The Mitchell Planning Commission on an omnibus vote approved the boundary and the project plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 44, a developer‑financed TIF intended to reimburse up to about $2.9 million in eligible costs for construction of a new restaurant and related site work.

The project plan describes a roughly $9.27 million to $10 million development that includes a new 13,000‑square‑foot building for “Chef Louis steakhouse and lounge,” an estimated 15 full‑time and 25 part‑time jobs, and on‑site parking; the developer asked for $2,913,260 in eligible reimbursement, according to city staff presentation.

Commission staff said the TIF would be developer financed — the city would act as a pass‑through for any increment generated — and that the city would not front costs or be responsible for shortfalls. “We do not pass that increment through until it's actually been received from the city,” the staff member explained during the hearing.

Why it matters: The TIF would divert future property tax increment to reimburse developer‑eligible costs rather than adding immediately to the city’s general receipts. Supporters say the TIF is needed to secure private investment; critics warned that the plan lacks the detailed financial analysis necessary to confirm the project truly “needs” public assistance.

Commission discussion and public comment focused on financial assumptions and baseline valuation. Local citizen and statewide TIF reviewer Steve Simpson told the commission he favors the development but argued the project plan lacks the detailed return‑on‑investment analysis required to evaluate the plan’s “but‑for” statement — the claim that the project would not proceed without the TIF. “The private sector knows the numbers, but we, of the public, do not know,” Simpson said.

Simpson also challenged the TIF’s base value for the property. The plan lists a base (pre‑development) value of about $14,000; Simpson said comparable nearby parcels are assessed much higher and argued the base should be closer to $76,000 per acre. He said a higher base would reduce the projected increment and the amount available to reimburse the developer.

Representing the developer, attorney Don Peterson of Morgan Thieller said the TIF is one of several conditions investors require and that the developer understands the risk: if the increment does not reach projections, “the developer just won't receive that increment they were anticipating.” Developer representative Chuck told the commission that investors have conditioned participation on the availability of the TIF and said he expects to begin construction early next year if financing and bids come in as planned.

Staff clarified several plan terms: eligible costs must be spent within five years; a developer agreement cannot exceed 20 years and may be paid back early if revenues permit; increment payments are passed through only after the city receives them; and existing TIF 2 has an outstanding payoff on a small portion of one lot scheduled around 2028 and would continue to be paid before new increment for that parcel is distributed to District 44.

Commissioners debated the sufficiency of statewide TIF guidance but, noting existing local precedents, voted to approve first the district boundary and then the project plan. Both motions carried on voice votes with no recorded roll‑call results in the hearing record.

The commission’s actions allow the developer to proceed with final developer agreements and future implementation steps under the approved project plan; the project still depends on private financing, future building permits, and reassessment that would generate the increment used for reimbursements.

Votes at the meeting: The commission approved establishment of the boundary for TIF District No. 44 and approved the project plan (motions passed; vote tallies not recorded in the transcript).