Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Forks school board delays vote on new joint TIF review process after members seek clarifications
Summary
The board postponed action on a proposed four-step joint review process for tax-increment financing (TIF) and PILOT incentives after members raised questions about conflicting language on a second joint meeting, public-comment timing and legal review; motion to postpone passed 8–1.
The Grand Forks School Board on March 23 postponed action on a proposed joint review process for tax-increment financing (TIF) and payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) pilots after members identified ambiguous language and requested further legal and procedural clarification.
The proposal, originally drafted at the mayor's request, would have the city, county and school district hold an initial combined work session where a developer and third-party due diligence findings are presented, followed by a multi-week window for each taxing entity to deliberate before the city takes final action. It also proposed a $10,000 developer fee to pay for third‑party due diligence.
Board members said the draft memo contained contradictory references to a second combined meeting where governing boards would vote together. "It certainly reads as though there is a second meeting," Board Member Amber Flynn said, prompting multiple members to request corrected wording and a clearer public‑comment plan.
Several members also asked that the district attorney review each application and recommended the cost of any outside legal review be borne by the developer. Board Member Bill Burger said, "I think our attorney should be reviewing all of these and advising us," and added that payment for that review should come from the developer.
Given those open questions, the board voted to postpone action until its April 27 meeting. The motion to postpone passed by roll call, eight yes to one no, after members said they wanted time to confirm the city's intent, confirm when the 30‑day statutory notice period would be triggered, and clarify how public comment would be handled at joint versus individual hearings.
Administration said the city indicated there was no immediate deadline requiring an earlier decision and that the board could return the proposal after obtaining the requested clarifications. The postponement ensures the board will consider a revised document reflecting the board's edits and any legal guidance before taking a formal position.
