just not use [Music] >> recording. >> Yes, I just hit record. >> The navigation is almost >> okay. Well, good morning everybody. This is Thursday, October 16, 2025. off to a
nice temperature start this morning. Remember who noted that in the weigh in. Uh it is 7:30 and uh we're here to talk about a singular topic and Stephanie Hawinson has the program. But first we'll call the meeting to order and then
we'll ask uh someone to do the roll call. Maybe it's our executive director. >> I will. I'll do that today. Commissioner Risser >> here. >> Commissioner Jackson >> here. >> Commissioner Pierce >> here. >> Commissioner Agnu >> here. Chair Hublin >> here. >> Um, as I mentioned earlier, we have a
singular topic to discuss this morning and that is uh possible usage of the property next to fire station new fire station number two which will be dedicated I think October 30th. That'll be quite a quite a grand day to
kick off that new facility. So, um I don't know, manager Neil, did you have anything uh that you wanted to preface in terms of remarks or eld director Haw. >> Sure. Just very briefly, you know, this is a topic we've had some interaction with uh with council before. You've asked us to gather some more
information. We've brought that back, but this is a this is a work plan item for us and we'd like to get some more input from you in this work session um style meeting. So, we've got a presentation that is going to be done by Stephanie and we'll be happy to answer
any questions. >> Very good. >> Thank you. and Robinson for actually done presentation. >> Well, it's brief and my and that's by intention. I wanted you all to have plenty of time to discuss um among you
know with your each other and see if there is a common vision or if there's more work that needs to be done um before we go on to a next step. So today's request we want um it is on the work plan for 2025 to come up with some
sort of plan vision direction for this site. Um it is now midocctober so we thought and with the fire station opening we thought maybe it was time to resume these conversations. Um the uh today we're seeking um
direction on whether or not we go forward with a request for proposal and if so what that request for proposal would be seeking. So if we move forward with a RP it um the proposal here or the suggestion here is to seek a residential developer um
that we would reflect the budget and values and we'd align with city plans. Now I would like to say you know as context the reason for bringing forward this type of idea or framing it in the way we did is at least my position and I think I can speak for most of our
department is we work within the parameters of visions and plans that have been approved by the city council and the HA. So we try to carry forth those visions that have been in these fully vetted plans that had a lot of community process and so if it's not in
the plan we won't I wouldn't bring it forward to you as a concept or an idea unless directed otherwise. So that is why it is um focused in the way that it is is to align with previous discussions
and approved processes. So, as you know, and we don't need to fully rehash this, but there has been this site has been reviewed and discussed and has gone through a variety of um steps to get to the fire station.
Um, if you recall, different sites were looked at for fire station 2, some that were city-owned, and this one required a purchase to put the fire station there. um which then the purchase had a price tag associated with it rather than um
choosing some city- owned property. The discussion of what to do with the outlot was somewhat there from the beginning. Um so we had the sketch plan that talked about the fire station in
23. Um and that time putting residential development in the south side was brought up at that sketch plan. It was at that time we said no let's focus on the fire station that's do part A before
we move on to part B. Um so it was paused. Um then there was the public hearing for uh the fire station 2 and then we followed suit. We did not talk about the outlaw
at that point. Um, in May of last year, um, Addison came forward at city council meeting with all city-owned parcels and, um, he had talked to department heads about what needs do you have that for
these parcels? And he presented it to the city council. And this was one of those. And it was mentioned at the time different uses that could be put there including what was highlighted in that was put um using it for residential use.
Can I I went back and I listened to that meeting and just a point of clarification because this came up when we had the August meeting and it was noted that we had approved a non-binding preliminary research for that outlaw and
the um six lots were discussed for a total of three minutes and the comment made about the outlaw was very brief. It was just that the Adina Housing Foundation is interested in it. That was it. >> Right.
>> So, I just want to say that, >> right? And then in the packet of materials that you had was how it was zoned and guided land use and some other background information about that, but it was not a deep dive for sure. >> It was not a discussion. >> Um, and then in August there was a work
session with the Edina Housing Foundation. they propose to you that an RFP process does occur for that site and that they as the housing foundation um proposed that maybe they run with the RFP to help with the developer. It was
decided that that may not be the appropriate pathway um for how to proceed and more discussion needed to occur with how to proceed with that site. Um and then in this last July, so it is city-owned land. And so in July,
you um the city council passed a resolution that authorized the HA to have these discussions on behalf of the city. Um ultimately the final decision will be with the city council, but because of some of the more flexibility with the H's focus is on housing and
redevelopment, it seemed like an appropriate body to have the discussions at the site moving forward. So why residential development? Um it aligns with city plans. We have a compreh and this is again how staff how
we come up with our um work plans that get approved and how when we present projects or are faced with projects, the context in which we review them. If someone came forward and said they wanted to do a water slide park, we would probably say it doesn't align with
any of our plans. um that is a no-go from the beginning. So crazy example I realize but just to show that we try to work within set parameters and guard rails. Um so residential development does align with the comprehensive plan,
the Southdale district plan and the climate action plan. So we are working within those big large plans that involved a lot of comm community involvement and input. Um it also addresses issues raised in the quality of life survey
from both this past survey and the previous survey. Um in the survey the it was um residents said 61% that there's somewhat to far too little affordable housing for singles and for
families and the need for more affordable housing was listed as one of the top four issues facing the city. And then it aligns with our budget pillars and um budget pillars and our work plan. Um in the work plan as we've
discussed throughout the year under livable city there are two items. One was to work on the comprehensive plan which was pushed off till next year for start. And so the only item was to advance progress towards affordable housing goals including increasing housing options and developing a
long-term growth strategy. So we had those three work sessions this year to talk about focus of for affordable housing and then the city owns this site. So it seemed like there was a way to meld the visioning process that you
all worked through and the fact that you own this property. So the guiding framework um we a lot of our work is within the confines within the boundaries of our budget pillars and
values to whatever we do with especially with city-owned land that we need to look at equity, health, sustainability, stewardship, engagement um and really work within what we have established as our values.
than the um guided land use. This site is guided in the comprehensive plan for office residential. So it is zoned differently. It is zoned um if I can recall planned industrial but as you are
aware we're going through that zone. We went through the zoning study and we're doing a zoning update with the comprehensive plan preceding zoning changes. So with the zoning update having zoning reflect what was been approved in the comprehensive plan. So the guided land use comes first,
changing the zoning comes second rather than moving the other way around. So this is guided for office residential. And then this was a concept that was presented in um March of 2023 by BKB
when they were talking about the fire station. So this um idea was raised at a meeting um by putting residential use behind here behind the fire station and really utilizing um the green space with
the wetland. Can I have a comment on that slide? And I've been looking at this a lot because there's a new street that is proposed and it's interesting to look at how it would, you know, require cutting through properties and parcels and buildings even lifetime. And when I
looked at that and I just thought about how it really puts the street pretty close to 76th and just the amount of space that remains. And one thing if we do, you know, and it does sound like the
whole idea is to subdivide this parcel and we'd end up with 4.8 acres, which is what was in the material for today. And I can understand why they proposed having a new street up that high because according to Minnesota statute, if
you're going to create um an easement for a cartway, if you're going to put in a new road, you have to have a parcel of land that's at least 5 acres. And we're talking about a parcel of land that's only 4.8. So I don't understand how we're going to get legal access to that
land. Um well with with these plans and with the following plan and plans at this stage they're highlevel conceptual. It's to propose a concept. It is not a sketch plan or a site plan review. And so that those issues would clearly need
to be the I'm assuming you're talking about the east west. Um those would need to prior to final site plan approval be reworked to align with um state statute and needs. But this is just highlevel
concept. This is what generally could go in this area. So it's not uh designed at all to be a final plan. >> My understanding is that one of the asks is that we approve moving forward with issuing an RFP to develop the land that
will be a landlocked parcel 4.8 acres in size. And I need to say very clearly I can't support that. >> So I think that's what we're going to be discussing >> what's being discussed because and and it would be similar to what happened at
um the public work site is that it's this mount >> come up with plans that you think could work on this site aligned with all rules, regulations, laws and proposed to us different concepts. This is just high
level one person or one team's idea. >> So Stephanie, before you leave this slide, >> y >> um at one point in time there was a um map that went right through Peter's uh game furniture or whatever the name of
that thing is. And this is not that map. Correct. Because um you know there's a store that has the the furniture and stuff. So that map if it goes through his land I would like it just to disappear from anything future
because he's like I keep seeing these maps where my store is cut in half and um so I think that was a fair request from him. So >> okay, >> you know I can speak to that. Um so I was involved in the preparation and then the delivery of these. So this
particular sketch I believe was one of four different options that we looked at back in the day >> and the discussion was how do we make that entire block it's about a 40 acre block how do we make it permeable for people for cars delivery etc. So there
was a number of scenarios laid out. This is the one that most people tended to prefer. Okay. >> Where there was that internal access that east west segment that Julia mentioned, but then um uh that center east west that goes on the bend with the
green space. The preference there um based on input at the time was to make that more walkable. One of the other concepts people didn't like was a giant road going through there. And that one um provided great access, but people didn't like that at all. >> I think that was the one. Yeah.
>> Right. And I did meet with each of the property owners and shared uh shared various concepts, got their input, and that's how we ended up with this. >> Okay. That stepped down memory lane. And then to refresh memory, this was again a
high-level generalized, not fully vetted um concept plan that was presented by the Adina Housing Foundation in August um of last year. And again, it was to show the idea that
the ponding and the wetland could be preserved and there could be different types of housing that could go on the site. um not saying that this is something asis that would move forward but just to show with massing and generalized
concept. So within um the RFP what we're thinking is that to align with the budget pillars and values that we make that forefront in the RFP that we have these that we make decisions
based on these. So that's how the proposals reflect that as well as land use and zoning and um the the concepts that they have to align with um with equity. You know, how would the proposal serve traditionally underrepresented
populations? Government fits in as I said at one meeting where the private market fails. Um that's an opportunity for government. So how can we be proactive in reaching out? Um, describe outreach efforts and how you can learn
about those populations and reach out and serve and what would be best. Um, include a range of price points with emphasis of affordable and attainable. Um, describe long-term affordability would be maintained. I mean, describe us. Give us a plan. Thinking of a
community land trust? Are you thinking a deed restriction? Are you thinking a ground lease? Show us that you know how to do this type of project. with health. Incorporate bike ped connections including internal sidewalks. Describe what healthy homes
concepts to include. And we could expand on these. These are just ideas that fit within our budget pill our um budget pillars and values. Sustainability. Describe the sustainable construction technologies that would be utilized. Include parking plan that minimizes
impervious surface and leverages walkability. Include a strategy for enhancing the wetland and stewardship. Explain how proposal has long-term value to the community. Describe the long-term viability that it's not something we'll have to revisit in 10 years. Include a
post construction value. Right now, that site is not on the tax role. What would be the co post construction value? What kind of taxes could it leverage? Um provide an estimated purchase price and explain rationale. Nowhere in today's documentation was there any mention of
purchase price or having there not be one. um that has not been discussed. Um and it would have been complete staff overreach for me to presume as much. Um so those are the ideas and how the RFP
could be framed schedule. uh if a discussion and a unified vision comes forward from today um come back to you in January with an idea the draft of an RFP and what it could look like based on today's
comments release it in February uh have a month for developers to be able to look and maul and come back with questions then have uh the HA review proposals in the spring
and then suspend it back to the council. Since it is uh city- owned land and not H own land, then go through the regulatory review process. Now, if there's an affordability component, I will guarantee there will not be a
groundbreaking this time next year. Um, it does take more time and more patience to pull together the capital stack for any development that would include affordability. So, I leave it now to you.
>> Okay. Yeah, thanks for that and thanks for doing this work for us, Paul. I I think we uh member noted that we had conversation in the past and had musings about what could we possibly do with that 4.8 acres and housing was certainly
one of the things that came up and just thinking about the passage of time and it has been a relatively brief period of time, but um I don't think I've ever had so many letters from our residents concerned about property tax increases
as I have had this year. Uh, and yesterday I was over at the Met Council for a TAB meeting and there are several mayors on the on the tab with me, Chas all in that same range that we're in
from a preliminary tax standpoint where we are where we are because of uh the request for additional firefighters. We were at I think 6 and a half% before we started talking about adding firefighters. So, um,
it's something that that looms large in the present is other ways that we can keep property taxes down. And one of the things I think we inevitably have to think about is this 4.8 acres. And I don't know what it's worth. None of us know what it's worth. And so, for us to frame a
conversation about what to do with it, it seems to me that we have to know what the propertyy's worth on the retail market. you know, we were to pivot and say, "We're going to sell this property and um and then use that money to keep
our residents taxes down or otherwise pay for things that we could pay for in the city." That to me should be part of the conversation as opposed to this is all good work and it heads us in a great direction. But I think we need to we need to frame it up a little bit broader
way from a foundational sort of standpoint before we head for an RFP on housing only because I think we've got these other responsibilities we're trying to wrestle with and wrestle it with to the best of our abilities. But here's an asset that we can that we
can think about using to help in some form or fashion that we hadn't really thought about before. I just I just think it's it's got to be part of the conversation. So, I feel like this is for me everything was good until you got to the RFP, you know, and it just seems
to me to a bit premature. Maybe we'll end up there, you know, but I think at least we need to figure out how to properly frame up a conversation. at least my my thoughts from from thinking about this recently. You look like you were
>> Yeah, I to I agree 100%. Um I was going to go back to slide two. You've already done this, so I'm not going to redo it. Um but we started out the today's request if it's not too
and that slide for me was fairly open to say okay residential development it wasn't tied to necessarily affordable housing or what have you. Um, I do think we need a a bigger, we need to cast a wider net
and um, but then we went from that and then we dove into affordable housing and I understand why the presentation went that way. Um, so that totally made sense, but I don't think we should go
forward with an RFP that is positioning us to only those kinds of outcomes. fact that you um no issue with that but I think we need to cast a wider net. Um, and
personally I think we should be looking holistically at how do we stabilize our general levy and just roughly I mean it would be awesome if we could bend that curve to
where we could stay within you know 6% right year on year inflation plus some factor that could be population or service cost something like that um as a target and then
try to make decisions to kind of get us that way which won't happen in one one budget cycle right that's a trend over time so I agree with the everything that you just said I think that is what we should we should do cast
a wider net for opportunities are there ways that we to use that asset to buy down the levy or, you know, pay some of the >> debt off. >> That was my question. Um, >> the what are the terms of the bonds on
the fire station? If we were to sell this, can they go to uh prepaying some of the bonds or is there a big penalty for that? How did we structure that deal? So, that's one of my questions. Um, I'm not going to I'm not going to have a budget discussion here today
because we've if we set a percentage and then try to shoot for that. We have to remember we have this policy of street reconstruction and that's about $500,000 additional spending every year regardless unless we wanted to stop reconstruction. But that's, you know, we went from zero
to about $2 million now and we're only about six years into it of a 16-year program. So, I'm not going to say inflation plus X unless X includes street reconstruction costs. So, just I want to put that on the table. But when we did all of this, we were in a very
different world than we are today. And we were talking before the meeting started about the price of coffee. You know, the United States has not sold a single soybean to China this year. So, the farm economy is going to be in a world of hurt in the year to come. I don't know how that affects Adina, but I
have the feeling that really um tough economic times are coming. And so I want to look at this through the lens of a potential recession or depression even. I've heard um forecasters say that. So what does that look like? It's it's a
it's a two it's a scale, right? A balance. On the one hand, we're going to be facing pressures for our city budget. On the other hand, the need for affordable housing is going to skyrocket because we're going to have a lot of unemployment coming forward and um you
know, Edina has been fairly um insulated from economic ups and downs, but I don't know what the next five years are going to look like. Um I have a feeling it could be really bad. So, if tough economic times are coming, what is
our how do we balance those two things? because as the chair said, we've been getting emails from people on fixed incomes. How are I can't absorb this property tax increase. Um I I just have limited funds, but those numbers of people who have
limited funds and are really stretched are going to increase. So how do we how do we put that balance together in the use of this land? And um I think that so those are sort of economic things. um land use. I think it's very important
that we do follow um that rough idea of um access by foot and there's going to have to be a pond there and so whatever comes forward is going to have to absorb the water that's on the land. Um but I
also like the idea of opening it up for um ease of access both by foot and by car. So those are those are good ideas and I I like that. But you know I I if we can get a rough idea of any idea of the
price of this land I think that would help our discussions a lot and again it's use and and economic uncertainty. But those are just sort of my big level thoughts. Um you know I saw the pictures of the town homes and the and the condos or apartments and and that's such a
beautiful plan. Um, but I also know that this is a big piece of land. It costs us a lot to buy it. And what is it worth to to resell and how can we incorporate that in a way that affects our long-term
um financial stability? >> Can I respond to something you said? >> I just want to be clear. >> I'm not suggesting that we have a budget conversation today. unequivocally if we don't have some target
some aspiration that we want from a fiduciary budgetary perspective will never achieve it. >> Oh yeah. >> And so I have had lots of conversations. I've got some ideas
100%. But I'm not suggesting anything today from that perspective. Um, but if we continue to make decisions without some kind of framework, then we're not going to be looking at
things holistically. And so that's all I mean. And so I just gave one example is you look at it that way. A second one we could say, let's look at our service costs per household. There's a bunch of these that the city has already looked
at. I'm just saying at some point we got to be thinking that way. And if we don't do that, then I think we often times it's easier to make a decision to say, well, this is about affordable housing, which I care about deeply, so we should
do this without thinking about, well, how to how we going to pay for it. That's all I'm saying. And then from the affordability standpoint, I what is what is so crystal clear to me
like we we talk about affordability 80% AMI, 120% AMI, but the trajectory that we're on, it's like I may not even be able to afford to be in E now. And so those
emails we're getting, they're not from folks that are, you know, 80 120% AMI. You said it. These are retirees. If our median home value is going to be over a million dollars in six years,
that's a huge affordability issue. And we can't look at it as such a narrow view, which we started with. And I get why we did that, right? But to your point and to chair's point, things have
shifted over time. And so I agree with your economic outlook. But that just underscores to me that we do need to take more drastic changes to get economically into um a better position
than we are tracking today. And so that's that's all I'm saying. And this could be something we could utilize to start that, but we have to cast the the net wide to look at multiple options. >> That's all I'm saying.
>> Just with the affordability limits when it is um you have to meet a income limits to live in house that prevents properties being owned speculatively. So, we'll buy it, we'll put it on the market as an affordable 500,000, you
know, $300,000 home. someone's going to buy that, hold on to it, and then sell it for a million dollars in a year. So, those affordability uh requirements keep those available for people with lower income and and prevent it from being turned into a investment vehicle. That's
all that that means for me. >> So, I do agree that there are a lot of unknowns at this point, right? Like we don't know what the fair market value for that site could be. Uh we don't know what the economic future holds. I think we can speculate quite a bit, but I
would still argue that we could move forward with framing up some type of RFP that still helps answer some of those questions. And so I don't the only RFP that I've been a part of so far is the public works site. And I really like that the way that that went. different
piece of land in a different area, but could we go forward with an RFP that isn't committed just to the affordable housing, but is just more broad of, you know, here's our comprehensive plan, here's the site, what ideas do you have? And one of the elements that we could
potentially include in there is we would like to see some proposals that have affordable housing, but I think it would also be good to be upfront of, you know, these are tough economic times. And so also looking at proposals that come with
the highest price tag are going to be appealing because the one thing I worry about is if we put out an RFP and we say, "Oh, an affordable housing would be great." I don't want to dissuade others who aren't doing that from coming up with the proposal. And so I think based on the language, we can still make it as
open. And then once we have that more information of what are the projects that are going on out there, right? We talk about the unknown on the fair market value, but fair market value is only what people will pay. And so if we were to do something like this, we could really come forward with some of that
information. What are those projects? How do they tie to the plans we have, but also tie maybe economically what are those different dollar amounts to go forward with the most information? >> Um, can we go back to the slide that
showed the access to the site that is being proposed? And I um am very concerned. Actually, it was the other image, the proposed um >> right there, because everything I've seen has shown access coming through the
side lot of the fire station. And so that is being both a parking space and an access road. And that concerns me quite a bit. And I I do really want to underscore that we need to view this as land that is landlocked.
And with that, the other thing, and I would really encourage both staff and my colleagues when you're looking at sites, go to the Henipin County GIS site so you can see surrounding property and see what's actually happening. Because as
you look at this, if housing were to go up to the south, you've got parking lot. Uh, I can imagine people cutting through the parking lot. This is a medical center. Uh, it's part of PUD8. And, uh, one thing, you know, we talk
about, could we sell it? Could this outlot be sold to expand PUD8? I don't know. Um, I don't know if anyone's talked to Fraenshu, but you know, that is one option. The other thing is uh
micro grids and just give me a are becoming so important and this is a space that is about one mile away from open access technology international in Bloomington. In
Minnesota we've got the University of Minnesota, the University of St. Thomas working on micro grids. Micro grids are paired with fire stations so that when the power goes out, you have more security in terms of your energy. U it
is a way to mitigate rising costs of electricity. I don't know if putting in a micro grid and we've got threephase power right along the western edge of that. It's also two miles from the XL Energy substation. So, it seems
>> that would be something the city would own and manage or we would sell it and have someone do that. >> I'm thinking it's worth exploring on either of those levels. And um I don't know if Franchi would be interested in having a micro grid. I don't know if anybody else in that industrial zone would be interested in a micro grid, but
there are grants out there for them. Back in April, I um emailed Scott one of those. And then a resident just emailed me there's one coming up. There's a deadline on the 17th of this month, so there's no way we can do that. But I I
brought this article and I would ask manager Neil to forward the email that I sent to you to all the council members. But, you know, this is technology that is becoming more pervasive. The grid is getting older and more unreliable. It
just seems like to not even explore this possible potential for this land is really an oversight. So I I think it could add value to any sale price that we we might want to pursue. It could be an educational thing. I could see our
energy and environment commission being interested in learning more about it. want to suggest like if you're comfortable with moving forward with an RFP like that could be one of the elements that we reference is like we would love to see ideas that incorporate this. >> Um
>> I think that still then would help raise up that price point and that's where we can really compare price points because I I do think it's an idea that is really worth pursuing. But the other thing is we need to talk with the parcels around us too because I don't know how they
might feel about having housing in this space. And I went out to the land yesterday and um it really does not feel like, you know, it it really feels like you're surrounded. All of the buildings are, you know, facing their backs to this land. It's not like you feel as if
you're in an area where housing would normally be. And I could see there being concerned with people cutting through parking lots. You know, if you want to go to Trader Joe's, you're going to cut through the medical center parking lot. Um, and it just it there's a lot of
things that really do concern me about an I would not want an RFP to go forward that was super residential focused. And I I do want to say I support affordable housing. We have invested nearly $6 million in affordable housing this year.
Um the 4.86 for those 15 units. Um and I I think holistic analysis is really needed. I appreciate what my colleagues have said about that. And on a personal note, my neighbors are leaving. Uh and part of the reason is because of
property taxes and they're moving to Minneapolis. You might think, oh well Minneapolis, they're higher. But as my neighbor said in Edina, it's not just that you're raising the property taxes so much. You're also assessing us for
roads. And so that's a double whammy. And it hit my neighborhood. We got assessed, you know, recently. We're going to see the president's neighborhood getting those assessments. We had a resident come forward and say
$9,000 is a lot. And it is. And >> does Minneapolis assess for street reconstruction as well. >> Not to the degree that Edina does. >> And so it just is really kind of unnerving to really think
about us entering into this situation. And I and I do think it's important to invest in affordable housing, but at the same time the number of emails I'm getting. Um, and you know, you think
about back when we were talking about raising density in Edina for the first time and I remember it's drilled. You know, sometimes you remember things very specifically and I remember uh council member Stanton saying this will be really good for the property owners of
Edina because it's a way we'll be able to keep taxes low and the problem is as we've added buildings density and I I talked to a consultant about Maison Green and I said, you know, I was I why did we do this? It's seven stories high
and it was zoned for four and two stories. Why why do cities do this? and he said, "Well, you know, it's a way to bring down property taxes or keep them stable." And then I said, "But we tiffed it." And he nearly fell off his chair. And the thing is, we keep tiffing multif
family, you know, and we we tiffed, you know, there's there's so many that we tiffed. And >> you know, this is not a discussion about tiff. We're going to have that discussion another day, and I would prefer to keep it for that. Um, so let's
let's talk about uh timeline and what you need from >> Well, this conversation. >> Yeah. We're not done with this conversation. >> So, I think it's premature to ask her what she need. I think conversational drive us in a certain direction. He's
got one idea. >> No, the the thing that I heard I mean I haven't heard really like what my next steps are. Um I don't know if there's an agreement on that other than there is interest in the valuation of the land and I don't know if that is um engaging
someone to do uh assessment or not an assessment but um >> appraisal >> appraisal on it. >> The first thing we did when we when we uh moved the public works >> to the new location the first thing we did was got an appraisal on that land down there that 3.3 acres find out what it was worth.
>> What was it worth at that point? >> Like 3.8 or something like that. over a decade ago, you know, and so what are we getting for it now? 4 million, >> right? 4 million. We res we sell it. >> Um, so, you know, in terms of how wid we
cast the net, as James says, how we frame this up, uh, I'm not wedded either to the idea of how it's guided. That's the point you're making is let's look let's look at a broad range of possibilities here because it's in a it's in a quai industrial area. Who do
we would frown like to buy it? I don't know. >> Well, you know, >> I think if you open it up to the public, frown can come in. I'm not comfortable just uh doing one-on-one conversations. I think you can do that as well as say, you know, there's this RFP out there,
but I I wouldn't want to limit it to just the neighboring um bill uh >> land. You want a broad broad RFP, they're certainly welcome to come in and have conversations. Bill is a really accessible guy and they know him. Um,
but I think if we could put out get an appraisal that's a brilliant idea and say, you know, basically we've looked at this kind of layout of this piece of property. Um, so you can use that, but it don't limit it to housing. um tell us
what your best and you know if the appraisal can kind of look at multiple uses because I think it is fluid enough in the zoning and the and the land use that it can accommodate a lot of uses. >> I agree with that. Yeah, I think to me that those are the whether we want to
call them next steps or whatever appraise the property and we want to frame an RFP and then the contents of what's in there, right? We could discuss that >> general >> in general. Yeah. And then
the process we used um just recently is a good process and then we get options to look at. >> Is there a chance that doing an appraisal would lower the kind of proposals that we get?
>> For sure. The number or the value? >> The value. >> The value. I I think we also need more clarification on how this landlock parcel is going to have road access and
the impact on the fire station if it is going to be through their side parking lot. >> I I agree with that, Mayor Mercer. Um, but I try to not judge how the developer is going to present whatever they want
to do. And then we have to assess whether or not that's right for the site. And there are various challenges to that. And you've talked about a few this morning. Um, and so I think we have to evaluate those as the proposals come. >> But I I do want developers to be aware
that this could be an issue. >> I think that's fair and I totally hear you. You know, we need to see what they come up with, but um there needs to be transparency about the challenges of this 4.8 acre land block site
>> for sure. >> Um what was the question? Um about we just said legal limits on something. Um >> I had asked if the appraisal >> Yes. Can we keep the appraisal private?
Is that >> I'm not sure if we in this context. >> What is what are the limits on that? >> If we're we should double check with the city attorney, but I think if we just do a general purpose appraisal to understand general concepts, don't think that's
confidential. >> Okay. >> If it's an appraisal done in while negotiating a real estate contract, I think at that point it's confidential. And I'm not so certain we want an appraisal. It's more of an opinion of value. >> Um because the first the appraiser is
going to ask us is what's the land use and what's >> right >> and when we say well we don't know we're looking at options they can't do an appraisal like that but we can certainly get an opinion of value >> that would that would price the different opinion of value or an appraisal what I
don't I don't agree with you on that if you tell them we want to consider a broad range of opportunities here residential or in some quasi industrial use they can they can go either They've got those skill sets on an appraisal basis. But
>> like give a range, you mean? >> Yeah. If it was going to be used for housing, we we think it's in a range of X value. If it's going to be used for an industrial industrial commercial purposes, it's got a range of X. They have those skill those, you know, like
Kushman Wakefield, they have those kinds of skills. But opinion and value would be less expensive. Mhm. >> And maybe may serve us >> our purpose. >> I think it would given the conversation here that we're not if we do an RFP,
you're not necessarily wed to the current regulatory parameters for it. >> Yeah. So, um Julie, with the um micro grids, who is building that? Is that private? Is it Excel? Is it government? >> It's there's so many different ways it
can be done. >> Okay. And so I mean there are municipalities that have built micro grids and then used it to their benefit for long-term um ways to offset electric cost. So I mean there's a whole >> doing that
>> what would be the cost of doing that to the city >> that I do not know. And so I mean it but I think it's worth investigating but it's there's a whole and there's also government grants you know so there's there's lots of different ways to approach it but we're like one mile away
from this place in Bloomington that is making headlines for putting in these micro grids. So you know you could walk from I mean one mile from this site >> in all fairness. >> Yeah. From my perspective, it doesn't
matter what the idea is. >> I'm going to ask the same questions. So, if if somebody comes forward with a micro grid, I'm going to ask my general le every question. So, so how is that going to help >> Yeah. >> uh stabilize our
financial cost structure within the diamond? >> And if the answer is it doesn't, then I'm going to start looking at the other another option. So I think it's a great suggestion, but I took it more general.
We should look at that parcel industrial use, quasi industrial use. That could be one of them, but there could be some other ideas that help do that, >> right? >> So that's that's all >> one of the things I was thinking is that it wouldn't require putting in access
road. Really? >> I got you. >> So there's that. I just don't know that I would have I mean I like the idea of it but it sounds like if we did it as a city it would come with an upfront cost and would take many many years to pay
off or to see that benefit and given the budgetary conversations I don't think we would want to take on something like that ourselves and so I agree like maybe it's a data point we can put within the RFP as a seeding an idea but I don't think it's something the city should take on at this point
>> I don't know enough to make a statement like that cuz there, you know, there could be enough support out there, but it it could also be the case that someone in the industrial zone would want to do that. And I know hospitals um go for micro grids as well, but you know,
>> um there are two aspects to monetizing this piece of land. One is the sales price, the other is the tax revenue. And so, um, I think that staff could probably, if we were to sell it for $2 million, I'm just going to make up
numbers. This is not We want to sell more than that, for $5 million. Thank you. >> Um, for an industrial use, what would the the revenue to the city look like for an industrial use on a $5 million property? And what would revenue to the city look like for uh housing use? Um,
so I think that's something that staff could provide us with as well. It came with our last RFP actually. It showed what would be the potential tax revenue. So I would expect something similar in any kind of summary of the proposals this time too.
>> Yeah. And I think even before we put an RFP out there though, I'd like to just kind of get a sense of before when we're saying industrial versus um housing. If housing is going to bring in three times the revenue for $5 million piece of property than industrial does, I don't
know. I would like to know that before we word the RFP because I want to, you know, I do want to be aware of the revenue aspect as well as the um sales price. >> I have frames of the RFP circulated on an ordinary basis for
that idea. I would go one step further and ask when those ideas are presented. Um I also ask the city to say here's how we can use that revenue
versus just saying >> this is the revenue. >> Um and that takes me all the way back to ideally you've got some goal that you're trying to achieve and here's how that revenue can help achieve that goal. you
don't have a goal yet set but that's how I think about that and then if I kind of future forward I think every decision should be that way until we reach our goal
>> I totally agree and we have the values viewfinder but it doesn't really get us to financial constraints and looking at it that way. >> There's stewardship. >> There is, but a lot of times the financial doesn't come up.
>> Bill, what do you what do you what do you think about framing up an RFP that way as just for source of possibility? >> Yeah. um uh respectfully and frankly I think it will be poorly received in the market
and we'll spend two to four years going in circles and then where it will fatigue the developers. Um we we I'll look at the old public work site as an example. We started that conversation in 2008.
How should we reuse it? We're close to getting a contract again. Um, but a lot of developers look at us and say, "Oh, city owned property. I'm not going to make a bid because they're going to go in circles." And so when we put an RFP
together, we try to be as focused as we can so that developers know that we're sincere that we will really give them a shot. Um, one one comment we received in our last cycle of of RFPs,
um, one concern that was raised by more of the affordable type of developers was they don't have bandwidth and money just to spend $50,000 on an RFP and then not even have a shot. So the the more focused we can make the
RFP, the better responses we'll get, the higher price we'll get, the faster sale price will get. So if we could focus, that's helpful. It's in our interest to do that. >> So focus how? >> If we're just throwing some random
examples out, if we're excited about um missing middle town home type things, we should tell developers that and tell them that's what we're looking for. If we're excited about micro grids, we should issue an RFP that says micro grid micro grid developers, that's what we're
looking for. If we want um or if we're interested in a retail center, an office, hotel, if we can provide the segment that is the most helpful. >> So, what's the alternative then? If we just wanted the highest price point, do
we just put it on the market and see >> what bids we get? Mhm. I >> mean, a good example of that is is the old public works building. There used to be the old school bus barn building just on the other side of the tracks. >> When we were when we've been involved in
numerous redevelopments of that particular site, um they just decided we're just going to sell. We're not going to try to be the developer. We're not going to try to accomplish any social goals. We're just going to sell their property for as much money as we can get. And they got $4 million
for that site. and they >> and what did it go to? I don't know where >> became the uh higher high >> where is >> in today's economic climate I think if we just sold it speculative speculatively um to try to get a a quick
sale um I think we get lower price points right now there's it's a rare developer that's just going to buy land on spec that's zoned industrial which is the lowest value of land and then hope that someday they get it reszoned
Um so again the more direction we can give would be helpful. >> Zoned industrial guided a different way. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> And that's part of the zoning update that is addressing those inconsistencies
between zoning and guided land use. >> So repeat what you just said. >> I said we could reszone it and then sell it. >> So like I'm I'm not an expert. I think your answer was fine, but tell us how to
do it. If we want the highest value for this land, you've heard the conversation, what should we do? And the highest value is going to come from multif family residential. Remember that in the state of Minnesota,
there's a fiscal disparities. So if it's commercial or industrial, all the tax revenue, 40% of that automatically leaves Adina and goes into the fiscal disparities pool. When it's residential, fiscal disparities does not
apply. So I mean just that alone is a huge bump. Um and of course the more density you have, the higher land value you'll have. You have to balance that with how much density is reasonable, what's desirable, and in this economy also what's marketable. You know, we've
heard two proposals about very dense high-rise residential um the theoretical lifetime tower at Southdale that they've never even submitted anything real to us. Um and then Mortensson was pursuing high density luxury. Neither of those are
moving forward in this economy. So that that more middle size the five to seven story is moving forward. Um missing middle I think there's strong demand that moves forward. Um and as you jockey the price point I think anything in that multifamily segment
>> is going to drive your highest land value >> and then highest ongoing property taxes that come in. So it's both it would be both the highest land value and more um tax more tax revenue ongoing >> if it's not tiff. Right.
>> So looking at this picture presented by the housing foundation, something akin to that is probably that's kind of what the public works site is going to look like approximately. You know, that kind of mix, isn't it? Yeah.
>> So similar. Sure. Yeah. >> Um so something akin to that is what you're describing. It >> sounded like from their market study bill that they were trending more towards co condo than town homes. Yeah. Uh yeah, the market study shows um for
this market there's a strong preference towards single level living >> as opposed to town homes, especially at that price category. So condos are are viable, co-ops could be viable. Town homes also viable, but just not as many.
Maybe is a distinction being like a condo could still have the same form factor, but it's single level stacked as opposed to kind of vertical. >> Sure. Um, in a town home, for example, you could do single level stacked. Where gets challenging is is that at some
point you have to buy an elevator >> and that's a huge price jump. So, um, in those situations, uh, you know, you're looking at million dollar stack condos minimum. Some of that is also pertains to audience of the buyer too. Um where
single family for people downsizing and aging in community single level maybe but if you're attracting younger families the single door entry multif family or multilevel um but then there's a price point that's
associated with that that may be a lower price point than the single level town home concept. So, what's the audience? Seniors or families? Um, empty nesters or family, young families. So, that there those are variables that
play into the design as well. >> So, Bill Bill, could you remind us how you framed up the RFP for old public work site in a way where we got as as Kate pointed out early on, we got a multitude of different kinds of proposals that were multif family
related. Some were just purely affordable. Some were market and there was a mix >> and a mix of mixed use. >> Some had other uses use a mix of uses like the one we picked as a restaurant. >> Yeah. So for for that project we used a
very similar process to what Stephanie is doing this morning. Um starting off very general, what are the things that we think fit generally and then getting more focused. Um, so in that RFP, we had a couple pages of descriptions of the kinds of things we tended to like,
which in that case was more middle. Uh, any density should be more towards the back or the northern site, not on the edge. Um, and then reminding them very obviously that our affordable housing policy kicks in and must be followed.
Um, that was the decision for that site. you know, so that whole RFP, I think was eight pages, included a couple renderings and some a page of who to, you know, who to mail your submission to, that type of thing. So, it doesn't have to be a massively long document. In
fact, shorter is better. Um, but we should be very clear things that we do not want, we should tell them that. And the things that we do want the most or that we're most interested in, we should describe that in as great a detail as possible.
still giving them that flexibility. >> And then you also asked them the specific question, what would they pay for the land? You know, some said X and some said you got to give us a land, right? >> Right. >> If we're going to do affordability here, we have to have free land. >> That gives us as a council and H the
opportunity to decide how to use the property. >> Yeah. Yeah. And Yeah. So asking the price and then I'd uh also ask on the timing and their financial depth and their capacity as a company to get it done. We again we don't want to just entertain conversations. We want to get
this done. Um and with the affordable proposals even for the public work site, nobody asked for free land. I mean affordable housing developers can still pay a land price. Um it might not be as high as a luxury developer, but it's still um like I was looking across the
street, the sound apartments, um that AON built across from the fire station that sold for 2.9 million. That was only 2 acres and that sold what 2017 2018. So affordable housing still pays
the land cost. Um and it delivers other goals as well. I think that's part of the conversation as well is should we stick with the affordable housing policy and do the 10% or do we want more or are we open for either? >> But I'm also conscious of what you just
said of doing an RFP costs developers time and money and effort. Is there a slim down version that we could do just for discussion points like an RFI or something that's not $50,000 worth of investment on their part? Have we done
that as a city? We've tried a couple different things over the years. Um, uh, the biggest challenge, I guess the biggest way to get more bang for your buck is, uh, to possibly do it in two
stages takes more time. Um, but to cast a wide net and then invite three, you know, narrow loop the field and then invite those three that actually get serious. That way they know that one of the three is actually going to get paid
for their work and they they might be more responsive but it will at least double the amount of time. >> I think it's narrowing down the RFP um is the cost factor is not knowing what we're thinking and then having them have
to hire architects. Um it's it's expensive. I mean, even when the foundation got those very general revenue um concepts, it was thousands of dollars. >> That's what I'm thinking like something that is not a full-blown proposal, but
>> you wouldn't have anything. You also need to think about what you want out, how you're evaluating, and I think the pictures um in the for the public work site were swaying for you all when you saw the massing. So it's what you need to be
able to make a decision as well. >> I do think we need to rework our affordable housing policy though. I mean we have been giving so much um additional public finance to multif
family and it is having an impact on our levy. It's, you know, and we are closing off revenue flow by using the tiff. And I think that 10% I mean that was the 10% was the reason why we gave 4.86 million
of spark on top of tiff to a developer. And so it makes me kind of question moving forward with an ask for multif family and we've got this affordable housing policy that really is a drain to public financing. That's a problem.
affordable housing is a very financing. Doesn't matter what town and >> yeah, you're not going to be able to do any affordable housing without >> the market could produce it. It would >> but people are leaving. >> They have to go someplace. You are saying that
um unless I'm hearing it wrong, I'm assuming we're we're saying we would use the same or very similar process that we use for the current um public works or the old public work site. And in there we had
15 proposals, >> 11. And then um some of those wanted some didn't varying prices for the land and then we narrowed that down. Um so I hear you
suggesting we use that process. >> That that's a great model. I mean um in that case we ask the developers up front what's your proposed purchase price and how do you arrive at that? Like what's what's your math behind the big number? Um and then uh based on your
discussions, we asked them upfront, what's your financing source >> and can you do it privately or do you need public financing? >> And some said yes and others said no to that. So as a property seller, that certainly is within your purview to this
to to look into the financing. Once it gets into the planning and zoning conversation, then you really need to focus on land use and density and things like that. But in the RFP and in the selection, you can certainly take all that into consideration and developers expect that
>> and they're going to they're going to be honest. >> We did an opinion of value. So we kind of got that in our pocket and then you did an RFP. >> That was akin to what we did down which is one of the more successful ones
I think you put together. >> Got better at it over time. the last together for that site. >> I think the difference though is that one we were fairly specific. >> We had some I think general ideas. We
had some like oh we'd like to see some mixed use potentially >> but I think what I'm hearing from the discussion is we're thinking of casting a much wider net. Um >> I'm not thinking maybe I think in the opinion of value I would cast a wide
net. So, if someone comes forward and said, "I will pay $10 million for a micro grid here versus I will pay $5 million for housing." Now, 40% of the revenue is going to go to the state, but we're still going to get more revenue up a $10 million industrial site than a $5
million housing site. So, I would like a wide net with the opinion of value. Just say, you know, it's zoned industrial. It can be office residential. You know, give us give us a a ballpark. what are these types of properties going for? >> So just in the analysis,
>> just in the opinion of value and then they can come back and we can say, okay, if we go this route, >> we're going to be in this ballpark. If we go this route, we're going to be in this ballpark. And then we have the hard conversation about what's in the RFP >> prior to distributing the RFP.
>> Correct. But right now, we're in the dark as to, you know, there lots of ideas. you know, >> we're really good now. I have 53,000 >> slide idea, too. >> 53,000 ideas, right? Um, but let's just get a sense of how we can weight this
conversation and then we'll we'll be a little less than I respect Bill saying out of that conversation as we sit today, the type of development that would bring the most value is multi.
most likely >> multi >> most likely but let's >> so I respect that opinion but pass in the wide net and then we get that data and then we can frame the RP for
>> I think if I may the with the paying value is that one time revenue source the one shot you know you get the purchase price and you have it you apply it >> that's what that provides >> the tax revenue venue is the second layer of what would be the ongoing
revenue over time that you would receive. So I think it's a twopart. So you may get higher price upfront from one but lower ongoing revenue >> and so I I think it would be a table.
>> I think that was in the our fee as well. >> Yeah. Right. >> And with as far as the tax revenue go I would trust that our finance staff could give us a ballpark on that. So that's not something that the opinion of value would have to produce, but I think that's something our staff has plenty of
capability to say, you know, just think about this in terms of this would be approximately, you know, what the different revenues would be. >> And I think we even did it on a 10-year time frame too of like total value. We could do a 20-year, but I think that that helps accommodate kind of the
upfront versus the ongoing. >> Yeah. Does that feel like more direction? >> I think that's the first step and I think it's coming back with that information and then honing in on what you would want because I still think
that opinion and value putting out an RFP for like industrial use versus residential. I think you it still needs to be narrowed down there and that opinion and value will help inform you or solidify a direction you want to take with that
site. So, I think it's a two two more before we have um any sort of draft RFP because right now it's still broad. >> Yeah, that feels more linear and more logical to me than than what we were the direction we
were asked to head this morning. >> And then we can we can also decide as we go along if we wanted to focus just on affordable housing because that's the value it's not cast in stone. It's not the ten commandments but it is it is a helpful
guide. I found it to be a helpful guide that number in the back of your mind if you evaluate these different kinds of proposals >> and I think it'll be helpful because I think there you know you bought the land for a certain value. It's half of that. And so I think there's a presumption
that then the value of the land is half of what you purchased it, but it's not street frontage and there's a big wetland in the corner and it's surrounded by parking lot. So I would presume, not being an appraiser, that it would be somewhat less than half the
value of what you acquired. >> We all agree with you on that. Yeah, we we all go over there. Walk around. >> So, you're going to see >> department likes it the way it is. >> Nothing back there, but they like it
that way. >> So, you're going to see whatever we put together. You're going to see before it goes out, obviously. But this is helpful to us in terms of focusing staff efforts in particular direction. >> We do owe it to developers to find out whether they can legally access it
before we do that. Okay, >> that's all we got for today. We stand a journey. Thank you. Nice letter. [Music]