Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Uli Tap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Urban Land Institute briefs Lake Elmo EDA on Technical Assistance Panels; TAPs start at about $17,500
Summary
Megan Flanagan of the Urban Land Institute explained the TAP process — membership volunteers, a minimum three‑month lead time, and a starting cost of $17,500 — and EDA members discussed whether to pursue a TAP for a roughly 180‑acre redevelopment site.
Megan Flanagan, executive director of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) of Minnesota, described the ULI Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) model to the Lake Elmo City EDA on Feb. 4 and answered members’ questions about scope, cost and expected outcomes.
Flanagan said TAPs convene multidisciplinary volunteer experts from ULI’s membership to provide market‑based, neutral recommendations for land‑use or policy challenges. The TAP process typically involves a steering committee composed of the sponsor’s staff and ULI staff, a site tour, stakeholder interviews, and a day‑and‑a‑half of in‑room deliberations resulting in a presentation and a written report.
Key points from the presentation
- Lead time: Flanagan recommended a minimum of three months to recruit panelists, finalize questions and assemble briefing materials. - Cost: TAPs “start at $17,500,” Flanagan said; costs rise with project complexity, number of panelists and whether out‑of‑town experts are needed. - Panel makeup and conduct: Panelists are volunteers who typically cover only expenses and are expected to be fully present for the project. ULI staff manage logistics and report production. Flanagan said ULI avoids conflicts of interest by not placing panelists with a personal stake in a sponsor’s site on that panel.
What the EDA discussed
EDA members asked whether a TAP would produce material usable to prepare an RFP or whether it would be limited to conceptual recommendations. Flanagan said the output depends on the scope the sponsor requests: TAPs can generate market‑oriented recommendations for a site, policy guidance, and actionable next steps; sponsors sometimes use TAP results to inform an RFP but TAPs do not themselves issue procurement documents.
Members also asked about prior TAP experience on sites of similar size. Flanagan said she could follow up with specific examples; she noted that ULI had conducted TAPs for larger sites and for complex urban parcels but could not confirm from memory whether one matched the EDA’s roughly 180‑acre reference.
Next steps and timing
EDA members suggested the old village site and the old fire station as candidates for additional analysis; some members noted previous village study work could shorten a TAP’s scope. If the EDA wishes to move forward, Flanagan said staff would need to act quickly to meet the minimum three‑month lead time, recruit panel chairs and prepare briefing materials.
