Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pine County agrees to pursue tax‑abatement deal for new eight‑unit Pine City apartments; county share capped at $63,600

5854410 · September 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The county board voted to proceed with a term sheet and public‑hearing process for a tax‑abatement request tied to construction of two four‑unit apartment buildings in Pine City. The developer requested $146,300 in abatement over 15 years; the county's proposed share would not exceed $63,600.

Pine County commissioners voted to move forward with a tax‑abatement term sheet for a Pine City housing developer proposing two four‑unit buildings (eight units total) on a vacant city lot. Economic development coordinator Leslie Sauter told the board the developer asked for a total abatement of $146,300 over 15 years, with Pine City covering about $82,700 and Pine County's portion capped at about $63,600. Sauter presented project details: a total development cost estimate of roughly $1.2 million, an anticipated full market value after completion of about $830,000 and first‑year property taxes for the improved parcel estimated slightly under $13,000. The project pro forma supplied by the applicant showed a gap between project cost and projected assessed value that is the basis for requesting the abatement; the county's financial consultant, Ehlers, provided the draft term sheet and will do periodic "look‑backs" to confirm projected returns. The Pine City Council previously approved the request by a 3–2 vote; the Pine County HRA/EDA recommended county participation by a 4–1 vote. The county's proposed term sheet makes the county contribution contingent on the city's participation. The developer told the board construction had begun and that utilities were stubbed to the site; staff said tax abatement (as distinct from tax‑increment financing) can be considered after construction begins but the city had received the initial application earlier in the year. Commissioners approved a motion to proceed with drafting formal agreements and scheduling required public hearings; one commissioner recorded an opposition at final voice vote. The board did not adopt an abatement agreement at the meeting; next steps include drafting documents with Ehlers and scheduling public hearings in the city and county, as required by state statute.