This agenda session of the Duluth City Council was held on Thursday, June 12, 2025, at 11:15 AM. The meeting reviewed numerous resolutions and one ordinance ahead of the regular council meeting scheduled for Monday, June 16, 2025. Key topics included a policy on tax increment financing (TIF) incentives, a resolution to modernize the zoning code to increase housing supply, a contract for a skywalk study, and the introduction of an ordinance to create a Transportation Commission. No final votes were taken; most items are expected to be voted on Monday. Councilor Mayo announced his resignation effective end of June due to moving out of his district.
Councilors Randorf, Owall, and Mayo, along with Manager Hobbes, discussed amendments proposed by Councilor Durwachter. Manager Hobbes noted several amendments would better fit as internal standard operating procedures rather than policy. Concerns were raised about an amendment adding owner-occupied single-family housing as a priority – staff noted this is not the city’s greatest housing need per data. Councilor Randorf urged keeping the policy workable and not overcomplicating it. Councilor Owall proposed adding a definition of TIF to the policy, referencing definitions used in other cities. It was agreed that the amendment authors would work with Manager Hobbes over the weekend to produce a refined, streamlined package for Monday’s vote. The existing educational resource on TIF will be attached to the policy.
Co-authors Councilors Swenson and Owall explained the resolution directs administration to evaluate and recommend changes to the Unified Development Chapter to remove barriers and enable “by-right” development. Topics include transitioning from form districts to main street districts, evaluating planned unit developments, and incentivizing affordable housing. Director Van Tassel expressed staff enthusiasm and noted a 150-day (6-month) timeline to return recommendations with public input. Councilor Mayo asked about public engagement; staff indicated they are planning various formats including larger community meetings.
City Administrator Staling explained that the contract with MIG (the same firm behind Imagine Duluth) for up to $58,900 will involve community engagement, study of the skywalk system, and recommendations on economic viability, potential improvements, or closures. No working group exists; the council will receive recommendations by winter. Councilor Owall asked about duplication with prior downtown studies – staff confirmed it builds on existing work. Councilor Swenson noted the original resolution gave a 6-month timeline; staff now projects recommendations by winter. Councilor Mayo requested larger community open houses as part of the engagement; staff indicated that can be incorporated.
Councilor Mayo introduced the ordinance, providing context for his upcoming resignation. The commission would advise on transportation policy and projects, serve as a home for initiatives like Flow Streets and Complete Streets, and include ex-officio members from various departments. Councilor Randorf asked if a separate resolution would still be needed for Flow Streets; Councilor Owall said the working group would reside under the commission but direction from council may still be required. Councilor Mayo noted that many community groups have called for such a commission for years. Alice Tibbetts raised concern that no dedicated staff is assigned, which could hinder effectiveness. City Administrator Staling acknowledged staff capacity issues, especially with planning stretched thin, but noted the commission could create efficiencies. The ordinance will have a second reading in July.
Uh Councillor Randorf, will you read in for Counselor Forestman? I sure can. Thank you so much, President Tomonic. Reading in for Counselor Foresman. Resolution 393 is a resolution approving a policy on development incentives for tax increment financing. Thank you. And I see we have may I? Yes. I see we have a few amendments from Counselor Durwachter. My question would be if perhaps uh Manager Hobbes can address some of the concerns or benefits or workarounds on some of these particular amendments. We've read through them, but quite honestly, it's a little bit complex. So maybe walk us through it. On it, Counselor Randor, I will do my best to kind of read through some of the comments that I have. I did have a chance to speak with Counselor Durwachter today, and I know she's reviewing some of the notes that I passed along as well. And again, this is solely just from staff's perspective on some things that I think might be helpful context for our process. There are a decent amount of additions that were included in our original draft, but were condensed down into points that were a little more overarching and maybe uh nimble and flexible to allow for us to still be responsive but keep this policy uh fluid, as we would like to do with policy um so that we're not needing to revisit this all the time. Um I think the main point that I I will maybe start with um there are some process pieces that is delegating some power and responsibility to the finance department that currently exists with the economic development staff, the planning and economic development staff. Again, that was something that counselor Durwachter and I spoke about earlier today, and she had noted that that was something that was just pulled from another policy, and so that seems like an easy correction, but I I do want to make sure that we're um correctly identifying the staff that is handling these pieces because it will be included in policy. Uh there are a few elements from both number five amendment number five, as well as I apologize. Um as well as an item on number two that are largely process-based, uh less related to the policy, more about the steps that staff will take. And so I think I shared at our last meeting there is an entire standard operating procedure that exists as an internal document that lays out step by step what staff does. In our original conversation as we drafted this policy, um, we really wanted to land on what was process versus what was policy, and so we aligned the documents as such and really laid out um things in a way that made sense with the original intention of the type of document. And so that was again another thing that we talked about that we would want to have a conversation around to make sure that the right inclusions are thoughtful and are landing in the right documents and um just really make sense to the process that we have. There are several things that are in here that are required by statute, and so we address those uh in the general policy up top on uh kind of that confirmation that we adhere to the requirements of the statute. Um I think the other thing that I would want to call out as well is under priorities for use. There are a few um again process pieces that maybe aren't a priority but more about how we do our process. So I'd love to work with counselor or whoever may be interested to make sure that those are reflected in the right spots. Um but under the last priority for use that was added currently P, and that is owner-occupied single family housing opportunities. That is the only housing product that is being called out within priorities for use, and this is actually not our greatest housing need, and so I have a little bit of hesitancy of calling out a product that we don't actually uh have identified through data as our largest housing need, so that we're not incorrectly um representing two community members and developers where we want them to go and really what we need to see because we know that is the intention of this policy is to be able to convey those things. So that would just be another note that I'd like to add. Um I want to be really thoughtful about what we're including so that we can properly convey those values and objectives. Thank you, Manager Hobbs. I'd like to ask a question of the clerk. Do we read these amendments in tonight? Or do we wait till Monday when Counselor Durwachter is here? Um Monday. We read them on Monday. All right, Councilor Owl. Thank you, President Tomonic. Um couple of things. Um I've been in conversation with Counselor Durchter on these. Um I was um one of my considerations was like there were so many things that we were still considering and thinking of potentially bringing it forward um collectively together in a separate resolution. Um counselor Durwachter was more in favor of bringing individually, allowing the council to really talk about the policy while the policy's in front of us. So I would like to hear from counselors if you actually have a preference. Would you rather us because we are working with a manager Hobbes and taking her feedback? So we're actually might make some amendments to these. And for example, looking at item P and re potentially removing that or a couple of other things. So the question I'm asking you is would you rather us work with the attorneys work with Manager Hobbes and have a flushed copy that has gone through a planning and through Manager Hobbes' eyes and bring that forward on Monday to vote on, or would you prefer us to combine it together and bring it as a separate resolution later on? Counselor. I have spoken with uh city attorney, I've spoken with manager Hobbes and I've spoken with Counselor Der Wacter.