Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.17.2021 Minutes 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES November 17, 2021 PRESENT: Lori Palmeri, Susan Panek, Archie Stam, Steve Hintz, Jack Bermingham, Jason Lasky EXCUSED: Thomas Belter STAFF: Kelly Nieforth, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Sean Fitzgerald; Economic Development Specialist, Emily Tardiff; Grants Coordinator, 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 15, 2021 were approved as written. (Stam, Panek) 21-20 Public Hearing: Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property Located at 420 Ceape Avenue and 0 Broad Street ($150,000.00) Mr. Bill Wyman, 1373 Waugoo Avenue, Oshkosh, stated that he is the President and CEO of the Oshkosh Community Foundation. The Community Foundation spent years developing an entertainment area with the Leach Amphitheatre, invested a $1,000,000 loan to improve the Convention Center, and invested $1,000,000 into the YMCA right around the corner. He believes this area of town would be better used as an entertainment type district. He doesn’t think it is appropriate to put a non-entertainment facility in the area. There could be other options for the property. He doesn’t know what they are right now, but he does think it could be marketable for some other entertainment facility. Mr. Dan Schetter, 1698 Margeo Drive, Neenah, stated that he is the General Manager for the Best Western Premier Waterfront Hotel. His real concern is the proposed location. He knows that there is a homeless issue in Oshkosh and the community needs to come up with viable solutions. When they’re trying to attract guest to the hotel, they’re trying to provide them the best experience possible, not just from their team, but from a community standpoint as well. They hear wonderful things from guests, but one of the black spots is what happens in this area. The activity and sleeping bags became a little more pronounced during the pandemic. They’ve had many incidents of individuals consuming alcohol, which happens throughout the day, and coming into the Convention Center trying to get food or drinks. They’ll talk to wedding couples as they’re having their ceremony on the Riverside Park lawn. They’ll have people in the stairwells of the hotel because the building is open 24 hours making that difficult to control. It’s a large building with lots of areas to hide, which is a safety concern for their guests and staff. He thinks the location for the shelter is going to attract more activity to the immediate area. He knows there has to be a solution and a way to handle this. It is a difficult decision as to what’s right and what makes sense. He 2 wanted to share some of the things they contend with on a regular basis. When people travel to their community, they want to come to a safe community. Whether it’s perception or reality, how safe they feel is going to affect whether they return or not. It’s a concern when there’s activity right outside the windows of the Convention Center and inside of the hotel. If there’s an alternate location, then it should be strongly considered. Ms. Amy Albright, 5744 Ontario, Butte Des Morts, stated that she is the Executive Director of the Oshkosh Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. She thinks this is a very hard decision and regardless of what decision is made or what location is chosen, it is prudent that they accept the fact that they have these issues and work together as a community to address them. If this is the right location, then they really need to work on this from a visitor perspective because it is such a large part of their economy that it would be crazy not to think about whether this is the right location. She wanted to plead with everyone to really look at the reality of the situation for Mr. Schetter and his staff. She thinks they’re caring and compassionate people who want the best for the neediest in their community, but they have to make sure they’re looking at the whole picture and working together to do the best things for their community and visitors. Ms. Molly Butz, 3880 Crab Apple Lane, Oshkosh, stated that she is the Executive Director of Day by Day. She lives and breathes this situation every day. She agrees with Ms. Albright that everyone in the room wants what’s best for the community. She would invite them all to come and experience what they experience every day. The increased bed capacity of the new facility will help the community and surrounding area. They don’t have enough people on hand right now because they weren’t prepared for the number they’re seeing this season. When she goes back to the shelter one hour from now, 35 to 50 people will be standing the driveway and only 25 of them will get a bed. The remaining 15 to 20 people will stand on the front steps and her job will be to get them a to-go container and ask them what they need from their bins because they store all of their belongings. Unfortunately the reason the sleeping bags Mr. Schetter mentioned have appeared in their community is because they’re having to turn 20 people to the streets every night along with their to-go containers. It’s become a job to figure out how to accommodate 20 people who thought they were going to get a shower, get their laundry done, and have a bed. They have to figure out how to get them up to make sure they’re gotten to their jobs, appointments, and responsibilities because they’re trying to make a better life for themselves. She is going to be very honest with them about the big picture. In the last four weeks, they’ve turned away 154 people. That is the most they have ever turned away and it happened in only four weeks. Last year they turned away 72 people in a six month period, but they already turned away 72 people by day 14 of this season. She understands it is a huge problem. They are trying to create a facility to take away that burden from the community so that each night they know that their guests and the community are safe. They’ve seen around two new people per night since they’ve opened the shelter. More and more people are becoming homeless in their community and 80% of the people they serve are from Oshkosh and were born and raised here. This is about timing, being responsible to the work that they’re doing, the commitment they’ve made to the community, and serving their mission as an organization. They just cannot go on like this. Mr. Jason Havlik, 1944 West Breeze Drive, stated that he leads the Facilities Committee for Day by Day and their biggest challenge is the location. The committee looked at three core principles for 3 this project. The first principle is the location and making sure that they build a shelter where their guest are located and where their needs can be met. The second principle is the overall security for their guests, staff, and the community. The third principle is financial responsibility. They need to be able to build a facility that will allow them to be financially responsible to their donors and the community. They looked at a variety of different locations, but this one made this most logical sense to their group. They considered a renovation, but after one year of construction costs and increased operating costs, they would be paying around $2,000,000 more to renovate a facility that would have otherwise been gifted to them. They feel this is the best option given the location, security, and cost. It is a good opportunity for their guests. Mr. Wyman asked if he could make another statement. Ms. Palmeri replied affirmatively. Mr. Wyman stated that everything Ms. Butz said is absolutely right and he does not disagree with anything she said. Homelessness is a problem in the community and there are a lot of different people addressing it in different ways. He doesn’t disagree with that, but he does think there are other places for a shelter. As he said before, the Community Foundation invested in the entertainment side. They also support the Salvation Army, which is building a beautiful facility right across the street from where the Day by Day Warming Shelter is located now. They also invested into a free clinic that is in the same building as the existing shelter. He doesn’t know all the details, but the Community Foundation is aware of another proposal with a different location. He didn’t want to come up here and make it sound like he was opposed to the homeless shelter because they do a terrific job. He just thinks that the location is not appropriate. There were no more public comments. Motion by Panek to approve 21-20. Seconded by Bermingham. Mr. Hintz stated that there seemed to be some big issues with regard to the location. He appreciates that everyone perceives the need to address homelessness, but there are a variety of contending thoughts about where the shelter should be located. Somehow that needs to be addressed. This is not something that the RDA is asked to do. The RDA is asked to accept, at some appropriate time, the offer from the Housing Authority for $150,000 and then, at some appropriate time, sell and transfer the property to Day by Day for $1.00. By voting yes, they would be providing payment for a specific site for the shelter. By voting no, they’re really not precluding anything other than the fact that Day by Day would have to deal with the Housing Authority. There are a couple possibilities. One is that the Housing Authority would lower the price for the land and another is that Day by Day raises an extra $150,000 to purchase the land. Their decision is really pretty limited in terms of what’s going to happen. He would prefer to defer the vote for a variety of reasons. He thinks the various parties on the substantive issue need to get together and talk a little bit more about the appropriate way to handle this. Ms. Palmeri stated that as a reminder, RDA has a very limited scope which is the spot blight designation and acquisition. 4 Mr. Lasky stated that he does not disagree with anything Mr. Hintz said and he absolutely agrees with what the RDA’s role is in this. He asked if it would be appropriate for the RDA to allow the market to play into this property disposition. He asked if the RDA could purchase the property for $150,000 and then see what proposals they receive including the Day by Day proposal. Ms. Nieforth replied that it would not be possible using CDBG funds as the funds are allocated for a public facility to serve low to moderate income (LMI) individuals. Mr. Bermingham asked for confirmation that the funding is tied to CDBG requirements. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding this was approved in the 2021 CBG action plan and funds have been allocated for this specific purpose. If the RDA purchased the property, it would have to be for a specific use or for an organization that would use the property as intended in the action plan. Mr. Lasky asked if the RDA has funds other than CDBG that could be used for the acquisition. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively. Mr. Lasky asked if the RDA could choose to purchase the property with other funds and then see what proposals they receive. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively. Mr. Lasky replied that he also thinks their role as the RDA is to see what kind of economic benefits they can create through redevelopment, but the Housing Authority still owns it and would need to agree to sell it for that price. Ms. Nieforth replied that she cannot guarantee the price would remain $150,000 if they’re veering away from the intended use. She has not discussed that with them and she does not want to go down that road. Mr. Lasky replied that the memo provided indicated that there hasn’t been a use. Ms. Nieforth replied that the Housing Authority does not have an intended use for it, but it’s something former staff worked on with Day by Day and the Housing Authority since 2017. Mr. Lasky replied that he thinks there are alternatives to this proposal. Mr. Stam stated that he does not recall the RDA ever being used as a conduit to transfer from one organization to another. He is confused about their role in this. 5 Ms. Nieforth stated that in the past there have been times where the RDA has purchased a property wanting to see some sort of development or redevelopment, although not specifically for this use. The RDA has not done it in this specific way before. Mr. Stam replied that it’s almost like designated funds and they’ve told the RDA the only place they can spend those funds is at this location. Ms. Nieforth replied that it could be for any location in Oshkosh, but there are specific requirements for CDBG funds. Right now the proposed location meets all those requirements and they planned for this location. They could potentially use CDBG funds if another location could be acquired for $150,000. Ms. Palmeri asked if Ms. Nieforth could provide the criteria for spot blight designation. Ms. Nieforth replied that it’s usually underutilized properties that could either be vacant or have a dilapidated building. The location is also a factor if it’s in a lower income area or an area where property values are lower. Those are some of the parameters used to define a property as blighted and they feel that this property meets those definitions. Ms. Panek stated that she thinks Mr. Hintz did a good job of explaining the RDA’s role in this. Her problem is that whatever they decide will negatively impact someone in the room. The location has been vacant for a very long time. It is an old building that had one, maybe two tenants in it for years before it was torn down. She gets what everyone is saying, but there also hasn’t been any effort to develop the property. If it’s going to be used for entertainment, then someone needs to work toward that. Ms. Palmeri stated that her understanding is that the Sawdust district has started to become an entertainment district and the central city is mixed use. They don’t dictate to private entities. If it’s a permitted use, they’re not telling them no. The RDA is looking at if it is blighted and if they’re going to acquire the property. Mr. Lasky stated that he’d like to remove the CDBG funding requirement to offer the flexibility needed to create potential economic development. Having a non-profit on the site means they’re a non-taxable entity. Ms. Nieforth replied that they would need to include the funding source with the approval. If they’re not using CDBG funds for the acquisition, then they will need to find something else to spend the $150,000 on in the next three years. Ms. Palmeri asked if they could approve the spot blight and acquisition separately. Mr. Hintz stated that he is going to vote against everything and make a motion that they defer to either the next meeting or the meeting after that to do it right and get some people talking to each other. 6 Ms. Nieforth stated that the intention was to start construction in spring of 2022. There is an RDA meeting scheduled for January and March, but they could also have a special meeting. RDA will need to meet to approve selling the property to Day by Day. If he is going to move forward with the motion, she would like for Mr. Hintz to clarify what he wants staff to do. Day by Day already received approval from Council for zoning and a general development plan. She wants to make sure that staff know what they need to know to come together. Mr. Hintz replied that he doesn’t think staff needs to do much of anything at this point. They need to communicate to various groups in the community that they’d like to have a robust consideration of the site. Their role is a fairly limited one, but it has obligations that go much further than that. Ms. Panek replied that if they follow Mr. Lasky’s suggestion, they would still need to know whether or not the Housing Authority would sell it for the $150,000, so that would be something for staff to follow up on and determine if the offer is contingent on the use. Ms. Palmeri asked if the new Housing Authority Director was made aware of the meeting. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively. Mr. Lasky asked if there was a written agreement with the Housing Authority. Ms. Nieforth replied that there isn’t an agreement and she does not have permission to enter into an agreement. Ms. Palmeri stated that Council approved the other parts of this, so the RDA would be taking a different path than what the Council has approved. Mr. Lasky replied that the RDA exists to make their own independent decisions. Motion by Hintz to defer 21-20 until the next scheduled RDA meeting. Seconded by Bermingham. Motion carried 5-1 (No: Palmeri). Ms. Nieforth stated that she knows Mr. Hintz said that there’s nothing City staff needs to do, but she wants to make sure she knows what they need to bring to the next meeting. She asked if she’s bringing back the same thing since it was only deferred. Mr. Bermingham replied that his understanding was that it would be changed so that CDBG funding was no longer included and they would check to see if it could be purchased at $150,000 without CDBG funding. Ms. Panek replied that there is also the question of splitting out the spot blight designation from the acquisition. 7 Ms. Nieforth replied that they could do that. Ms. Palmeri replied that the entire public hearing was deferred, but the intent as she understood it was to separate out the spot blight designation from the acquisition. She doesn’t know if there’s something that would require them to be together statutorily. She also doesn’t know if they would need to have a special meeting for that. 21-21 Public Hearing: Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property Located at 1203 South Main Street ($36,000.00) Motion by Stam to approve 21-21. Seconded by Bermingham. Mr. Lasky asked if this was the car lot. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that it is vacant now. Mr. Lasky asked if the house next to it is the one that broke in half. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that the City is working with them on code violations. It does have a raze order. Staff have been working with AECOM and they didn’t find anything concerning. They have EPA funding for the site investigations. Mr. Lasky replied that he doesn’t have a problem purchasing the property and asked if there was a need to purchase it. Ms. Nieforth replied that there are some environmental issues, so someone would need to deal with that. Mr. Lasky asked if the phase one was completed. Ms. Nieforth replied that it has not been completed and they aren’t moving forward with it until they know they’re going to purchase the property. Motion carried 6-0. 21-22 Approve Offer to Purchase 422 Otter Avenue; Megan Buss ($4,500.00) Motion by Panek to approve 21-22. Seconded by Stam. Mr. Lasky asked if there was an existing house there. Ms. Nieforth replied that there was not. Ms. Palmeri asked if they were purchasing the property for an expansion of their space. 8 Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that they own the house just to the north on the corner of Waugoo and Broad. They don’t have that much yard in the back, so it would just be an extension of their property to give them more space. Mr. Stam asked why the parcels couldn’t be combined. Mr. Lyons replied that the subdivision code does not permit through lots, in this case from Waugoo to Otter. It also doesn’t permit triple frontage lots and in this case it is a double and triple frontage lot. Ms. Palmeri asked why the prices differ for 422 Otter and 1628 Liberty. Ms. Nieforth replied that the Otter Street lot is smaller. The one on Liberty has a higher value due to the size and location. They work with the Assessor to determine the fair market value for lots acquired with CDBG funds. Mr. Stam asked if the value of the lot would be degraded if they couldn’t combine the parcels. He asked for confirmation that they couldn’t build on it. Mr. Lyons replied that it would be extremely difficult to build on. They could not build a code- compliant home on a lot that narrow on a corner. Ms. Panek asked if the buyer understood this because her letter suggested otherwise. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that she has been advised about a through lot and that she cannot build an accessory building on the lot. Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Fitzgerald had that discussion with her before or after the letter was sent. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that the discussion was after. He talked the individual on the phone about a month before the letter arrived. There were some conversations in the month prior and a follow up after the fact to remind her of the limitations of the property. Mr. Lyons replied that Planning staff have had discussions with her regarding this property and the limitations. Ms. Palmeri replied that she would trust that staff will make that very clear before they sign anything. Ms. Nieforth replied that they would follow up with her to make sure that she’s fully aware. Motion carried 6-0. 21-23 Approve Offer to Purchase 1628 Liberty Street; Shirley Stadtmueller ($14,500.00) Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-23. 9 Seconded by Hintz. Mr. Bermingham stated that it looks like someone independent is looking to purchase this for an investment. Ms. Nieforth replied that she has a family member that lives on one of the adjacent properties. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that her child and his family own a property immediately behind it. She is looking to purchase it as an investment property and is aware that they wouldn’t be able to combine the parcel all the way through or put a fence on it. She’s looking at it as an extended backyard for her children and grandchildren with the ability to sell it someday for the development of a family home. Ms. Palmeri stated that the letter references that they may build a home on it in the future. Ms. Nieforth replied that they would have more flexibility than the Otter lot due to the size. Mr. Lyons replied that they wouldn’t be able to build a large home on it, but it would be significantly easier than the Otter lot. Motion carried 6-0. 21-24 Approve Offer to Purchase 672 Jefferson Street; KZ Holdings LLC ($8,000.00) Motion by Stam to approve 21-23. Seconded by Bermingham. Ms. Palmeri stated that it looks like RDA purchased this for $47,000 with CDBG dollars. She asked if they were able to sell it for the lower amount regardless. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that they plan to build a duplex right away. Mr. Bermingham asked if this was tied to everything across the street. Ms. Nieforth replied that the RDA owns everything across the street. Ms. Palmeri asked if this was demolished in the past year. Mr. Lyons replied that it might have been in the last two years, but it was relatively recently. Motion carried 6-0. Developer Presentations on 100 Block of West 6th Avenue Proposal 10 Mr. Jeff Edmunds, 1609 Weyerhorst Creek Road, Oshkosh, stated that he is the President of Aquire Restoration. They recently built a new home on 8th Avenue. He is proposing to put a fourplex townhome on the parcel similar to the homes behind Main Street. They’re individual units with their own separate entrances, garages, and driveways. Each unit will be around 1,400 to 1,600 square feet with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. There needs to be significant storm water improvement on the site and he’s received rough quotes for upgrading the storm water utility. He knows that the asking price is $27,000, but he is going to incur over $50,000 for storm water alone. He was being respectful with the $5,000 offer. The tax value after will be around $750,000 and he estimates around $19,500 in taxes annually. The $22,000 difference from the $27,000 offer would be caught up within one year of taxes. He knows there is a new development happening toward the east of Sixth Avenue and Main Street, but this is an area with a significant need for housing to support local businesses. There aren’t any homes in a four block radius. He originally wanted to do a fiveplex, but he allowed the developer on 6th Avenue to take the 50-foot parcel to be a fair neighbor. He is hoping to get around $1,500 to $1,600 for rent per month. He won’t be selling it anytime in the near future because he wouldn’t be able to get his money back until the surrounding neighborhood and empty parcels across the road are developed. Mr. Brian Seaman, 3569 Sand Pit Road, Oshkosh, stated that he recently purchased Automotive Specialists. They are looking to expand the parking lot and possibly put up a new building separate from the existing building in the future. It would be a $500,000 building with a drive-thru from one side of 7th Avenue to 6th Avenue. They would be the only ones able to travel through. He was going to pay the asking price of $27,000. Ms. Palmeri asked if they were able to have dual access with the two streets. Mr. Lyons replied that the commercial rules are different from residential. He would have to make sure that they don’t have any width to depth ratios that would need to be maintained. Ms. Panek asked if he had any idea of the amount of taxes that would be collected. Mr. Seaman replied that the property they purchased from Automotive Specialists is already on the tax base, so this would just increase what they have now. Mr. Hintz asked what kind of building they would be building in the future. Mr. Seaman replied that it would be a possible quick lube alignment building. Mr. Hintz asked how this is zoned right now. Mr. Lyons replied that it is urban mixed use. Ms. Nieforth stated that she just wanted to point out that this is part of the South Shore Redevelopment Plan which includes proposed land use. The area in question is mixed commercial and residential and the commercial uses are intended to be compatible with residential uses like 11 retail and offices. She just wanted them to be aware of the existing guidance for redevelopment in the South Shore area. Mr. Lyons stated that both projects are permitted uses. Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that the rent for the townhomes was $1,500. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively, adding that townhomes are a type of housing that will be addressed in the housing study. They know that there’s a gap in what they’re calling the missing middle. They don’t have housing available for folks who don’t want to be in apartment setting, but aren’t quite ready for a house. It is a need that has been identified in the community. Mr. Lasky asked if there was a recommendation. Ms. Nieforth replied that if she had to recommend one offer, she would probably go with the housing because there’s a need for housing in the area and she’s not sure if the automotive proposal is in line with the redevelopment plan. Ms. Palmeri asked Mr. Seaman what he would do with the property to mitigate noise. Mr. Seaman replied that the shop opens at 7:30 and closes at 5:30, so there would be no evening disturbance. They’re open only weekdays. 21-25 Approve Offer to Purchase Vacant Properties Located at the 100 Block of 6th Avenue; Aquire Restoration, Inc. Motion by Hintz to approve 21-23. Seconded by Lasky. Motion carried 4-2 (No: Stam, Palmeri). 21-26 Approve Offer to Purchase Vacant Properties Located at the 100 Block of 6th Avenue; Seaman Real Estates LLC ($27,000.00) Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-26. Seconded by Lasky. Motion failed 2-4 (No: Bermingham, Hintz, Lasky, Panek). 21-27 Approve Redevelopment Authority Bylaws Motion by Bermingham to approve 21-26. Seconded by Hintz. 12 Ms. Nieforth stated that she worked with Ms. Palmeri and the City Attorney on the revisions, which involved changing the pronouns and removing a few items that were no longer applicable. Ms. Palmeri stated that she’s not sure if it would be addressed in the bylaws, but she was wondering if they could be amended to allow for an alternate or two alternates for the times their quorum has been a little dicey. Ms. Nieforth replied that she would reach out to the City Attorney to see what path they’d need to take to allow that. Ms. Panek asked if electronic voting is allowed. Mr. Lyons replied that he would need to verify, but he thinks it might be permissible for certain administrative items, but it is not permissible for quasi-judicial items. Motion carried 6-0. 2021 RDA Budget & Financials Ms. Nieforth stated that they’ve had a lot of staffing changes in the last year and are looking to use the City’s accounting software to better track RDA’s finances moving forward. The RDA has an annual budget, but it’s more of a pass-through account. The City borrows money from CIP for acquisitions and demolitions and there’s also CDBG funding available. Something they’d like to do for 2022 is get a good idea of how much it costs to maintain each property. Next time they see the financials they will be a bit easier to read and understand and staff will have better tools for tracking the costs per property. Mr. Stam replied that it’s terribly difficult to understand. Ms. Nieforth replied that they’re trying to make it more efficient. Mr. Stam asked for confirmation that they didn’t spend any of the money budgeted in land purchases. Ms. Palmeri asked what the date range is for this. Ms. Maier replied that this is for 2021. The transfers in from other funds represents in revenue represent the dollar amount spent on acquisitions. The budget for land purchases is a placeholder to show what the RDA could spend up to in 2021 for acquisitions. Ms. Nieforth replied that it is an estimate that they come up with for budgeting in July. Mr. Lasky replied that it still indicates they didn’t spend a dime. Ms. Nieforth replied that they spent around $148,000 for acquisitions. 13 Ms. Maier replied that the $148,000 shows in revenue because it represents the amount that was transferred in specifically for acquisitions. Ms. Palmeri asked what the $4,469 expense for Franklin Street is. Ms. Maier replied that it’s a special assessment for sidewalks. Mr. Lasky asked if they might want to push to spend more money now that they have this data. He also asked if the funds roll over. Ms. Nieforth replied that the funds roll over, but there are time limitations on when they can spend CDBG dollars. Obviously they want to spend it, but they want to be sure they are mindful of their redevelopment plans and are thinking strategically about where to focus their redevelopment efforts. Mr. Bermingham thanked staff for sharing the financials. Ms. Nieforth replied that they will try to make it easier for everyone to understand for next time and make it clear what the costs are for each property. Ms. Palmeri asked what the Covanta Holding Corporation expense for 1004 South Main is. Ms. Nieforth replied that it’s environmental liquids. There was probably a storage tank they needed to dispose of with the demolition. 2020 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Ms. Nieforth presented the 2020 CAPER to the RDA and provided clarification about a revision to the narrative under CR-15. The correct LMI benefit for the 2020 program year is 73.86%. Ms. Palmeri asked where the Day by Day Warming Shelter is reflected in the CAPER. Ms. Nieforth replied that it is not in the 2020 CAPER, but it will appear in the 2021 CAPER. Near East Neighborhood and Redevelopment Plans Mr. Lyons stated that since 2014, the Midtown and Historic Fourth Ward Neighborhood Associations were established in this area. There have been five new homes in the area and 14 CDBG owner rehabilitation projects since 2006. They did a number of dumpster days in the Midtown Neighborhood Association to help with some of the cleanup activities. There have been 650 code enforcement cases established and rectified since 2014. Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Lyons was referring to the redevelopment plan or neighborhood plan. 14 Mr. Lyons replied that the neighborhood plan preceded the redevelopment plan. Ms. Palmeri replied that it was an epic fail. Mr. Lyons replied that neighborhood planning has improved. Midtown has a plan and a plan for Historic Fourth Ward will be coming in the next couple of years. The Planning division has taken a more proactive role in neighborhood planning compared to what was done in 2006. The numbers he’s providing refer specifically to the redevelopment plan that came from the original neighborhood plan. Mr. Stam asked about the areas carved out on Main Street and who determines how the plan is put together. Mr. Lyons replied that the RDA and Council would have approved the final layout. Ms. Panek asked what criteria was used. Mr. Lyons replied that he could not speak specifically to the criteria used in 2006. Ms. Palmeri asked if the plan is still relevant given the recent activity in the area and because some of the objectives were already achieved. Mr. Lyons replied that he would say the neighborhood plan is no longer valid as they have the two neighborhood associations. There is some flexibility to determine if they want to continue with the redevelopment plan. It helped to guide a lot of policies and programming. It still calls for residential development of the area. He thinks that’s probably still valid, but he’s unsure if a redevelopment plan is needed to continue down that path. He doesn’t think the activities will end without the redevelopment plan in place. Ms. Palmeri replied that respectfully, she has a little different and perhaps biased view because she lives right there. They’ve had spot blight development and improvement, but they’ve also had long standing blights in some central target areas. She asked if the plan needed to be kept as is or terminated or if they could update the existing plan. Mr. Lyons replied that all of those options are acceptable. One of the benefits of a redevelopment plan is that it focuses their efforts for potential spot blight acquisitions. Mr. Lasky asked how the areas of focus are chosen. Ms. Nieforth replied that they don’t go out looking for redevelopment sites. They come to the City and if staff feel the acquisitions make sense, then they come to RDA. A good future meeting item would be to take a look at the properties the RDA is holding, some of which were acquired in the early 2000s for land banking, to see if that same path and strategy still make sense. Mr. Lasky replied that he would welcome that and it would give them an opportunity to learn. 15 Ms. Nieforth replied that the information will be helpful as they roll out the results and recommendations of the housing study. Mr. Palmeri asked if this plan was in the opportunity zone. Ms. Nieforth replied that she believes it is, but she would have to confirm. She knows the RDA’s properties on Jefferson are, but she’s not sure about the whole district. Broad might be the boundary line. Ms. Palmeri asked if staff had a recommendation on the neighborhood plan. Mr. Lyons replied that they did things very differently in 2006. They do a much better job now with neighborhood associations and tying plans to the associations. It has really grown organically out of the community. They’ve been extremely successful and their whole neighborhood development philosophy has changed since 2006. Mr. Bermingham asked if staff is looking to do away with the way they used to do it. Ms. Nieforth replied that they’re not saying that anything in the existing plan is bad because it’s good information, but they have other avenues that account for a lot of the recommendations. Ms. Palmeri stated that her suggestion is that the neighborhood plan be dissolved because it no longer applies in many cases due to new plans that are in effect in the area. Mr. Lyons replied that typically in these situations they just overwrite them with newer plans because neighborhood plans are not a statutory requirement. The nice thing with neighborhood plans is that they’re more discretionary, so staff no longer need to reference them as they do their projects if they’re no longer appropriate. Ms. Palmeri replied that sometimes projects will forum shop or plan shop depending on what the project is and it can be confusing to have multiple and sometimes conflicting plans serving as a guide. Mr. Lyons replied that they could remove it from the website. Ms. Palmeri replied that it served its purpose. It was a learning activity of what not to do that informed how they moved forward. Executive Director’s Report Ms. Nieforth provided updates to the RDA. Adjournment 16 There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:54pm. (Panek, Bermingham) Respectfully Submitted, Kelly Nieforth Executive Director