Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Redevelopment Former Power Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDIC flags downtown redevelopment proposal for further financial and site-plan review
Summary
Committee discussed a large downtown redevelopment proposal on a former power-plant site that is pursuing 4% low-income housing tax credits and Renaissance Zone designation; members raised concerns about cost per unit, market rents and whether the project should be considered a market-rate proposal rather than low-income housing.
The Economic Development and Investment Committee reviewed a conceptual redevelopment proposal for a former power-plant site that would add sizable downtown housing capacity, but members asked staff to pause incentive consideration pending detailed financial underwriting and site-plan review.
Jim Gilmore summarized the project and said it appears more aligned with market-rate downtown housing than with deep-subsidy low-income housing. "I think it's unlikely that given those costs and given the rents that it's gonna qualify for a pilot," Gilmore said. Staff noted the applicants have indicated they will apply for 4 percent low-income housing tax credits and Renaissance Zone designation, but committee members said the project’s per-unit and soft-cost estimates warrant closer scrutiny before the committee considers a PILOT or other incentive.
Staff presented preliminary figures: the project concept showed roughly 262 units with total uses near $93 million, including approximately $34 million in soft costs; committee members calculated the proposal exceeded $350,000 per unit on the preliminary numbers and questioned line-item entries such as nearly $1 million in architecture expenses cited in the packet. Committee members asked staff to require a formal but‑for test and a thorough financial review before any EDIC action.
Committee members also asked that the site complete multi-department site-plan review before the Renaissance Zone authority or EDIC considers incentives. Jim Gilmore asked that the same flowchart/ checklist used for prior items ensure full planning and engineering reviews are complete before the committee signals support.
A separate point raised during discussion involved district boundaries and taxing jurisdictions: staff and members noted that some existing incentive structures historically benefited entities outside the city limits (the West Fargo School District was cited as an example), and committee members said that complexity may require policy attention separate from this project review.
Next steps: staff will hold the discussion item, advise applicants that a robust but‑for financial test and site-plan review are prerequisites for incentive evaluation, and return the matter when those items are complete.
