Council adopts Urban Renewal amendment and approves Parkside Hills plats amid split vote over TIF process

West Branch City Council voted 3–2 on June 2 to adopt Amendment No. 8 to the city’s Amended and Restated Urban Renewal Plan, clearing the way for tax increment financing (TIF) rebates connected to the Parkside Hills development and approving related site and final plats for the subdivision.

Mayor Roger Laughlin opened the public hearing on the amendment, during which property owner Mark Scharnweber asked whether a slum-and-blight designation would affect his creek‑adjacent parcel. City Attorney Kevin Olson told Scharnweber his property would not be included and that he had received notice because it falls within 200 feet of the proposed urban renewal boundary. Tracy Hansen asked how TIF revenue would be used; Laughlin replied the money would be used to rebate the new owner of Parkside Hills and said the area anticipates additional residential housing, a future hotel and commercial development.

Councilmember Tom Dean said the planned redevelopment is expected to add “approximately $72 million dollar increase in property values.” Councilmember Mike Horihan said he has spent weeks studying urban renewal law and TIF and urged the council to create a standardized TIF application process so every prospective agreement would be evaluated with the same information and transparency. Councilmember Jodee Stoolman expressed frustration with inconsistent rebate percentages and said she opposed giving a developer 75% when the city previously suggested 25% was the practical limit under state law (HF718).

After debate, the motion to adopt Amendment No. 8 carried with Dean, Jerry Sexton and Colton Miller voting aye; Horihan and Stoolman voted no. The council then approved Resolution 2025‑64, the revised site plan for Lot 9 Parkside Hills (with engineering recommendations about drainage and utility easements) and Resolution 2025‑65, the final plat for Parkside Hills—Fourth Addition, both by unanimous votes.

Public comment included a separate land‑sale clarification from Janeen Miller, who said her family "did not receive a cash offer" from developer Blaine Thomas for their property at 341 E. Main Street and that they remain willing to sell to support future development plans. Bruce Barnhart, a downtown property owner, said he was unhappy with the slum-and-blight designation including his business property but said he supports the urban renewal area.

The council’s adoption of the amendment does not itself set rebate terms for every future application; Horihan and Stoolman pressed for a formal application and evaluation process to be adopted before approving large rebates for developers. The city attorney and finance officer were referenced as staff resources who could help draft such a process. The council approved the amendment and plats; next steps include any developer-specific rebate agreements or developer requests that would return for separate council consideration.