Council, HRA approve Highland Bridge TIF amendment to restart construction after years of pause

The Saint Paul City Council and, subsequently, the Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved measures intended to restart the long‑paused Highland Bridge (Ford site) redevelopment, adopting a sixth amendment to the tax increment financing (TIF) plan and related documents on a 5–2 vote.

Council Member Joest (Jost) moved approval at the council meeting, explaining the amendment reallocates existing TIF dollars and establishes binding obligations for market‑rate housing that staff and developers say are necessary to resume construction. “This will enable market‑rate housing production and then enable the rest of the project to move forward,” Joest said.

Melanie McMahon, deputy director of the Department of Planning and Economic Development, told the council the amendment does not increase the city’s public investment in the site or change the TIF district budget but does obligate developers to build specific phases of housing. The amendment requires construction of 447 housing units as part of the Block 2 development and updates a minimum assessment agreement for a subset of parcels. Staff estimated total projected dwelling units on the site under current market assumptions at about 3,140 — within the master plan goal range of 2,400 to 4,000 but lower than earlier 2019 projections of roughly 3,800.

Developers and partners said they support the amendment because market‑rate housing increment is necessary to finance the project’s affordable housing components. Maureen Michalski of Ryan Companies said market and affordable units are interdependent on the site and noted affordable partners include Project for Pride in Living and CommonBond Communities. Nick Nowicharski of Widener Apartments Homes said rents for comparable market‑rate units currently on site average in the low $2,000s and occupancy is above 90 percent; he said exact rents for the next buildings have not been set.

Council members debated tradeoffs between the county and city timelines, unit counts and affordability. Council Member Yang asked for clearer data on rents, unit counts and the overall portfolio before voting and suggested a brief layover; others cautioned the county’s assessment timetable constrained delays. Vice Chair Jost and several council members said the amendment delivers enforceable commitments, including a promise to build specified units and a requirement that developers will not seek further public subsidy for the project.

Council members recorded roll‑call votes at the council level as follows: Kim — no; Bowie — yes; Johnson — yes; Jost — yes; Pervatsky — yes; Yang — no; Council President Naker — yes. The council adopted the resolution 5 in favor, 2 opposed. The HRA voted later in the meeting to adopt the corresponding HRA resolution, also 5–2 (Kim and Yang opposed). The HRA action authorized execution of the development agreement for Block 2, amendments to the redevelopment agreement, minimum assessment agreement, and related documents, and a HRA budget amendment.

Key figures discussed at the hearing included staff estimates that the minimum assessment for the modified parcels would rise from about $398 million under prior assumptions toward $475 million over the term, with an approximate additional taxable value of $82 million on the 15 parcels included in the amendment. Staff and council members also noted a contractual commitment in the amendment: a requirement to deliver 350 housing units by 2027 with liquidated damages of $3.5 million if the milestone is not met. Council members stressed quarterly progress updates and improved developer communication; Ryan Companies and Widener committed to quarterly presentations to the council.