Council orders sidewalks on both sides for Mossman subdivision; discusses TIF rebate and timing

The Decorah City Council on March 16 ordered sidewalks on both sides of streets in the proposed Mossman Second subdivision and began framing a development agreement that could use tax-increment financing to reimburse the developer for public infrastructure.

Council debated whether sidewalks should be installed before final plat approval, be built block by block as homes are constructed, or be guaranteed by a financial assurance. City staff explained that council has authority to order sidewalk construction as part of preliminary-plat infrastructure or to accept a final-plat with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit naming the city as beneficiary. That assurance would allow the developer to construct homes while the city retains a mechanism to ensure sidewalks are completed within the agreed timeframe.

Developer Travis Mossman said he would be comfortable with a five‑year schedule tied to the developer’s build plan, calling that timeline “a good plan to move towards.” Council members expressed competing priorities: several urged continuous sidewalks to produce connected neighborhoods and protect pedestrians and children; others warned that forcing all sidewalks up front could raise costs and make homes less affordable.

Council also reviewed a draft financing model for a development agreement that assumed five new homes built per year, an initial assessed value of $650,000 per lot and a 2% annual assumed valuation increase. Under those assumptions the model shows cumulative TIF increment that could support roughly $1.3–$1.5 million in rebates over 10 years before statutorily required low‑to‑moderate‑income (LMI) set‑asides. Staff recommended applying for an IDA waiver to reduce the LMI set‑aside from 33% to about 20% — a move that would free additional levy revenue to address system needs including water and sanitary upgrades and potential work near the city’s water-tower site.

Council members signaled general support for using a development agreement to fund infrastructure that directly benefits the surrounding area while asking staff to preserve protections for taxpayers. The council discussed roadway surface options (hot‑mix asphalt vs. concrete) and design choices that can affect long‑term maintenance costs and neighborhood walkability. No final agreement was adopted at the meeting; staff will draft a formal urban‑renewal plan and development agreement for future consideration.

The council’s sidewalk order for the preliminary plat passed as part of a separate resolution governing the subdivision’s final‑plat conditions and financial-assurance options. Staff said the developer must still complete annexation and other plat steps before final approvals can be recorded.