5. PC Res. 2021-002 Consider a Resolution Regarding the Development Program for the Southbridge Development District and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for the Kraewood TIF District.
Once again the Development Director is attempting to limit your power. She makes the claim (p. 2 ) that the PC is being asked "whether that proposed use is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This claim falsely limits your role. The resolution states that "The Commission finds that. . . the Program and Plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City and conform to general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This resolution DOES NOT restrict the PC to " use"; it asks you to verify that the development AS A WHOLE matches the Comp Plan.
Please do not be misled. Please follow the entire Comp Plan, not just bits highlighted by Staff. Please also follow the PARB's denial of in lieu payment. In order to get TIF, the developers should add a substantial park to the plat to serve the families that might someday live in Kraewood.
I am grateful for your service to Northfield.
Our Development Director claims that the Planning Commission is merely being asked "whether that proposed use is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This is false. The resolution states, "The Commission finds that, for the purposes of the Act, the Program and Plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City and conform to general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." The Planning Commission in the resolution is not restricted merely to "the use"; it is asked to verify that the the development AS A WHOLE (and not simply its use) is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
We ask that you not be misled by this misinformation and that you follow the comprehensive plan and not just pieces and parts of it as directed by our City Staff.
I ask that my comment be read aloud and entered into the public record.
In the supplemental memo commissioners received, Ms. Baker makes the claim on p. 2 that the Planning Commission is merely being asked "whether that proposed USE is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This is a false statement. The Planning Commission in the resolution is not restricted merely to "the use"; it is asked to verify that the development AS A WHOLE (and not simply its use) is consistent with the comprehensive plan. To restrict consideration to "use" is an attempt to forestall the Planning Commission from revisiting the legality of the plat as a whole. The city, for example, employed an illegal process for the Parks and Recreation Board comment letter on the Kraewood Development. The LDC clearly requires a comment letter from the Parks and Recreation Board BEFORE a preliminary plat is submitted.
I oppose the TIF funds to Rebound for the Paulson development. In their application Rebound states that 60 units will be rented at $950-$1450 and "affordable" units at $848-$1,075, plus $75 for underground parking. They are asking for nearly $3 million in TIF funds. However, when you look at the Timberfield Apartments (attached) you will see that their rents range from $800-$1,250 (no parking fee). Building 3 will open in April with 48 more apartments. Rebound says they will generate $40,000 per year in taxes, projecting $190,000 but subtracting $150,000 for 20 years. A lot can happen in 20 years! Timberfield generates full taxes without subtracting any TIF. Another developer proposes to build 150 units with similar pricing to Timberfield. So, why would you award public funds to Rebound? The "but for" rule doesn't apply because other developers ARE building the needed housing for Northfield without TIF. The HRA housing study says we REALLY need low cost starter homes, use TIF for that!
Dear Commissioners,
Once again the Development Director is attempting to limit your power. She makes the claim (p. 2 ) that the PC is being asked "whether that proposed use is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This claim falsely limits your role. The resolution states that "The Commission finds that. . . the Program and Plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City and conform to general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This resolution DOES NOT restrict the PC to " use"; it asks you to verify that the development AS A WHOLE matches the Comp Plan.
Please do not be misled. Please follow the entire Comp Plan, not just bits highlighted by Staff. Please also follow the PARB's denial of in lieu payment. In order to get TIF, the developers should add a substantial park to the plat to serve the families that might someday live in Kraewood.
Sincerely,
Karen Cherewatuk
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am grateful for your service to Northfield.
Our Development Director claims that the Planning Commission is merely being asked "whether that proposed use is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This is false. The resolution states, "The Commission finds that, for the purposes of the Act, the Program and Plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City and conform to general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." The Planning Commission in the resolution is not restricted merely to "the use"; it is asked to verify that the the development AS A WHOLE (and not simply its use) is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
We ask that you not be misled by this misinformation and that you follow the comprehensive plan and not just pieces and parts of it as directed by our City Staff.
Thank you for your dedication.
Sincerely,
Robert Thacker
I ask that my comment be read aloud and entered into the public record.
In the supplemental memo commissioners received, Ms. Baker makes the claim on p. 2 that the Planning Commission is merely being asked "whether that proposed USE is consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole." This is a false statement. The Planning Commission in the resolution is not restricted merely to "the use"; it is asked to verify that the development AS A WHOLE (and not simply its use) is consistent with the comprehensive plan. To restrict consideration to "use" is an attempt to forestall the Planning Commission from revisiting the legality of the plat as a whole. The city, for example, employed an illegal process for the Parks and Recreation Board comment letter on the Kraewood Development. The LDC clearly requires a comment letter from the Parks and Recreation Board BEFORE a preliminary plat is submitted.
I oppose the TIF funds to Rebound for the Paulson development. In their application Rebound states that 60 units will be rented at $950-$1450 and "affordable" units at $848-$1,075, plus $75 for underground parking. They are asking for nearly $3 million in TIF funds. However, when you look at the Timberfield Apartments (attached) you will see that their rents range from $800-$1,250 (no parking fee). Building 3 will open in April with 48 more apartments. Rebound says they will generate $40,000 per year in taxes, projecting $190,000 but subtracting $150,000 for 20 years. A lot can happen in 20 years! Timberfield generates full taxes without subtracting any TIF. Another developer proposes to build 150 units with similar pricing to Timberfield. So, why would you award public funds to Rebound? The "but for" rule doesn't apply because other developers ARE building the needed housing for Northfield without TIF. The HRA housing study says we REALLY need low cost starter homes, use TIF for that!