Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves TIF developer agreement for South Lake/Ridgeview after questions over lot costs and ownership
Summary
The Mitchell City Council approved a tax‑increment financing developer agreement for the South Lake and Ridgeview area after staff clarified land ownership language; councilors and residents pressed for details on lot counts, per‑lot costs and the $8 million infrastructure estimate.
The Mitchell City Council approved a tax‑increment financing developer agreement tied to the South Lake and Ridgeview tax increment district after staff said revised language merely clarifies land ownership and does not change how increment funds are distributed.
City attorney/staff presented the revised agreement and asked the council to approve with the change in Section 7 to reflect that a portion of the land will be owned by the Mitchell Area Development Corporation rather than the developer. "The new language basically is just intended to show that, Mahi as the developer does not own all that land that that a portion of it would be owned by Mitchell Area Development Corporation," staff said during the presentation.
Terry Sabers, identified in the meeting as president of Metro Area Housing, and other council members pressed for financial clarity about the project. Sabers discussed lot counts and cost estimates and highlighted why the city was seeking the TIF. "Therein lies why we need the TIF," he said during the discussion, noting infrastructure costs the staff estimated at about $8 million and interest expense in the $2.5–$2.7 million range depending on financing assumptions.
Council members asked how many lots were included (staff said 69), how many the developer currently owns (staff said 23, with agreements to purchase additional lots as needed), and whether the TIF proceeds would be spent if the developer did not assume ownership of the parcels. Staff answered that if expenses are not incurred for a particular portion of the TIF, the city would not use those increment funds for that portion of the project.
A motion to approve the agreement with revised language was made and seconded; the council voted in favor and the motion passed.
What the council approved: the agenda listed the item as "agreement A24 20 20 four‑thirty 3 tax increment district number 36 developer agreement" and staff explained the change is administrative in nature (land‑ownership clarity) and does not alter the increment distribution terms.
The discussion included multiple requests from council members to see the project cost breakdowns and to ensure fiscal safeguards for taxpayers; staff said more documentation could be provided on request. The council did not adopt any additional changes to the agreement during the meeting.
Next steps: staff and the developer will complete the finalized agreement language and follow the implementation steps required under the developer agreement and TIF district ordinances.
