Loading...
Commuinity Development Authority- MINUTES - 6/16/2009 CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved, as amended, 7/9/09 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009 Chairman Frank Waltz called the meeting of the Community Development Authority to order at 6:30 p.m. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. PRESENT: Commissioners Rob Glazier, Larry Lefebvre, Gail Miles, Frank Waltz, Ald. Harenda and Alderman Werner ABSENT: Commissioner Kathy Chiaverotti, Executive Director Muenkel (excused) GUESTS: Suzi Link, Mayor John Johnson APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF May 19, 2009 Ald. Werner moved to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Lefebvre seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Review Janesville Road Grant and Loan Programs Chairman Waltz stated that staff had made the changes requested at the last meeting and that the programs should be ready for forwarding to the Common Council in the next few months. Commissioner Miles shared her written comments and suggested revisions to the language. Under the grant program, for the program funding, she added and/or to the sentence on projects providing a considerable match above the needed minimum of 50% . There may be one or more reasons why people feel they would qualify. Then, her suggested language was: Applicants seeking more than the maximum funding allowed must state in their applications which of the above criteria is fulfilled and their reasoning. Additional justification requesting funds surpassing the maximum may also be submitted. Providing justification does not guarantee approval. She stated that the CDA puts out documents with no implementation procedure. If they state what their reasons are, the CDA doesn’t have to go back to them for further justification. On the loan program, there was basically only one question that Commissioner Miles had and that was why the statement on the needed minimum of 50% match for the grant program is not in the loan program. Her revised language for the loan program was the same as what she offered for the grant program. Ald. Werner thought the match language wasn’t there because it was not a grant program. Commissioner Glazier questioned on the loan, why the application fee varied. Would a larger loan require more staff time? Ald. Werner stated some loans may require more work, insurance, or have a consulting firm review the loan. Commissioner Lefebvre suggested it could be outside firms being needed. Commissioner Glazier stated that under Program Standards and Policies, #3, he would like the word “test” removed and recommended it just state that the project will meet a public purpose as the word “test” infers that there is a test and there really isn’t a list of test items. Is there criteria that they need to get a score on? Ald. Werner would like to see standard formatting for both documents. Commissioner Miles commented that an application should be a part of the documents. Review Policies and Procedure Changes CDA Minutes Page 2 June 16, 2009 Chairman Waltz refreshed the members briefly on this agenda item. The CDA is struggling with an understanding or to clarify what the CDA’s authority and responsibility is with respect to items within a redevelopment district. He read the suggested language changes as follows: The Community Development Authority will solely evaluate the following proposals on how they adapt to the implementation measures and conceptual design criteria outlined in the Redevelopment District Plan that a proposal is within. Ordinance and design guide driven items will be reserved for the Planning Commission and Common Council unless the item is expressly addressed in an adopted Redevelopment District Plan. He mentioned that in the Redevelopment District Plan, there are twelve items the CDA is looking for in a redevel- opment and that would be the conceptual design criteria. Ald. Werner stated that the CDA can approve something because it matches the district, what was laid out for a certain area, but it is the Planning Commission that has the final say. They will make sure it is done by the ordinances, statutes, and done according to the 2020 Comp Plan. Commissioner Miles referred to (j) Review of TIF Project Plans when directed by the Common Council. Her first thought was is there ever a time when there is a TID outside a redevelopment district. Chairman Waltz stated that Moorland Road project was one. She stated that the CDA should retain jurisdiction over the redevelopment districts. She recommended adding the words “on a redevelopment TID” to the sentence. Ald. Werner did feel that the Common Council is going to approve a TID and they would want input from the CDA. Under (a), she questioned why the CDA would have jurisdiction over rezoning and conditional use grants. They may look at a plan and comment that it needs to be rezoned, but the CDA doesn’t have jurisdiction over that rezoning. Chairman Waltz stated that if the proposal meets the CDA’s guidelines and if so, needs rezoning, that is something the CDA would indicate they agree with it and send it forward for subsequent approval. Commissioner Miles offered the following language: “Among other duties, the Community Development Authority evaluates subject matter specific proposals and makes appropriate decisions and/or recommendations regarding how these proposals conform to implementation measures and conceptual design criteria outlined for projects located within redevelopment districts, Ordinance and design guide drive driven items within these proposals are reserved for the Planning Commission and/or Common Council, unless said items are expressly addressed in an adopted Redevelopment District Plan.” She also added (b) Grant and loan programs, under CDA jurisdiction, relating to said proposals. Commissioner Glazier appreciated this language was better. He felt, too, that rezoning and ordinance decisions was the purview of the Planning Commission. The CDA makes recommendations to them that will allow a project to fit in the CDA’s vision for a redevelopment district. Executive Director Muenkel was recommending that the CDA add to the by-laws an item on public input. Chairman Waltz read this proposed language: “The public input period is the time that the public may speak (Commissioner Glazier would like to use the word “offer.”) opinions on an item on the agenda. Generally, this is the only time that speaking (Commissioner Glazer would like to strike the word “speaking.”) individuals outside the members of the CDA and the various petitioners relating to an agenda item may speak. Allowing input or opinions from individuals outside the public input time is only allowed under the direction of the CDA Chairman. The public input period on each agenda is limited to items under New and Old Business on the night’s agenda. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. There does not have to be any discussion by/with the CDA during public input.” Chairman Waltz shared that this practice has been adopted by the Common Council and other organizations. Ald. Werner would like the public input on the agenda before Old and New Business. This would provide the CDA with public comments before they discussed the item. He would also like a form for the public to submit. Ald. Harenda suggested that a few of the CDA members would allow input outside the public input time, not to just restrict it to the Chairman to allow it. Commissioner Miles commented on having the discussion after each item on the agenda. The purpose of the public comment is for the citizens and that is supposedly who the CDA is serving and they should have an opportunity to speak. She thought the issue came down to one or two people monopolizing the comment period. She wanted to preserve the rights of citizens to tell the CDA what is on their minds. CDA Minutes Page 3 June 16, 2009 Commissioner Lefebrve stated that they are on the CDA for the business of the CDA and he felt that people coming know why they are at the meeting and usually for a specific reason and they probably researched the matter. He preferred it before the Old and New Business and three minutes should be plenty and to speak at the discretion of the chairman. Chairman Waltz felt it was important to have public input before the CDA would take action on an issue. Commissioner Miles stated the presumption should be on behalf of the citizens and additionally, keeping order at meetings. Chairman Waltz was in agreement that the public needs an opportunity to speak but he noted there are other mechanisms available to them to get their input to the organizations. NEW BUSINESS Resolution of the City of Muskego Community Development Authority Certifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment District No. 3 Project Area to the City of Muskego Common Council. Chairman Waltz stated that the Redevelopment District No. 3 is for the business park. It was duly approved and adopted by the CDA on May 19, 2009. Ald. Harenda moved to certify that the Common Council action was consistent with what the CDA requested. Commissioner Glazier seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. RD#3 Implementation Efforts. Chairman Waltz shared now that the Redevelopment District #3 Plan is adopted, the staff would like to have added on the agenda, the item “RD#3 Implementation Efforts.” The purpose of adding this is to keep the CDA informed of the projects that are ongoing in the district. Staff has been working with InPro to get some of the signs in place. Ald. Werner thought it was great to get an update every month. Commissioners also discussed having updates on the other districts on the agenda. Handout of Redevelopment District #2 Plan Draft CDA members were presented with a plan draft for Redevelopment District #2. Chairman Waltz encouraged the members to take the time to read through the plan and be ready to comment on it at the next meeting. PUBLIC INPUT Suzi Link addressed the CDA on several issues. They need to have an agenda that accurately reflects what is going to be discussed so people can have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Also, what the people have to say may have an impact on the CDA action. She alluded to the public hearings that are on a regular basis for Planning Commission and Common Council and does the CDA really want to have public hearings. The CDA is not just another committee. It is a unit of government under state statute whereas the Planning Commission is not. She shared that Redevelopment District #1 with Bushy’s and Redevelopment District #2 with Firestone has been active. Grants and loans, she understood, was for the Janesville Road project, not an ongoing thing. CDA was created to do redevelopment and answered directly to the Common Council. They have gone from redevelopment to the lending administrative arm for the city which is not a function of the CDA. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW The next meeting date was set for Tuesday, July 21, at 6:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Commissioner Miles moved for adjournment, Commissioner Lefebvre seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Stella Dunahee, CPS Recording Secretary