[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:05] Clerk and I will bring the Plan Commission meeting to order, Tuesday, August 18, 2020, six, can you do a roll call, please?
[0:14] Yes, that's me, Brassington.
[0:15] Luke Vessley, you're cannon, palm wiggle.
[0:17] Here.
[0:18] Kyle Shelton.
[0:20] Antanko.
[0:21] Chris Reynolds.
[0:24] There are four in attendance.
[0:25] We do have a quorum.
[0:27] Public appearances. This is an opportunity for attendees to provide public comment
[0:32] on matters that are not on the agenda.
[0:35] Attendees desiring to provide public comment on specific items on the agenda may do so at the time that the agenda item is brought up.
[0:43] Zoom attendees wishing to speak should type their name, address in the relevant agenda item in the Q&A feature within the online meeting platform.
[0:52] Zoom attendees may also register in support or opposition of an item through the Q&A feature.
[0:58] In-person attendees should fill out a public comment form and turn it into the meeting chairperson.
[1:03] When you are called upon to speak, state your name, your address, and provide your public comment.
[1:09] Please adhere to the three-minute time limit.
[1:11] Written comments will not be read into the record during the meeting, but maybe sent to community.development.
[1:18] At McFarlane.wi.us to be included with the agenda materials.
[1:27] We do have a couple of people registered to speak for item number four, and I'm just checking
[1:32] online to see if anyone is,
[1:40] we do not have anyone registered to speak at this time.
[1:45] Approval of the minutes, I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2026,
[1:50] Plan Commission Meeting.
[1:53] So, I can.
[1:54] The first for me in a second, from Luke, any questions or comments?
[1:57] You have a stand.
[1:57] I was in here, so.
[1:59] Perfect.
[1:59] Thank you.
[1:59] All those in favour say aye?
[2:03] Opposed?
[2:03] Motion carries 5, 0, 1.
[2:08] We do have one business item that we decided to move up.
[2:13] It is just a business item and then we can get into the public hearing part of it.
[2:18] So we're just going to take things out of order for just a minute.
[2:21] In the business section, discussion and action on the site design review permit for garage building
[2:27] edition requested by Windabies of Square Deal Properties LLC located at 4811 Vogue's Road.
[2:36] Yes.
[2:37] Let me, myself, ready to the point.
[2:39] He's getting that ready.
[2:41] We do have the owner and the engineer and their team in the back.
[2:44] They heard that.
[2:46] So if you,
[2:48] Wayne, if you want to maybe go to the podium, just in case there's questions from the Planning Commission,
[2:52] or Brian, or any one of you three, I guess can handle those.
[2:55] but staff will give an overview and then just one planning commission to know that they're here
[3:01] in case you have questions directly for them.
[3:04] All right.
[3:04] Thank you Andrew.
[3:07] When Davies is requesting a addition to garage building.
[3:12] At the property of 48, 11 Vodges Road, the addition will be 48 by 48, roughly 2300 square feet.
[3:20] and that would be an attached addition to the rear portion of the current building.
[3:27] From the conversation with the applicant, there are no changes to the current business hours
[3:32] and no expected increase in the 23 current employees at the proper year right now.
[3:39] In reviewing the property folder, we have found that there are a number of additions on the
[3:46] property and another number of improvements that occur on the property, these activities occurred prior to the applicant becoming owners of the property in 2015.
[3:58] That detail is kind of important for later when we discuss some of the impervious area on the property.
[4:05] So in the review of the Section 62310 E site design review standards,
[4:16] the standards for
[4:17] grading looked at the total pervious surface on the property, the current zoning for
[4:22] the property is CH for high-recommercial. And the maximum allowable, lot coverage is
[4:29] 70% in the applicant's application and in the calculations that staff had followed,
[4:36] the Kimmel to about 76% existing. So that would be a little over the current coverage.
[4:43] Again, this is activity that happened prior to the applicant,
[4:46] owning the properties. So in reviewing the application further,
[4:51] the addition of the rear garage edition may have pushed over just a little bit.
[4:56] So a little bit of conversation back and forth to figure out an additional 2% of where those can be identified and removed so that they stay within the 70s, 6% and don't exceed that.
[5:10] And then let me go further to.
[5:18] So,
[5:23] so here we have the site plan for the property.
[5:26] This is the existing current property area.
[5:28] On the right here is Vogenous Road and this would be on the left here, the rear of the property.
[5:33] And then identified and read here, the applicant has indicated areas of the asphalt and existing
[5:39] in pervious surface, that would keep them under the 76% in pervious surface.
[5:49] And then a table is provided here in the top left corner of one of the pages to provide
[5:54] kind of a summary of the lock coverage as well too.
[5:58] And then here we have a better look at where the both building will be located.
[6:02] So, this is the existing building here, the proposed building will be here again in the rear,
[6:09] 48 by 48 attached, garage, and two additional parking to the existing parking as well.
[6:19] In review of the application,
[6:24] there was additional landscape in that was included on the property
[6:27] that wasn't there previously satisfied with their unscathed plan that was provided,
[6:37] and then
[6:38] in terms of the parking availability on the property, there's two kind of mixed uses
[6:45] that was currently on the property, so the front of the building was where the offices were,
[6:52] whereas the rear portions of the building was where the kind of warehousing portion of the
[6:59] a combination of both those standards and I came up to you about
[7:04] 19 parking stalls that was required and then there were existing, you know,
[7:10] existing parking spaces that would be able to satisfy that standard.
[7:14] There are no additional comments on the buildings, design, other than the
[7:21] it would be consistent with the current buildings, exterior colors and
[7:25] siding and power in there.
[7:31] And then within the building design here as well too,
[7:35] discussion for the subsection E6E states are for the portions particular right here.
[7:46] No, no, it's right here. The portion of any building facing or backing onto any public streets or
[7:51] running a residential zone in district shall be held to the same requirements as the front.
[7:57] So this required kind of a machinery entirely, non-metallic or wood material that would face
[8:05] that street.
[8:06] However, when it starts to appear, we thought that this standard should be waived as it would
[8:11] create kind of an inconsistency with the overall building and introduced kind of like, again,
[8:17] just wouldn't be correct with the front of the building and the rear of the building
[8:20] kind of have this lot of front was not what I wasn't about in the street. And then the fire chief,
[8:29] the letter is included within the packet and just noting that the fire lane is just in sprinkler
[8:34] or satisfied to their standards. No additional comments, concerns from the village engineer,
[8:39] public work, structural police chief. And then yeah.
[8:49] So just at a high level, to recap there.
[8:51] So the initial submittal, the current site has 76% impervious kind of predates probably with the age of the site and its development are requirements for maximum pervious surface when they submitted it, the addition of the garage would push them to 78.
[9:11] Some of where the garage is going to be located already is in pervious area, it's part of
[9:16] asphalt parking now. So in order to stay compliant with sort of what they have now, we
[9:23] asked them to go back and find 2% to cut somewhere to not exceed 76 and so they did that. That's
[9:30] what Kong showed by removing some of that asphalt there and then again we're suggesting waving
[9:38] the requirement to have it, the exterior building materials be non-metallic or masonry simply
[9:46] because this is an addition at the rear of the building which is not visible from public
[9:52] street, which is generally the intent when we have that type of building design requirement
[9:57] as we're looking for higher quality materials for buildings that are particularly visible to
[10:01] public from the street. So that staff comments and again if you have any questions for us
[10:09] or the applicant, we're happy to take them.
[10:18] Anybody have any questions?
[10:21] Is there anything
[10:21] you guys would like to add? Sure.
[10:32] Again, Wendy's with WDaves and Center Modeling. I
[10:35] want to say thank you again for the Q&A, Q&A meeting forth. It was really easy. We are on the
[10:44] a commercial sector, a bit different for us,
[10:47] and I found that I'm just using that process
[10:49] very easy to work with the staff.
[10:52] So thank you for doing that,
[10:53] and working with us to come up with the solutions
[10:56] right with Ed and Purview series.
[10:58] We appreciate that.
[11:00] That's Royale, I had to comment and say thank you.
[11:04] Thank you, thank you.
[11:06] And then any questions, do you think?
[11:09] I will make a motion to approve
[11:12] a site design review permit
[11:13] for a garage building edition requested by Win Davies
[11:17] of Square Deal Properties LLC, located at 4811 Vogue's Road
[11:22] with the following condition of approval.
[11:25] The applicant to not exceed the current lock coverage
[11:27] of 76% through the improvements made with the request.
[11:32] We'll start.
[11:33] First, for me in a second, from Luke.
[11:35] Again, any further questions, anything?
[11:38] All those in favor, say aye.
[11:39] Hi.
[11:41] Opposed?
[11:42] Motion carries?
[11:43] Five, zero.
[11:44] Thank you.
[11:47] All right.
[11:48] We'll go back up to number four that's our public hearing.
[11:51] Andrew, do you want to speak during the public hearing?
[11:53] You do want to say something before the public hearing.
[11:56] Um, I can kick it off before you open it to the public.
[11:59] Perfect.
[11:59] To the public.
[12:00] Let's just not forget to do that part.
[12:02] And we'll forget to promise.
[12:04] We're all remembered to do that.
[12:05] Okay.
[12:06] All right.
[12:07] Let me just get myself situated here.
[12:25] Okay, so last Monday night we had a public information meeting and the proposed
[12:33] did. I gave a pretty lengthy but hopefully thorough presentation that is posted
[12:39] to the project website and available if anybody missed that. It's still there to
[12:46] review that. Afterwards we took some some questions at the end of that. I'll give
[12:52] high-level recap of the questions that we received.
[12:55] So it's then we've received a few additional questions and feedback.
[12:59] So there might be common questions that others might have had.
[13:02] So I'll address that.
[13:05] Prepare to address any planning commission questions before we open the public hearing.
[13:09] And also I just wanted to, you've met Katrina Becker before from Becker Professional Services.
[13:15] She's with us again tonight.
[13:16] She's the consultant, helping the village to draft the project plan to create
[13:25] So I think we're all fairly familiar, but just again at a high level, this is proposed to be to number seven.
[13:34] It is a mixed use to it.
[13:36] It would have a maximum life of 20 years on extended and I'll circle back to what extensions are available shortly,
[13:48] waiting for my computer to unfreeze so I can share my screen.
[14:18] Okay.
[14:20] So again, we have three
[14:21] primary parcels within this TID located at the Northeast Northwest intersection of
[14:27] Highway AB and LVM Road. And I think it's where all of where one of the main purposes
[14:33] of the creation of this TIFT is to aid in the relocation and expansion of Clifford Lumber.
[14:43] At the meeting I went through several of the project objectives and again I have all the slides from that presentation here tonight if anybody had a particular question about one of them again, but
[15:00] I think it is worth just going over a few of those one more time. So again, our main project objectives with creation is tid, we're looking to aid in the acquisition of land in the development of road utility and railroad infrastructure necessary to develop a small business part for LVM acres on the LVM acres property and adjacent residential development.
[15:23] We're looking to aid in the relocation of the existing lumber yard business from the downtown to
[15:27] the last one of the proposed business park to enable improved operations, growth of a local business.
[15:35] And we're looking to acquire the existing downtown lumber yard for the purposes of redeveloping the property
[15:40] uses more lined with our comprehensive plan, including commercial mixtices,
[15:44] Creasing property values, improving public safety.
[15:49] So at high level, those are some of our main project objectives.
[15:58] And just from a conceptual standpoint, again,
[16:01] looking at what those proposed land uses are, again, we've got
[16:08] Ms. Parcel, a proposed cul-de-sac to serve the new business park with
[16:13] Here on the north end, there would be a new rail sighting within the right of way of the rail road that's currently exists.
[16:23] So that trains going to Clifford would come off the main line for safety reasons, they'd come off the main line.
[16:30] And then there'd be a rail spur into the property for the loading and unloading of material.
[16:35] There would be an additional two to three other business sites,
[16:39] users to be determined within the business park,
[16:43] generally ranging about an average
[16:46] about 1.75 acres per site.
[16:51] And then the other two parcels includes this parcel over here,
[16:56] which is proposed for, at this point,
[16:59] approximately seven to eight townhouses,
[17:01] yet there's no approved development yet on that.
[17:04] site.
[17:07] It does not impact the existing recreational trail, shown in green, that would remain.
[17:16] And then you see the wetland preservation areas in both remain. One of the questions I've
[17:21] received in the past is, well, why are the wetland areas included? You know, one of the answer
[17:26] to that is, under state law, you have to only include whole parcels in your tent. So obviously,
[17:32] The wetlands still need to be preserved through the development process that would happen.
[17:39] Some of the images that we've shared.
[17:41] There's been wetland delineations done of both those wetland areas.
[17:45] And then there's required setback distances and regulations related to those wetlands.
[17:50] No different than if it was in an area outside the tick.
[17:53] Same regulations, same types of processes.
[17:56] And then we have the third property which is a lot of 18 of the early corner subdivision,
[18:02] which is an approved subdivision.
[18:04] And currently has two of the three approved apartments on a lot of 18 under construction.
[18:13] And then we talked about proposed improvements.
[18:19] Other improvements include the intersection at AB with turn lanes,
[18:23] removing the jog in the intersection with the eastern west side of LVM road in this area.
[18:30] So just at a high level kind of looking at again what the proposed uses are and improvements.
[18:36] Water and public water and sewer extensions to serve the business park.
[18:40] These are some of the main projects within this proposed tid.
[18:49] Some of the questions that we received that night again I'm going to recap these at a very high level.
[18:53] But initially just a question about some of the costs in the project plan related to site design costs to that include private property because it's a lower value.
[19:05] Generally, those are in there for smaller village related site design improvements.
[19:10] I mentioned at the meeting business purpose typically might have like an entry feature sign or something of that nature.
[19:18] Question about impacts to school enrollment.
[19:23] provided commentary that this school enrollment has been declining.
[19:27] There was a concern about, I think, the potential residential development and the ability
[19:31] of the school district to serve those future residential developments.
[19:36] The question about why not including lots one through 17 of the early corners?
[19:42] And again, kind of work through and discuss that as we go through the project plan, the
[19:48] do include what parcels are logical, they meet state statute, to include, but you're not trying
[19:55] to just tiff everything. You're trying to include what you think is necessary to make the
[20:00] tid reality into cash flow over 20 years. How Clifford will use the location to support other
[20:08] Clifford locations, so this is their only location where they can get certain rail products
[20:15] in the Dane County area, and so they do get real product that comes here for the McFarlane
[20:22] facility, but then also supports their other facilities like in some period.
[20:29] Questions about traffic impacts, and a traffic study we do have identified to have leegives
[20:37] perform an update of the Lakestone traffic impacts study that they did for their development,
[20:42] If the tid advances, and so that is in the queue,
[20:49] generally addressing bike and pedestrian safety.
[20:53] Again, there's a planned continuation of the bike off-road bike path along LVM Road by these apartment buildings and then continuing north.
[21:06] So that is planned in that area.
[21:10] We've also planned looking at reductions in speed limit and LVM road.
[21:14] Improvements to the crossing at the dog park.
[21:18] Those are all improvements in addition to the turn lanes on AB and fixing the jog that I mentioned.
[21:28] Whether there be community input on the potential planning and reuse of the existing bliffer downtown location.
[21:33] and yes we would look to do a digital community engagement if we do proceed with creation of
[21:41] Ted 7 and we enter into an offer to purchase with Clifford for the existing site there'll be
[21:46] an opportunity the village board has that identified in their capital improvement plan for next year.
[21:55] Could the Ted assist with building a community or senior center and the answer to that was no?
[21:59] We can't use Tid funding to build a community or senior center.
[22:05] Whether there will be opportunities for future input on specific development proposals.
[22:12] And the answer to that is yes, of course.
[22:15] At this time, the only approved development is that Lakestone,
[22:19] early corners, but whether it's Blitford Lumber, the other business sites, or the townhouse site,
[22:26] all of those are still going to need to go through zoning and site design review approvals,
[22:32] and at that time they'll be an opportunity to look at those in more detail.
[22:37] Questions about affordable housing, whether it was required to have affordable housing in the
[22:41] tid, or whether any proposed housing in the tid would be affordable housing or low-income housing,
[22:48] Again, it's not required for the tid to have affordable housing units in it and neither of the developers at this time were proposing affordable housing or low income housing units.
[23:03] Just general mechanics of how Tids work, we went over that tax increment taxes that are paid on the base value of the Tid over the life of the Tid in a number of years of the Tid, which again was 20.
[23:18] I had a few other questions that came up as well related to risk mitigation is kind of the bucket.
[23:28] I put it in because I had a few of these and I prepared a few additional notes on that.
[23:39] So, you're up on the screen sort of what are some of the potential risks associated with creating the tit.
[23:44] If we put them into buckets, it's really over investment and under investment.
[23:49] So in the first case, you know, a municipality, what if you viral funding to pay for infrastructure
[23:55] improvements or land acquisition, whatever you're looking to do to support new development,
[24:01] but no private development occurs or it occurs at a slower pace or at a lower tax increment
[24:07] value than anticipated.
[24:10] So, certainly, you know, when you're looking at creating a TID, you definitely need to be mindful
[24:16] of that.
[24:17] The other one would be the opposite, of course, what if there's under investment, you're too
[24:23] conservative.
[24:24] So, the municipality does not provide sufficient funding to attract development.
[24:29] Miss Fowlty may be too cautious with the use of the TID, and so then development doesn't
[24:35] occur or occurs at a lesser extent.
[24:36] So you're trying to balance these two things.
[24:40] You can't obviously remove 100% of risk when you create a tip.
[24:48] What you can do is take steps to mitigate that risk.
[24:52] And so there are some things both at a state level
[24:55] and then things at a local level that we do.
[25:00] So one of them is using conservative revenue projections
[25:04] within the tip project plan.
[25:08] That includes your projections of the value
[25:11] of future new development.
[25:14] So you don't want to over-value things
[25:17] and think that all these things
[25:19] are going to be valued way higher than what they actually are.
[25:25] Changes in tax rate.
[25:26] In this case, we're actually projecting
[25:29] that every year of the tid,
[25:30] that the mill rate in the village is going to decline.
[25:35] Just village-wide, it's not specific just to the tid,
[25:38] because the same tax rate applies to the tid
[25:41] and areas outside the tid.
[25:42] But just to be conservative, we're projecting
[25:45] that the property tax goes down every year
[25:48] for the next 20 years.
[25:50] And then property inflation.
[25:51] We're using a very low amount of annual property inflation.
[25:57] That is much lower than traditional history tells us property values have been increasing in McFarland.
[26:06] So if you were to assume no change in the tax rate, your revenue projections will look better.
[26:14] If you increase your property inflation percentage every year, your revenue projections will look better.
[26:19] We're not taking that approach.
[26:22] The second one is phasing new infrastructure improvements with the pace of new development.
[26:25] this one's pretty critical and so in this example securing development agreements before you're
[26:34] putting in the costs or substantial costs into making improvements, right? So there may be
[26:43] some communities in the past, in the state, other locations where maybe they didn't have a project
[26:50] in hand, like the Blueprint Lumber, or like this fairly corners apartment buildings that are
[26:56] already under construction, right? And they may be token approach of, hey, let's build a business
[27:01] park even though we don't have an intended user for any of the lots yet. Let's acquire some land.
[27:07] Let's build out all this infrastructure and they started absorbing those costs without anybody yet
[27:13] coming in to start to build anything to generate that revenue to pay for those costs.
[27:18] That's not the approach we're using here.
[27:22] We're looking to create a grid, which doesn't
[27:24] navigate any of the costs that are in here,
[27:28] then advancing with development agreements,
[27:32] knowing that there's applications for Bliffer
[27:36] to construct on their lot.
[27:38] But then also knowing that from day one,
[27:40] we also have Spirly Corners,
[27:43] which is developing with their apartment buildings,
[27:45] already under construction.
[27:46] And then because this is a mixed use tid, we also have the benefit of the townhouse development
[27:52] too, and we certainly see a high demand for residential development in the village.
[27:57] So that helps us lower our risks.
[28:01] Where feasible, if you can use developer pay as you go financing improvements, this is where
[28:08] maybe the developer takes on a larger share of upfront costs, and then instead of the municipality
[28:14] and then there's payments made back with the tax increment that's generated from their
[28:18] development to the developer that lowers generally financing costs for the municipality, so that's
[28:25] how it mitigates risks for the municipality.
[28:30] In general taking a approach where you're planning
[28:32] and designing your improvements to what you're projecting your future land uses needs are, so you're
[28:39] under-designing or over-designing infrastructure,
[28:43] pipes and things of that nature, right?
[28:44] So we're going through a thorough review.
[28:47] We're not at 100% construction design drawings,
[28:49] but we're engaging with our design professionals.
[28:52] We're engaging with professionals related
[28:55] to the rail improvements, right?
[28:57] To understand these things.
[28:59] It's best we can on the front end.
[29:02] And then understand what your local market is,
[29:04] right?
[29:04] Is there an under-supply or an over-supply
[29:07] whatever you're proposing to do with your TID.
[29:10] In this case, I would say we have an under supply
[29:15] in both housing and vacant commercial lots in the community.
[29:19] So we do have two to three additional business
[29:22] lots within the TID.
[29:25] We are at this time, we don't have an identified
[29:28] user for those lots.
[29:31] And so what we feel pretty confident that we
[29:35] will find users at the PIM.
[29:37] We had one existing business in town that owns a daycare that's
[29:42] already approached the village about some interest in potentially
[29:45] locating a facility there.
[29:49] And so certainly, we would look to potentially, first,
[29:52] maybe, market these sites, these other three sites,
[29:55] two to three sites, two existing villages, or a business
[29:57] is in the village.
[29:58] I mentioned at the PIM.
[30:00] Generally, from an economic development standpoint, you want to start by encouraging the growth of the businesses you already have.
[30:07] There are the inner community, there's employees are in your community. That's usually your best economic development.
[30:14] But it also is an opportunity to attract new businesses to the village.
[30:19] And then, certainly in the housing, we certainly seen a tight housing market here in the village as well.
[30:25] And then we've had conversations to you look at just beyond the village, just the market in general in Tane County.
[30:32] Again, it's pretty much been an under supply for a while now for housing.
[30:36] And for these types of commercial developments, right?
[30:40] If we were talking about building maybe class A office, building or in the Tid that would be a totally different market.
[30:48] But the market right now for either owned or rented least.
[30:54] Business Park, light industrial type spaces, similar to Blitford.
[30:59] Those types of uses, there's really an under-supply part of the process, which
[31:04] you know, I went through is just meeting with a local commercial broker, talking
[31:08] about what the market looks like in this area, and, you know, getting that feedback.
[31:17] Another question, what happens if the tip does not pay all the cost before it closes?
[31:22] In that case, the municipality would have to make the tid-hole.
[31:27] So the municipality would pay the remaining balance.
[31:30] And typically that wouldn't be done from reserve funds that are on hand.
[31:35] What you can also do is, if you have another tid that's performing well, that's still open.
[31:43] That tid could advance the funds to the general front, the general front could advance to that tid that's closing.
[31:50] and then that allows the municipality or the general fund to pay back over a longer period
[31:57] of time that advance from that tier.
[32:01] This is in a situation that we're anticipating in any manner, but this is how that
[32:08] mechanics of that would work.
[32:12] How do you minimize that risk, right?
[32:17] So from a state perspective, there's a number of things.
[32:21] One is the municipality can't incur any new debt
[32:26] the last five years of the tip.
[32:29] So the first 15 years you can incur project expenditures,
[32:32] take on new debt, the last five years,
[32:36] the only thing that you can pay for is any existing debt
[32:39] in any administrative related costs within the tip
[32:42] that you have to manage your tip district.
[32:48] You can't do any cash grants or development incentives without an approved development agreement.
[32:56] So that's very important because in that development agreement you are setting the obligations of both parties.
[33:02] And in the case of the developer, that includes things like assessment guarantees.
[33:08] And so if an assessment falls short of what was guaranteed, that developer has to pay the property tax based on what they agreed to.
[33:17] Anyway, we have to complete any reports where we look at the finances, the joint review board, meets to review and accept those reports, so we're looking every year at the health of our kids.
[33:31] We're required under the under statute to do more in-depth certified audits.
[33:39] Three times during the life, the first time is when you reach 30% of your project costs.
[33:45] The next is at the end of your expenditure period, so that at the end of 15 years in this case, and then at termination.
[33:52] And then this last one I bolded, which is under state law.
[33:58] If you're looking at your tid and it's nearing the end of the life, but it doesn't look like it's going to pay off for some reason,
[34:05] You can, you are allowed to extend the life for three years.
[34:09] If you need additional time to collect increment, to pay the cost.
[34:18] Locally, so those are all kind of state mitigation tools.
[34:22] Locally,
[34:25] we've been doing financial audits about an annual basis.
[34:30] Not a lot of communities necessarily do that, so we do annual financial statements.
[34:36] Any time we're reviewing new capital expenditures or development incentive proposals we're looking at updating our projections over the life of the tick district making sure we're on pace for closing the tick in the black.
[34:54] We have a local developer application review process. We do some vetting where we look at.
[35:01] we do independent credit and financial background analysis of developers, it's part of the process that we do
[35:10] just to make sure that they're credit worthy, there's no red flags in their background check.
[35:19] And again, I mentioned assessment guarantees.
[35:24] So those are some of the things that we look to do mitigating the risk going into creating the tip.
[35:31] In this particular case, what we've talked about a lot, which is really playing to our benefit here,
[35:38] the mix of uses, the fact that there is development occurring with Lakestone on Day 1,
[35:44] in the fact that we're looking to it at VATS, a development agreement.
[35:49] With Buffet Lumber as the anchor, before we would make investments in the infrastructure for the
[35:56] activities, things of that nature.
[36:07] I think that's all I wanted to highlight.
[36:10] Certainly, I'm happy to answer any questions
[36:12] the planning commission has or Katrina can jump in as well.
[36:18] And if there are any, then we will proceed
[36:21] to open the public hearing and take public testimony.
[36:25] I have to ask about the wetlands.
[36:27] Why is there so much wetlands included in it, did?
[36:32] Yeah, that goes.
[36:33] And what's the thinking of why that should be in the dead?
[36:38] Yep.
[36:39] So the reason why is because under state statute,
[36:43] we can only include whole parcels in the Tid.
[36:47] So we can't just take a Ziggity line and say,
[36:50] we're going to exclude that part of the parcel from the Tid.
[36:55] So if there's wetlands on a piece of property,
[36:59] the whole property gets included in the Tid.
[37:01] But just like any other property, whether it was in the tid or outside of a tid, you still can't develop those wetland areas, right?
[37:09] There's still requirements for a setback for impervious areas or new buildings to be at least 75 feet away from the boundary of those.
[37:18] The only improvements that are allowed between 35 feet and 75 feet, you can't have stormwater retention basins in that area,
[37:28] and then from 35 feet over that's basically left undisturbed.
[37:35] So there may be some retention.
[37:38] Ponds in this situation over there.
[37:41] Absolutely.
[37:42] Just when do you require my developers to do that,
[37:44] but it could be?
[37:46] Retention Ponds are required for development.
[37:49] You have to meet the 200 year flood event.
[37:54] So we would need to have storm water basins for the development.
[37:59] just like a lot of 18 on the early corners, they have storm water ponds and they have a storm
[38:05] couple of them. They have one on a lot of 18. Similarly, the other developed areas of the tid would
[38:12] also need storm water basins. We conceptually we kind of know where those would be. They're generally
[38:18] going to be on the east side of the cul-de-sac and the proposed last there because that's the lower
[38:25] part as you get towards the well-end area.
[38:29] The trail, which people have asked about,
[38:32] what is that?
[38:34] I've trail that the state, the manages are maintained
[38:37] and the city manages and maintains.
[38:41] Or, and it does seem to be outside of McFarlane.
[38:43] It goes into Dunn.
[38:44] It looks like or whatever.
[38:47] The current responsible for that, I guess.
[38:50] So the current trail is in the village.
[38:52] Okay. And as part of Lake Stone's development,
[39:01] I was going to bring up the map of that again, so I'll just give me a second please.
[39:27] Okay. It's a little bit hard to see, but the orange is just what I'm going to point out.
[39:32] Well, first of all, the existing trail stops right here on the north side of LVM Road.
[39:38] This is LVM Road down here.
[39:39] Okay. And it comes up through a village area here,
[39:47] uh, easement area, and then up, and then it crosses the railroad track, and it goes into the rules we've field subdivision.
[39:54] That trail remains. It's not changing based on what's being proposed.
[40:00] When Lakestone came through and got their subdivision approved,
[40:05] That included, also extending that trail off-road along the north side of LVM Road, and
[40:14] then eventually up along the west side of AB, up to where it currently, the bend is
[40:23] right here and where it goes down to realswood fields.
[40:25] So that's all within the village, so that's village maintained trail in the village.
[40:39] So that's where trail would be built.
[40:45] And what happened, whether this tid was going to happen or not, this was part of the subdivision review approval for that subdivision.
[40:55] So the idea is that you'll run the trail through this development
[40:58] to the side of the lumber yard and all that
[41:01] and then over and it ends at the end of McFarlin.
[41:05] I take it.
[41:06] The end of the part of the trail.
[41:08] So at this time there's no plans to have the trail cross over.
[41:16] We could certainly look at that during the subdivision
[41:22] of the business park.
[41:23] If we advance to that stage, I don't have a concept of that.
[41:27] We could take it to the call-to-sac, right?
[41:30] And potentially we could have sidewalk up to the businesses, right?
[41:36] When we met with, in January, the Planning Commission,
[41:41] a pre-application meeting to look at the concept
[41:43] from the different lumber, and one of the things
[41:45] that we talked about at that point was, well,
[41:48] currently in the subdivision ordinance would require
[41:50] sidewalk on the east side of AB from LVM going up when you develop that and the conversation
[41:59] that we had is what we mean when it comes time to come back to that is that really necessary.
[42:05] It's on the back side of future businesses and we know that there's a proposed trail on the west side
[42:11] and we really wouldn't want to have people on that east side of AB because you get to the real
[42:18] tracks and then you don't really have a save crossing, right? So we've talked about these things a
[42:23] little bit and we're going to talk about them again when we get into designing the approval of
[42:29] the subdivision. But as it is now specific to trail, this is the part that is planned and in particular
[42:41] serves you know those residential uses.
[42:45] Anyone
[42:55] else have any questions before I open out?
[43:02] You get to open?
[43:03] Yeah, go ahead and.
[43:04] Okay.
[43:05] I will open the public hearing regarding the creation of tax increment finance district number
[43:10] 7.
[43:11] Mixed use tid in the vicinity of LVM Road in County Highway AB related to the potential
[43:17] relocation of Blifert lumber.
[43:24] I do have a couple people that have already registered to speak and there's a couple of
[43:27] on mine as well. So I'll go ahead and call on Lynda Johnson.
[43:36] Yes, please.
[43:40] I'm Lynda Johnson and I live at 6318 Scandy Lane, which is very close to this
[43:46] proposed district. I'm someone who walks on that trail that you've been talking about three times
[43:54] a week for many years. And I'm registered in support of this. I'm grateful that there's only one
[44:03] or the townhouses going in on this side
[44:08] and that there's so much wetland being preserved
[44:12] in the midst of a time when there's, you know,
[44:15] everyone's wanting to develop so much.
[44:17] And I'm so grateful that that trail will be preserved,
[44:21] as I said, because I use it off.
[44:23] And I'm also an avid bird lover.
[44:27] And there's been concern about the cranes.
[44:30] I've seen the cranes in scallion village who when people feed them, they don't really care
[44:39] if there's buildings around, they came through our area quite well and I think that they
[44:44] will adapt to this as well.
[44:46] In fact, people that go into, especially into townhouses there, I think, will be very,
[44:52] While they're friendly, because of where they've chosen to live in, I would just hope that...
[45:00] There would be protection on the windows in those units from because cranes can get at them.
[45:09] So, anyway, I just want to register in favor of this.
[45:12] Thank you very much.
[45:15] Monica Gundersen?
[45:23] Monica Gundersen 5810 Main Street.
[45:27] I'm here also in support of Tid Number 7.
[45:31] Just a little bit, I moved here in 2010, in the 16 years.
[45:36] I have lived in three different places in my office,
[45:39] but we're all within three blocks of the current
[45:43] Blueprint lumber yard, so I haven't gone very far.
[45:47] I'm in support of 107 for a few highlights.
[45:50] First of all, to number 7, I would love to have a free phrase it
[45:54] as it is a long-term investment and not so much an expense.
[45:57] infrastructure is needed within any municipality to attract people and to create that greater
[46:04] property value and create the activity to have tax-based expand for generations to come.
[46:13] This kit, as Andrew stated, is really starting from a position of strength, which is pretty cool.
[46:20] We already have the committed businesses that are three local McFarlane businesses,
[46:25] like Stone Properties, Bliffer at having an operations here in McFarland and also LVM
[46:32] acres.
[46:33] And I think it's pretty neat that those people are willing to invest and support our
[46:38] community.
[46:39] There are options in neighboring communities that are offering benefits and tip benefits.
[46:46] I also think it's important that we stay real about the right businesses in the right
[46:50] places.
[46:51] So as I mentioned, I've been within the lumber yard within three blocks.
[46:56] I am a concerned person as a pedestrian in that area that does watch kids going to the elementary school.
[47:05] I also walk our dogs that way. Lots of mornings.
[47:09] And if you haven't been there, the operations crosses over the street, which includes
[47:16] four cliffs coming around corners and they have done everything they can from a safety standpoint
[47:22] with mirrors and I'm grateful for that. I also get to watch the semis pull really great tricks
[47:29] trying to turn out of there with full loads of lumber on a school morning 7 30 AM exchange street.
[47:38] If you want some concern come and watch that it can actually be very scary.
[47:43] This tip does, you know, just the structure of it, the system of it is really growth pain for growth.
[47:52] So it's kind of something that's an interesting way to have it work for itself.
[47:58] And then I want to make sure the community understands after 20 years all of that new tax base goes into the entire community.
[48:07] So everything that is growing in 20 years, the next generations get that advantage.
[48:12] And I just want to just say, you know, I really believe doing nothing has a big cost and one of the things I know Andrew you just talked about all the things that can risk mitigate and I would also just say really good leadership.
[48:28] So you have a direction with this and you know where you're going and leadership has to drive it. You got to drive you got to be attractive and get the results that you're looking for.
[48:38] So I'm sure we all have scenarios that we had opportunities present to us, that we missed and we look back and we think
[48:44] man, if I would have taken that opportunity and I think this is one of them. So I just want to emphasize this
[48:51] isn't just about one business. This is expanding and investing in McFarlane. We do have this strong
[48:58] anchors and I just want to say I really believe this is some thoughtful economic development
[49:03] with an investment today to create opportunity and return on investment for decades to come.
[49:10] Thank you. Thank you.
[49:14] There are a couple of online questions.
[49:16] Do you want anyone to read those or address those at all?
[49:23] We certainly can.
[49:24] Or we can promote while it's anonymous.
[49:35] Question about why I spirally corners.
[49:36] Why the titan compasses, it's really corner development.
[49:41] I thought late so it was not needing any taxpayer incentive.
[49:45] Certainly something we talked about at the PIM.
[49:47] Yes, when they came through and proposed a subdivision,
[49:49] we weren't, they did not ask for tip incentives.
[49:52] We weren't working on creating this idea at that time either.
[49:57] So that's true.
[49:58] The reason is why it's included.
[50:01] It's part of that risk mitigation that we talked about.
[50:03] That's number one, right?
[50:04] it helps to have that increment coming in on day one.
[50:09] The other is, there are improvements adjacent to.
[50:13] Lot 18, talking about improvements to highway AB,
[50:19] the interchange water extensions, things of those nature
[50:22] that are going to support the future development
[50:25] of the remaining part of Lot 18.
[50:29] So when we looked at creating the tid,
[50:31] Again, we wanted to balance, keep it as much of this
[50:37] really corner subdivision out of the TID and just
[50:40] including what we thought would be necessary to make the
[50:43] TID cash flow over 20 years.
[50:53] A question about potential noise pollution from Bliffer's
[50:57] development. I would say it's what we're used to already
[51:02] meaning this is an active business within the downtown.
[51:06] It's not particularly a noisy business.
[51:10] They have standard operating hours,
[51:12] meaning they're not open late at night,
[51:14] and this is sort of a Monday through Friday business hour
[51:18] type business, and so they're not doing manufacturing,
[51:24] or any outdoor manufacturing of goods in some manner
[51:27] that would create additional noise from that as well.
[51:38] question about improvements to county AB and LVM Road intersection to make it safer.
[51:48] And so again, when Spirly Corners was brought forward, there was a traffic study that
[51:54] was done for that subdivision in conjunction with review locally by the Village Traffic Engineer
[52:02] and by the Dane County Highway Department, and that resulted in identification of future turn lanes
[52:12] on Highway AB, so there would be both a northbound and a southbound turn lane added at the
[52:18] intersection. So that would be one future safety improvement. The other that we've mentioned is
[52:24] addressing the jog in the road. And then the other that I've mentioned previously not on AB, but on
[52:30] the LVM is the lowering of speed limit along that road, and then also we'd be looking to
[52:38] improve in 2027 LVM road from Devils Lakeway to the Coltsec, and then in the capital improvement plan
[52:51] the portion of LVM road from country walk. All the way to Devils Lake is planned for improvement
[52:59] in 2030. So those are when some of those road improvements would occur.
[53:15] There's one other question about excluding parcel ending in 5301.
[53:22] Is that the townhouse parcel?
[53:24] Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Luke.
[53:28] That parcel is also needed to be included in the tid.
[53:32] There are several advantages to including that in the tid.
[53:35] One is the revenue tax increment revenue generated
[53:39] from those townhouses.
[53:41] Again, it diversifies the uses in the TID.
[53:45] And it's projected to provide tax increment
[53:47] on the front end of the TID.
[53:50] Because there is a high demand for residential development.
[53:53] The owner of the lot, obviously, Ursul Builder's
[53:57] very experienced at building for residential development,
[54:00] particularly, they also here in McFarlane,
[54:02] as a local residential developer.
[54:04] And then there's also water utility that will be extended from the north side of the railroad tracks.
[54:14] We're currently in down and then under AB into the business park.
[54:19] So again, including not that parcel for those reasons.
[54:30] Thank you.
[54:31] So any other questions, anyone?
[54:34] Have anything to add?
[54:36] It is that we're voting the other two men in the online questions.
[54:43] That we entered all of this.
[54:45] Did I miss that?
[54:46] They weren't questions.
[54:47] There were two people that didn't want to speak, but registered in support of the Ted.
[54:52] Oh, I didn't see those.
[54:54] Did you know this call?
[54:55] Yes, I did.
[54:55] Okay.
[54:56] Thank you.
[54:58] I just wanted to make sure we didn't move.
[54:59] I didn't see them.
[55:01] Thank you.
[55:02] Stephanie, before you close the public,
[55:04] I don't know if there's any other questions from the Planning Commission, we can certainly take them or if there's other public testimony we still have time.
[55:11] In case there's not, I just wanted to refresh everybody on the next steps, because tonight is just a public hearing.
[55:19] The Planning Commission isn't taking any action tonight.
[55:23] So September 9th, the CDA will meet here in this room at 7pm.
[55:27] They will provide a recommendation to the Village Board, the creation of the TIT.
[55:32] The Planning Commission, at your regular meeting in September,
[55:37] you will have a resolution to take action to approve the TIT.
[55:43] The Village Board then is scheduled to meet a week later on the 22nd
[55:47] to consider their resolution to approve the TIT.
[55:53] And then after that date, but before October 30th,
[55:57] The joint review board would meet to consider final approval of the tid, a resolution to approve the tid.
[56:05] So all of those entities, CDA, is a recommending body, the other three are approval bodies.
[56:12] Then, that simply creates the tid, as I've mentioned before, it doesn't approve any of the other developments other than lake stones, which has already been approved.
[56:24] And it doesn't obligate any expenditures by the village.
[56:28] The next steps will be to consider real-state and development agreements that would spell out
[56:34] the particulars in more detail.
[56:37] We need to do final designs.
[56:40] So for advancing with those development agreements, then we'd look to do final designs
[56:43] for the subdivision, for the business park, looking at the future zoning of those lots,
[56:51] And then there would also be private development, permit approvals, right?
[56:57] So at some point, you know, Blifert Lumber would be back with the site design review to get that approved.
[57:03] And any other developments down the line, the townhouses similar, they would have to submit a permit to get site design review before they could start construction.
[57:14] So really, if we think about construction, the very soon, if anything would happen would be the spring of next year.
[57:20] And based on our projections in the project plan,
[57:24] development of what you see,
[57:26] whether it's the infrastructure or the private development,
[57:29] it just doesn't happen in six months or one year.
[57:32] It'll take a few years.
[57:35] And so we're projected that that's probably 2027 through 2030.
[57:40] What happened?
[57:42] So just a little bit about next steps there as we look ahead.
[57:48] Andrew, can you remind everyone what the Joint Review Board is who it's made up of and why?
[57:54] Yeah, the Joint Review Board includes the village president, and it includes a representative
[57:59] from Dane County, Madison College, and the McFarlane School District, and a public member from the village.
[58:09] So it's basically the property taxing entities are all represented, plus a public member.
[58:13] So those five members have the final approval authority over creation of the TIN.
[58:20] If the TIN is approved, then moving forward.
[58:25] The Village Board has the final authority over initiating or approving any project costs.
[58:31] Likewise, either the Planning Commission or the Village Board has final approval on
[58:36] approving any specific development. The Village Board would have final approval over any specific
[58:42] development agreement, so essentially once the joint review board, if they approve a
[58:50] tid, then they say, okay, you have this project plan. That's sort of the guide for the tid, right?
[58:56] You go ahead and manage your tid within the framework of that project plan.
[59:00] And then they check in on an annual basis to get an update on your progress.
[59:09] There's more of a general question, but it could relate to TIT-7.
[59:13] What if you, how would you, if ever the boundaries were to change of the TIT?
[59:19] How, how would that work, what would be a reason why that would work, or why it would need to happen?
[59:25] Sure.
[59:26] So under state law, you can add or subtract territory, parcels up to four times over the 20-year life of the TIT.
[59:37] So, in the future, it might be advantageous if there was an adjacent property that maybe
[59:44] when you created the Tid, that property wasn't even in your municipality.
[59:50] That's one thing is you can't include property in a Tid that's not in your municipality.
[59:53] So there could be an instance where when you first create it.
[1:00:00] You know, there's an adjacent property that's not any municipalities, several years go by, that gets annexed. There's a development proposal that's put forward, but it's contingent on potential tiff assistance.
[1:00:11] And so you go through the process, which is the exact same one as to create it. We would take that through the CDA to get a recommendation.
[1:00:20] We would then need to have a public hearing. The planning commission would have to approve it. The bill is board would have to approve it and the joint review board would have to approve it.
[1:00:29] So, you can do that, in some cases you might want to subtract territory out of it, and communities
[1:00:36] have done that before, if they're getting, it's really successful.
[1:00:42] Maybe they got a lot of really successful tips, right?
[1:00:44] We've talked before about one of the requirements under state statute is, when you go to
[1:00:57] cases, 475,000 plus the value increment of all your existing tits, which is the growth of
[1:01:04] property values in those tits. Together that has to be less than 12 percent of your total
[1:01:09] municipal equalized value. So there are sometimes communities where they're running really
[1:01:18] tight to the 12 percent, maybe they're over the 12 percent, but they have a need to create a new
[1:01:24] kids somewhere else. So they look at some of their kids and they say, well, we could actually
[1:01:30] subtract some territory out of our kid that would reduce the tax increment from that and get us
[1:01:37] under the 12% and so that's when they do that. So in that case, they're just things are really
[1:01:43] successful. I got another project that's the way that they might handle that. So and it's even possible
[1:01:48] in one amendment to one tick, you could both add and subtract territory.
[1:01:54] Doesn't happen very often, but you could.
[1:01:58] Thank you.
[1:01:59] And I think we've talked about that 10% before.
[1:02:01] It's essentially the state saying you can't make your whole village a tick
[1:02:05] in order to help growth.
[1:02:07] And so sometimes there's just a balance you have to.
[1:02:09] There is a balance.
[1:02:10] We're always trying to be mindful of that balance.
[1:02:12] We're always trying to make sure that we're not putting us tight to the cap.
[1:02:17] that limits opportunities somewhere else.
[1:02:25] Any more questions, or anything else?
[1:02:31] Katrina, do you have anything you would like that?
[1:02:36] Put you on the spot, sorry.
[1:02:37] Sorry, sorry.
[1:02:38] I think I think Andrew did good.
[1:02:40] Yeah, great.
[1:02:41] Thank you for your help, and this.
[1:02:42] Thank you.
[1:02:43] I would say that as we get to the September meetings,
[1:02:49] Katrina will do another round of revisions
[1:02:51] to the project plan.
[1:02:53] As we step through each meeting,
[1:02:54] we kind of go and we refining assumptions or we're getting updated estimates it's an opportunity
[1:03:00] to do that so we'll probably have some tweaks between now in the September project plan the overall objectives
[1:03:06] are changing and these are small general things but we're continuing to refine as we get feedback and we go through
[1:03:14] process. Okay.
[1:03:21] Last time I'm going to close it. Okay. All right. I will close the public hearing.
[1:03:26] We're getting the creation of text, increment, finance, district number seven. I'm mixed to you state
[1:03:31] and the vicinity of LVM Road and County Road, or County Highway AB related to the potential
[1:03:36] relocation of Blifert Mumper.
[1:03:45] We can move on to our business section, item B, discussion regarding
[1:03:50] in the villages, 2026, part impact fee study.
[1:03:55] Okay,
[1:03:57] let me just get this up on my screen.
[1:04:04] If people that want to leave it,
[1:04:05] yes, thank you.
[1:04:07] Thank you all, thank you.
[1:04:14] Okay, included in your packet is the first draft,
[1:04:18] sort of covered a cover of the park impact fee study
[1:04:23] needs assessment.
[1:04:25] Planning Commission has met three times now
[1:04:28] to review the proposed impact fees as well as obtain input from the Parks and
[1:04:35] RET committee. Not a lot of new information for me to share to you tonight. Other
[1:04:39] than I wanted you to have an opportunity to see sort of what is the full study and
[1:04:49] so we included that in your packet. The staff report includes an overview of how the
[1:04:58] pack fees would change based on the study and so if the study results in changing the
[1:05:08] impact view ordinance, I'm going to clarify that.
[1:05:11] So the parking fruit midfee, again, that's for facility improvements, trail development.
[1:05:17] You see, could be existing, the proposed and the net change and then the park land impact
[1:05:24] or the fee in lieu. Again, that's only paid if the developer doesn't dedicate park land as part of their subdivision or their development or sometimes they pay a partial impact fee where they do some land education, but they also do some fee.
[1:05:43] And so this one would be a decrease.
[1:05:49] And so overall, the net impact on a single family dwelling unit
[1:05:53] does decrease the slight impact or increase
[1:05:58] on the multi-family and the group quarters based on the study.
[1:06:09] So that's been prepared year in the packet by our consultant Baker Tilley and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[1:06:20] This is sort of standardized documents in terms of addressing what's required for a public needs assessment.
[1:06:26] Also known as an impact fee study based on state statute.
[1:06:32] And so it covers everything that you're supposed to include as part of your rationale and analysis for how you develop to your impact fees.
[1:06:50] Do we have we gotten feedback from developers on this over the course of that.
[1:06:58] This being addressed over and over again.
[1:07:01] We all had it done.
[1:07:03] Yeah, I was certainly in the front end.
[1:07:05] We did when we were initiating this project.
[1:07:07] We haven't had public commentate.
[1:07:10] Don't think at the last two planning commission meetings
[1:07:12] that I recall.
[1:07:16] Our next step in this process would be to have the village
[1:07:22] attorney provide a review of this that standard practice.
[1:07:25] And then we would advance a public hearing.
[1:07:33] So there would be an ordinance drafted that would revise those impact fees.
[1:07:39] What it would also do is adjust the amount of park land dedication in the subdivision code.
[1:07:48] Because we update that as well.
[1:07:50] It's a small change, but it's based on some changes to
[1:07:55] The average number of people per household and how we calculate what the square footage is per dwelling unit and then there's another part of the municipal code that references the study.
[1:08:07] So within chapter 23 of the municipal code it has all of our impact fee studies of the date of those studies and so we have to update that.
[1:08:18] So there'd be a public hearing on that ordinance, that includes obviously this study's in there.
[1:08:27] And then there'd be two business items. One would be a recommendation to the Village Board to accept the study.
[1:08:33] That means we're accepting that the consultant finished the work that we asked them to do.
[1:08:37] The second would be a recommendation to the Village Board on the ordinance that would change the impact fees.
[1:08:46] So, that's kind of the process that would go to the board.
[1:08:48] So developers would have, and they would be able to come to a hearing and let us know
[1:08:52] how they felt about these fees.
[1:08:55] Yeah.
[1:08:55] And even if there wasn't a public hearing, since we take public comment in anything on the agenda,
[1:08:59] they would also have a opportunity.
[1:09:01] But yes, absolutely.
[1:09:12] Okay.
[1:09:12] Were there any questions that you had to say, but I'm sure you covered this many
[1:09:18] meeting because ago, but did we have an analysis of our surrounding communities and the fees
[1:09:23] that they're charging? You probably did that two or three meetings ago when I forgot in
[1:09:28] about it. We did that over several meetings the last two in particular. I didn't include last
[1:09:37] month's presentation as an attachment in the packet, but it's still it's linked under the previous
[1:09:43] agenda items. So that's available and it includes all of that information. We talked at length
[1:09:51] about apples to apples comparisons and whether that's a right metric to use and not.
[1:09:57] So how do we stack up another community? Stoten, Manona, Corona, Corona, wherever else.
[1:10:05] Yep, our impact fees are higher. In particular, one of the reasons why we have a public safety
[1:10:10] center impact fee. That's a newer impact fee for us. And some
[1:10:14] commuters simply don't have that. And there's reasons why they
[1:10:17] may not have it. One, they might have had it in the past, but
[1:10:21] they paid off that debt and they retired it. And so they no longer
[1:10:25] have a public safety center impact fee. Other communities may have
[1:10:29] decided that instead of collecting an impact fee from new
[1:10:34] development, right? They were just going to solely absorb that
[1:10:37] cost through their general fund. So they made a policy decision. So there's differences in
[1:10:47] in impact fees from community community for a variety of reasons. But to answer your question,
[1:10:53] yes, ours are higher than others. Yeah. And it has to do with the center that was built
[1:11:00] on the east side there. Well, I can say that's one that's somewhat unique to McFarland.
[1:11:08] In our presentation, we had a column that captured things like the word library or park because
[1:11:15] those are quite common, but I could like want to key as a community center that they built and
[1:11:20] they have an impact fee for that. So it's kind of similar our public safety center words.
[1:11:25] It's pretty common that communities will have park impact fees. Libraries are pretty common,
[1:11:30] but again it depends does that community have a library or not?
[1:11:33] And they pay off their debt, and so once you get it paid off in them, they may not have that impact fee, right?
[1:11:40] So it's a point in time too.
[1:11:42] Well, explaining why the public safety building is impacting park fees.
[1:11:47] It doesn't.
[1:11:48] It doesn't.
[1:11:49] But your question was holler impact fees just compare.
[1:11:51] And so one of the things that the Planning Commission looked at or asked the question of is,
[1:11:56] could you not just show us the park impact fees, but we'd like to see all of the impact fees in comparison.
[1:12:00] And so we collected that data.
[1:12:03] Free informational purposes, but when we look at this study,
[1:12:07] we are only looking at updating the parking
[1:12:11] and pack fees.
[1:12:18] Good questions.
[1:12:20] I think one of the things that was in that presentation,
[1:12:23] you alluded to it.
[1:12:26] But I think the comparison is, like a conem all,
[1:12:29] the 10 or 12 municipalities were among the second or third
[1:12:33] highest in the parking pack fees.
[1:12:35] but we're also among the third or fourth lowest in our mill rate, right?
[1:12:40] So to Andrew's point of, are you paying for it through fees,
[1:12:43] or are you paying for it through tax, that's a balance too, right?
[1:12:51] And so they show up in different ways in different communities.
[1:12:53] Would you allow for it on that bit?
[1:12:55] I don't know, and I'm quite understand what you're saying in there.
[1:12:58] I'm just saying that while our impact fees may be higher, our tax rate.
[1:13:03] Among the property tax rate, among those same communities, is near the bottom third or lower.
[1:13:10] Okay, I
[1:13:17] mean, I almost got there before you finished talking.
[1:13:27] That's our, and this is the municipal share only.
[1:13:31] So it doesn't include county, tech, or school district.
[1:13:35] Is the part we have control over?
[1:13:55] Well, I look forward to having a hearing on this,
[1:13:58] But we can maybe hear from developers as to how they feel about these impact these since it's so much
[1:14:06] So so much larger than other surrounding communities
[1:14:10] That may or may not be an incentive to do development here. I don't know, but we certainly want to hear from people
[1:14:18] Thank you.
[1:14:26] Any other questions or comments on this one
[1:14:34] anything else you have no, that's it
[1:14:37] Great all right
[1:14:38] Um, our next meeting is Tuesday, September 15th at 7 p.m.
[1:14:45] We've to adjourn.
[1:14:46] We're adjourned.
[1:14:47] Thank you.
[1:14:48] Thank you.