Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.20 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES November 18, 2020 PRESENT: Jason Lasky, Lori Palmeri, Steve Hintz, Susan Panek, Thomas Belter, Archie Stam, Jack Bermingham STAFF: Allen Davis, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; Brian Wustmann, Economic Development Analyst; Anna Maier, Administrative Assistant Chairperson Palmeri called the meeting to order at 4:00pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes and closed session minutes of September 16, 2020 were approved as distributed. (Stam, Hintz) Public Hearing: Spot Blight Designation; 413 Scott Avenue No one appeared for the public hearing. 20-18 Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property at 413 Scott Avenue ($12,000) Motion by Hintz to move Res. 20-18 Seconded by Lasky. There was no discussion on the motion. The item was called. Motion carried 7-0. 2021 RDA Budget Mr. Hintz asked for clarification regarding the $250,000 for gateway blight elimination included in the budget. Mr. Davis replied that a year or two ago, the City completed a planning study for the corridor that leads to the central City of Oshkosh. Those gateway corridors are basically South Park Avenue, 9th Avenue, Oshkosh Avenue, and Jackson Street. A recommendation from the study was to acquire and demolish blighted properties on these corridors and Council approved some money to do so. Mr. Hintz asked about the magnitude of the project and how many properties were involved. 2 Mr. Davis replied that based on acquisition and demolition price, it is around 3-5 properties per year. It really depends on the property. If the property is given to the City, a lot more can be done. In some cases, RDA has to pay money to acquire them. Ms. Brandt stated that RDA acquired two properties on 9th Avenue last year, one in the 600 block and one in the 900 block. Mr. Davis stated that a budget is something new for the RDA because auditors require the RDA to be the recipient of budget funds. Council has already approved the CIP funding for these projects, so this is a matter of making sure the CIP funds appear in the RDA budget for all of 2021. Mr. Stam asked if the blighted properties would receive priority over anything else. Mr. Davis replied that whatever blighted properties we acquire would have to match what the CIP funding is for. South Shore has $500,000 budgeted, Gateways has $250,000 budgeted and Scattered Sites has $500,000 budgeted. Scattered Sites is the most flexible because it can be used anywhere in the City. Ms. Panek asked what the RDA has done after acquiring the sites, if the sites were demolished and resold or demolished and made into park land. Mr. Davis replied that typically they are demolished and resold. RDA started acquiring residential properties throughout the City to help with some of the neighborhood revitalization efforts and that’s where the scattered site program came from, which is partially funded by block grant funds. Any CBDG funded projects would require a budget amendment that would go to Council along with the acquisition of the property. The CDBG line item does not have a dollar amount attached to it, but project such as Scott Avenue are CDBG funded and would not utilize CIP funds. Ms. Palmeri asked if it would be helpful to see a list of what properties the RDA currently holds. Mr. Davis replied that staff can include that for the next meeting. Staff create maps every year to show where the RDA parcels are for marketing purposes. Mr. Panek asked if there was a reason for the reduction from $1,600,000 to $1,200,000 from 2020 to 2021. Mr. Davis replied that the $1,600,000 wasn’t budgeted at all. It was the transfer of funds for the 43 East 7th Avenue properties and staff worked closely with the City’s Finance Department to transfer the funding for those properties. $500,000 is budgeted for South Shore redevelopment sites if something similar comes up in 2021. Ms. Panek asked how much CDBG funding could potentially be used in 2021. 3 Ms. Brandt replied that she hasn’t touched any funding for the 2020 CDBG program. $150,000 was budgeted for 2020 due to other projects. She hasn’t started a budget for 2021, but she is guessing it will be somewhere around $150,000. Ms. Panek asked if 2020 funds can be carried over. Ms. Brandt replied affirmatively. The funds continue carrying until they are spent. Community Gardens Update Mr. Davis stated that staff has had contact with two or three different interested individuals or organizations. The RFP was updated to better explain the timing for applications. Applications were added for November, January, and March because staff thought those were timed so that a garden could be ready in 2021. Unfortunately applicants will need to complete a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process with Plan Commission and Council, which is a relatively lengthy process. The RDA will need to be cognizant of existing proposals until a lease is signed or the property is sold to an interested party. Staff also added the specific dimensions of the lots. The first round of applications are due on Friday. Ms. Palmeri stated there were some questions about what it meant to be a qualified applicant and she is unsure if that has been addressed. Mr. Davis replied that it has not been addressed because it is something that the RDA would have to determine. Mr. Lasky stated that the determination of qualification is the process of the application, of submitting the proposal followed by the review. Questions can be asked and concerns alleviated through the email Q&A. Ms. Palmeri replied that the question really is how an applicant would know that they’re not qualified. There were also some equity concerns about some of the language surrounding qualified applicants, but maybe the RDA could have that discussion about what would disqualify someone. Mr. Lasky replied that the question RDA has to ask is if what the applicant proposes is sustainable and how they propose to sustain and maintain it. Ms. Palmeri stated that some feedback she received from other potential applicants was that they were somewhat concerned about the sales price in the RFP because not all of these organizations would necessarily have the resources to purchase. She asked Mr. Davis if the addendum clarifies the action of proposing a lease. Mr. Davis replied that the intent was to always have a lease or purchase option. Past practice for the RDA was to lease the properties for $1 per year, which is unchanged. 4 Ms. Palmeri stated that she would also like to share some feedback from some of the neighborhood organizations who had initially expressed some interest. Given the events of this year and some turnover in those organizations, their concern is the longevity and sustainability of these gardens. Another potential applicant who is working on behalf of another group with UW-Extension is interested in applying for a couple of the lots. In the past RDA discussed some projects having a third party structure. Perhaps RDA will receive an application from an organization that would apply for all of the lots and then coordinate the lots in terms of vetting for the actual users. She asked Mr. Davis if a couple of applications had been received by his office. Mr. Davis replied that staff has had inquiries from two or three individuals, including the individual working with UW-Extension. It was a relief to some of them to know that they could still apply in January because they were only given one month for the first deadline. Ms. Palmeri stated that there were some questions related to whether the gardens were restricted to vegetable-type produce gardens or if someone could grow fruit or nut trees given the condition of some of the lots. Ms. Brandt replied that she has not had any questions in that regard, but she doesn’t think it would be permitted because the gardens will need to be above ground. No digging is allowed in the ground unless the lots are purchased outright. Ms. Palmeri replied that she does not have lead soil expertise enough to know whether or not fruit or nut trees have lead uptake so she suggested that they contact the Economic Development office. Ms. Panek asked if there is potential for another entity to take over the application and location process from the RDA. Mr. Davis replied that if an application is approved from an organization that says they will coordinate with neighbors or neighborhood associations, the RDA could consider that and the organization could then administer the program instead of the RDA. Ms. Panek asked if an organization like HNI or ADVOCAP, stating that ADVOCAP used to do it years ago, but she doesn’t know if they care to do that anymore. Ms. Palmeri replied that this was brought up to her as well. It would be promising in terms of giving some administrative relief to the coordination and vetting process. Ms. Panek asked if staff was reaching out to them or waiting to see if they reach out to us. Mr. Davis replied that staff sent this out to all of the organizations RDA discussed. UW-Extension seems to be asking the most questions. GO-HNI is also familiar with the project, but he couldn’t say if anybody is going to propose one or five at this time. Ms. Panek asked what is happening to Growing Oshkosh. 5 Ms. Palemeri replied the location net to the Hooper building was deconstructed. When she was there in late summer, Mr. Shoepke from River East had mentioned there was going to be more of a focus on schools, but that is all the information she was given. Ms. Panek replied that if they were still operating, they might be a potential administrator for lack of a better word. Mr. Davis replied that the RFP was also sent to Grow Oshkosh. Ms. Palmeri stated that the food co-op might also have an interest. Mr. Davis replied that the RFP was also sent to the food co-op. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Davis provided updates to the RDA. Mr. Belter made a motion for the Redevelopment Authority to convene into Closed Session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(G) of the Wisconsin State Statutes to discuss the purchase of 916 Mason Street in the City of Oshkosh. Seconded by Mr. Hintz. Motion carried 7-0. There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:42pm. (Panek, Belter). Respectfully Submitted, Allen Davis Executive Director