of PC Motion by Cronin, Second by Guerndt, to adjourn the PC meeting at 9:37 p.m. Loren White, Plan Commission Chair and Village Trustee Jennifer Higgins, Director of Planning & Development Valerie Parker, Recording Secretary Valerie Parker updated @ 1/14/2022 9:17 AM Page 16 Mtg_BOT_220117_Consent_Minutes_PC-ETZ 220110220110  TID #2 Amended Project Plan Presentation for Village Plan Commission January 2022 DRAFT Amended TID #2 Project Plan  Why is the Village proposing to amend the TID #2 Plan?  Village staff had been directed by the Board of Trustees in early 2021 to pursue a project plan amendment for Tax Increment District (TID) #2.  Plan Commission Action was to deny the consideration of a project plan amendment and later there was a need to amend the TID #2 boundary.  There has been no action taken to close TID #2. 3  Why is the Village proposing to amend the TID #2 Plan?  Recalibrate to meet changing needs in the 2020s (vs. the 2000s)  Increase commercial activity, jobs, and residents within and near TID #2 to spur related growth and activity within TID #2  ID potential funding to advance business and mixed use (re)development and supporting infrastructure  Advance opportunities suggested in the Schofield Avenue Corridor Plan, adopted by the Plan Commission and Board earlier in 2021 4 What benefits would there be to landowners and business owners?  For interested landowners, business owners, and developers, a reinvigorated TID #2 could assist with:  Closing financing gaps for redevelopment, expansion & new development.  Assistance with site preparation, including demolition, remediation, and relocation when necessary.  Land acquisition and land cost write-downs.  Building quality and other amenities that exceed minimum standards.  Fee reimbursement, marketing expenses, and job training.  TID #2 can also assist with supporting infrastructure to ensure continued good access, water, and sewer to properties in the TID 5  What the Village is NOT proposing  No rezoning of any lands unless landowners are interested— development allowed under current zoning will still be allowed  No requirement that landowners (re)develop or sell their land  No immediate spending on land acquisition, infrastructure, or development incentives within TID #2  TID #2 project plan just makes any listed action possible  Any listed expenditure would require later authorization from the Village Board on a case-by-case basis  Expenditures should be tied to revenues and priorities  Not all listed expenditures will actually occur—just a plan that shows outer limits 6  What are the modified proposed amendments to TID #2 Project Plan?  Amended budget to aid with redevelopment and expansion projects that would not occur “but for”  Site preparation, Extraordinary project costs, Land purchase, Marketing, Bridge Financing gaps, etc.  List of potential infrastructure projects reduced to the Schofield Avenue corridor: o Improved transportation safety and access o Enhancements to improve business & living environment; e.g; pedestrian crossings, streetscape, etc. 7  (Re)development Incentives  Potential budget expanded by $2.75 million to advance redevelopment in TID #2 per Schofield Avenue Corridor Plan.  Village conservatively anticipates redevelopment projects over next 10 years totaling over $30 million in assessed value on properties that have less than $6 million in assessed value today.  This type of transformational redevelopment will not occur “but for” development incentives from TID #2—budget could help fund several projects 8  Projects  1st Priority  Repave Schofield Avenue from Birch Street to western village limits - $3,500,000  Acquire and prepare land for redevelopment - $750,000  2nd Priority  Improve Design of Birch Street/Schofield Avenue intersection  Improve Schofield Avenue Pedestrian Crossings  Replace community entryway signage  Enhance streetscaping along Schofield Avenue between Birch Street and County Road X  Total estimated cost of Priority 2 Projects $1,730,000 9  Table 2: Original and Amended TID #2 Project Costs (1) (2) (3) (1) + (2) + (3) Original & Actual Expended 2021 Expense Allowance Total Amended Costs Cost Category Amendment #1 Costs as of Supported by Cash Flow Project Costs 12/31/2020 Analysis Infrastructure & Related Project $1,800,000 $3,230,030 $4,250,000 $9,280,030 Construction (per Table 1) Development Incentives (beyond $310,000 $271,746 $2,750,000 $3,331,746 Table 1 infrastructure) General Administrative, $180,000 $653,919 $723,550 $1,557,469 Legal, & Planning Financing Costs $921,238 $1,694,994 $360,000 $2,976,232 (interest) Totals $3,211,238 $5,850,689 $8,083,550 $17,145,477 10  (Re)development Sites 11  (Re)development Opportunity Areas 12 What are the advantages/disadvantages of keeping TID #2 open?  Advantages of remaining open  Takes advantage of opportunity to spend as much as $6.38 M on projects (public infrastructure and development incentives) without borrowing under TID and without general fund impact.  Promotes development and redevelopment within TID #2 that would otherwise not likely occur.  Generates new tax incremental growth 14 What are the advantages/disadvantages of closing TID #2?  Advantages of closing TID #2 NOW (Village)  Would bring estimated $70,665 back to general tax levy above new construction  Village tax rate could drop by $0.09/$1,000 ($17 on a $200,000 home)  Net additional benefit to general operations of $17,800 net of administrative costs coming back on levy  Would reduce % of equalized value in TID’s from 29.7% to 27% 16  Advantages of closing TID #2 NOW (Other Taxing Authorities)  Marathon County  Would bring estimated $119,000 - $132,000 to general tax levy indicated to be equivalent to 1 FTE in public safety or human services (per Christi Palmer)  No estimate of tax rate impact provided  North Central Technical College  Would bring estimated $35,000 to general tax levy at current levy of $1.21066/$1,000  No estimate of tax rate impact provided  DC Everest Schools  No response as of 01/06/2022 17  Disadvantages of Closing TID #2 NOW  Would lose ability for Village to be a partner in development/redevelopment of Schofield Avenue corridor until another TID could be formed (after 2032)  Estimated $46,400 of administrative costs would be transferred back to general tax levy  All infrastructure funded through debt service levy  Ex: Schofield Avenue repaving  $3.5 M borrowed for 20 years would result in estimated $0.30/$1,000 increase ($52 on a $200,000 home) 18 Can TID #2 be kept open if no firm commitments are made for project expenditures?  WI Dept. of Revenue Ehlers  If the Village acknowledges that all  The statutes require if the TID has expenditures will be reimbursed with generated enough revenue to cover its this year's increment dollars remaining obligations/costs the district received, then the Village must must close, unless the Village has other complete a project plan amendment remaining initiatives in the project plan to add project costs by end of April, it wants to accomplish. That being 15, 2022 or terminate its TID early. said, I wouldn’t expect the other taxing jurisdictions to be tolerant of a district  The Village can keep TID 2 open if a remaining open if there is no plan to project plan amendment is use the funds. completed with added project costs  If the Village does not act to close TID planned #2 by 4/15/2022 for whatever reason,  If by 2026 there is no established the district will remain open for debt to pay from the project plan another year. Once that date passes amendment, then the Village will the issue is moot. An amendment can need to review TID 2's expenditure occur after 4/15/2022. The more status. If TID 2 has paid off all of its immediate question is if there is project costs, then the Village would consensus the district should remain be required to terminate TID 2 early. open for another year? (Sec. 66.1105(7), Wis. Stats.) 20  Take on Replies  Ehlers and Department of Revenue  Project Plan Amendment should be adopted by April 15, 2022  If no amendment TID #2 should be closed. 21  How will the TID and development/redevelopment opportunities be marketed?  Marketing  Discussion at December 2021 Plan Commission meeting indicated the Village could seek a partnership with a firm or firms.  Current relationships  Ehlers  MD Roffers  Prospective future relationships  Redevelopment Resources  Regional firm with local roots. Real estate and economic development expertise, Kristen- Fish-Peterson, Principal/CEO 23 What are the criteria for satisfying the “but-for” test.?  “But-for” Test  Greg Johnson, Ehlers  “There are best practices that are followed to demonstrate compliance with the but for test. The but for test can be satisfied in many ways. There is no “one size fits all” for every project, especially if incentives are involved.”  Recommendations – work with consultant, case-by- case.  Define limits of financial assistance for site prep/demolition; e.g. $$ per square foot of existing buildings, lot area, etc.  Percentage of current extraordinary construction costs?  No “cook-book” answers  What do we want to do? 25 Summary  Summary  Plan Commission’s Charge is LAND USE  Is the proposed project plan amendment consistent with the Village’s goals to promote and assist development in TID #2 and the Village overall?  Is closing TID #2 now more important than the development and redevelopment opportunities that currently exist and would evaporate for likely 9 years?  If the desire is to amend the project plan for TID #2, proceed as expeditiously as possible to complete by April 15, 2022.  If after a year or more it is found there have been no reasons to expend funds or there are no future needs and closure is justified, TID #2 could still be closed. (We do not need to rush to closure). 27 Next Steps  Next Steps  Hear public hearing comments  After hearing, respond to comments  Plan Commission may adopt and recommend project plan via resolution  Village Board may adopt  Joint Review Board may adopt 29 Other Information  What is Tax Incremental Financing (“TIF”)? TID Closes 31