Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Development Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses dwindling buildable lots, special assessments and incentives to spur housing
Summary
Committee members raised developer concerns about a shrinking supply of buildable lots, compared special-assessment models used by peer cities and discussed potential incentives (abatements, TIFs, targeted use of local funds) to encourage housing development.
Minot’s Economic Development Plan Review Committee examined local housing supply and developer incentives, with staff reporting a drop in buildable lots and committee members debating whether the city should use special assessments, tax abatement tools or sales-tax revenues to spur new housing.
Brian, city planning staff, told the committee that a study conducted about two years earlier identified roughly 325 buildable lots; he said that number has fallen and “that number is probably under 200 today,” and that updated figures would be available within about two months. Committee members said the shortage of shovel‑ready lots constrains private development and can make competing regions more attractive to developers.
Members compared local options for reducing developer risk. Some members noted Bismarck’s approach (city‑led installation of infrastructure) and Fargo’s developer‑install/reimbursement model; others raised the risk of repeated special assessments that can feel permanent to property owners, pointing to West Fargo’s experience. The committee discussed whether Minot should consider targeted tools already allowed under state law — the meeting referenced tax-increment financing (TIF), property-tax abatements for new construction, Renaissance Zone incentives and other economic-development instruments — and whether sales-tax dollars or the city’s Magic Fund might be allocated to infrastructure or developer credits.
Committee members emphasized the need to weigh long-term tax equity. One participant noted that when the city uses abatements or TIFs to attract development, the ongoing tax burden is effectively shifted to existing taxpayers. The committee discussed specific examples of local projects and the concept of reimbursing the general fund for abatements using targeted sales-tax revenues to reduce perceived inequities.
No formal policy decisions were taken; staff said they would update the lot‑inventory study, explore comparable peer practices, and bring refined options — including potential budgetary implications — to future committee meetings.
