Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford staff seeks council input on Downtown Development District renewal, priority projects and boundary changes
Summary
City staff briefed council on a draft Downtown Development District (DDD) renewal application. Staff proposed several priority redevelopment projects and outlined an option to remove completed or public-park parcels from the district to free acreage for new expansions; no formal action was taken.
Rob Pierce, planning department director, told council staff have prepared a preliminary renewal application for Milford’s Downtown Development District (DDD) and requested input on two items: which projects to designate as key priorities and whether to remove certain parcels from the district boundary.
The nut graf: the DDD renewal is a five-year extension process the state requires; designating key priority projects helps score future rebate requests and removing completed or non-private parcels can free acreage for future eligible projects.
Pierce reviewed the district’s history: designation in August 2016, two expansions (2019 and 2023), about 235 building-permit applications and roughly $38.2 million in private investment during the designation period. The state has provided approximately $4.5 million in state rebates; the city has provided about $1.2 million in waived fees or abatements. Pierce asked council whether the city should identify several proposed projects as key priorities — examples included the recently completed Riverwalk Villas townhomes (conversion from an earlier reservation), a former firehouse redevelopment on Church Street, a 39-unit townhouse project on Carlisle Lane, and potential redevelopment parcels along Northeast Front and South Walnut streets.
On boundaries, staff proposed removing roughly 20 acres (including some city-owned riverfront and park acreage and periphery parcels with completed projects) to bring the district acreage below the state cap and to free up space for targeted expansions elsewhere. Pierce said property owners in any removal area would be notified by certified mail and opportunity for a public hearing would be provided; staff recommended delaying any expansion until after the renewal so the renewal packet is not held up.
Council members asked about county matching funds for DDD rebates (responses: county matches vary by county and availability; staff said they would confirm current county procedures) and whether removing completed projects would prevent future owners from using the program (staff said completed-project removal would reflect redevelopment history but allowed resale or future qualifying work could be considered case by case).
No action was taken; staff will finalize the draft renewal sections and return with a resolution for council adoption later in the summer.
