Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Policy Discussion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edina staff outlines options to change TIF policy and sequencing, citing development hurdles
Summary
Staff presented an informational review of Edina's TIF policy, options to change process sequencing (zoning vs. financing), and possible programmatic approaches for targeted TIF uses; commissioners requested further analysis of PUD value and affordable-unit details.
Edina economic development staff delivered an informational presentation on Sept. 25 about how the city uses tax increment financing (TIF) and options for future policy changes, including potential shifts in the order of zoning and financing discussions and consideration of programmatic TIF approaches.
Manager Bill Neuendorf reviewed the city’s TIF history and the 2022 policy update, and identified development barriers such as high land costs, rising construction and parking costs, regulatory entitlements and capital-market constraints. Neuendorf said Edina typically adds constraints beyond state law to prioritize public benefits and described five discussion topics for future work: whether city policy is driving increased TIF use, optimal timing and sequencing of zoning and financing conversations, aligning TIF with budget pillars and equity goals, defining allowable TIF cost types, and whether to adopt predefined TIF programs for objectives like affordable housing or infrastructure.
Commissioners asked detailed questions. Commissioner Risser and others requested that PUD (planned unit development) benefits be quantified — for example, estimating the developer value created by increased allowed density — so the HRA can compare public benefits to the private value created. City attorney Kendall clarified that council zoning approvals (PUD) do not obligate the HRA to grant TIF and that the two bodies must apply the relevant standards independently. Neuendorf warned that predefining programs can increase applications and reduce staff/council discretion, and he outlined tradeoffs between flexibility and clarity.
Neuendorf and commissioners agreed to schedule a dedicated work session to dig into the PUD valuation, the cost implications of design guidelines (e.g., Greater Southdale), and sample term-sheet approaches that would provide a not-to-exceed amount early in the process. No final policy changes were made; the item was informational and intended to guide a future HRA work session.
