Committee of the Whole Meeting (June 15, 2026): City Goals and TID Amendment
Committee of the Whole Meeting – June 15, 2026
The Committee of the Whole met on Monday, June 15, 2026, at 5:16 PM in Council Chambers (and via Zoom) to discuss City Goals for 2026–2030 and consider an amendment to the Tax Increment District (TID) No. 24 Development Agreement with Tycore Built LLC. The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 PM. Eight alderpersons were initially present; Alderperson Norell joined at 5:28 PM, bringing the total to nine. Alderpersons Reckelberg and Cummings were absent.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made. Council President Sitkiewitz declared three calls for public comment with no response, and no written comments had been received.
Discussion Items
26‑0530 – First Amendment to TID No. 24 Development Agreement with Tycore Built LLC
- Community Development Director Adam Tegen presented the amendment. During the infrastructure phase of the project, an unexpected issue arose costing approximately $300,000 more than anticipated. The developer pays all infrastructure costs upfront and is reimbursed through a “pay‑as‑you‑go” structure using TIF increment after the city meets its bonding obligations. The amendment requests an increase in the maximum potential incentive from $4.9 million to $5.2 million (the additional $300,000). Tegen noted that if the project underperforms, the developer would likely never receive this extra funding, and the TIF would still close on time. Council members had no questions. A motion by Alderperson Schlei, seconded by Alderperson Beeman, to accept the agreement as written was approved unanimously (8 aye initially, later 9‑0 after Norell joined).
26‑0527 – Discussion on City Goals 2026–2030
- Mayor provided an overview, noting that this was the first comprehensive goal-setting session with the full council. The Mayor’s Leadership Committee (MLC) of department heads presented their departmental priorities and visions for the next five years. Key points from each department head included:
- Community Development (Adam Tegen): Focus on growing the city along the I‑43 corridor, addressing senior housing needs, and targeted blight removal.
- Fire Department (Ben Cranick): A station study is underway to develop a strategic plan for fire and EMS services; staffing remains stretched due to increased call volumes.
- Parks & Recreation (Brock Wettenkamp): Continue improving major community parks (e.g., Red Arrow Park) while maintaining smaller neighborhood parks; need adequate staffing and operating budgets for recreation programming.
- Tourism (Courtney Hansen): Maintain and grow digital marketing assets; find a permanent visitor center with better staff and visitor spaces.
- Public Infrastructure (Dan Koske): Urgently need to prioritize fleet replacement and maintenance of aging storm/sanitary sewer systems and city buildings; presented a multi‑year plan proposal similar to the existing road plan.
- City Attorney (Eric Nitsch): Endorsed infrastructure needs; relayed HR Director’s concerns (via notes) about employee compensation stagnation, lack of step/COLA programs, and need for additional positions to handle expanded city services.
- Rahr‑West Art Museum (Greg Vadney): Aging HVAC system likely needs replacement in next five years; looking to grow staff and continue enhancing collections.
- Police Department (John Muchsel): Evidence storage is fragmented; vehicle garage is over‑capacity; training space is insufficient; additional detective position needed to balance proactive enforcement (human trafficking/drug interdiction) with general casework.
- Public Library (Karen Adams): Strategic plan focuses on community outreach, collaboration, improved spaces, and staff support.
- City Clerk (McKenzie Reed): Expand online services for licenses and continue improving election administration equipment (expected replacement in ~10 years).
- Finance (Sean ???): Goal is to support other departments’ needs while maintaining fiscal responsibility and legal compliance.
- Council Discussion: Alderperson Schlei praised the Red Arrow Park project but questioned publicity; Alderperson Dunbar emphasized the need to move from “making do” to planned replacement of aging assets, noting projected population decline (2.8–2.9% over 10 years). Council President Sitkiewitz stressed defining “growth” as growth in tax base (not necessarily population) and finding revenue sources. Alderperson Norell supported a growth mindset and working together to meet needs.
- No formal action was taken on goals. Mayor stated he would work with department heads to create a one‑page summary document aligning priorities and would bring it back for review next year. He also noted plans to develop a performance evaluation and compensation plan for employees.
Key Outcomes
- TID No. 24 Amendment approved (motion carried 8‑0, later 9‑0). The maximum developer incentive increased from $4.9 million to $5.2 million to cover unexpected infrastructure costs.
- City Goals discussion concluded with council direction to focus on maintenance of existing infrastructure, tax‑base growth, and revenue generation. No votes taken.
- Mayor will produce a summary document of departmental priorities for council review and plans to hold similar goal‑setting sessions annually.
Meeting Transcript
The committee of the whole to order. Roll call. Most of us are here. With the exception of Alder Reckler, Alder Cummings, and is Alderell online. And Alderell is not with us as well. I'm not sure if he's I know he said he's gonna pop on for council. I wasn't sure if he's gonna come on for committee of the whole. Public comments. Is there anybody that wishes to address the committee of the whole this evening? Second call for public comment. Third and final call for public comment. There was no previously received public comment. All right, we'll close public comment. Uh discussion, action items. Um do we want to get through the TID first? That should be we'll let Adam speak. All right, Adam, if you want to run through the 26-0530. Certainly. I did provide a memo that tries to provide an overview, basically, um, as is not entirely uncommon with projects of this scale. Uh during the infrastructure phase, they encountered an unexpected issue. Um at some time I can go into a little more detail on that, but ultimately it costs about $300,000 more than they were initially expecting for the infrastructure costs. Uh the development agreement, the way it was drafted is that the developer is providing the cost of all the infrastructure, and then over time through the TIFF, they are getting a pay as you go. So on an annual basis, uh, once the city pays off our existing bonding and responsibilities, that remaining uh amount of tax dollars of percentage will go back to the developer uh to again pay back that uh infrastructure cost. So basically the request is because of that additional increase of 300,000. That was completely unexpected. Um they're asking that the total potential amount of that incentive be increased from 4.9 million to 5.2 million, which is the 300,000 difference. Um and again, the way the incentive is uh set up, it means that the city pays itself first and then remaining increment goes to them. So there's no impact necessarily to the city cash flow in our ability to pay back the bonding that exists on this particular project. And if for some reason the project underperformed, for example, they would likely never even see this additional funding because the TIFF would close and uh our obligations would still be met. Um so really it's just tacking it on at the end of it. Um I did provide a kind of our best guess pro forma um in the packet as well. Uh that shows on our best guesses on the increment they'll create and our bonding and everything else that the TIFF would be able to handle that and still close out on time. Okay, thank you, Adam. I'll open up to the committee if they have any questions. See none. Your memo seemed sufficient. So I would look for a motion. So moved. Second. To accept. To accept and and the agreement to accept the agreement as written. Yep. And a second. And a second. Discussion on the motion. See none, all those in favor. Aye. And opposed? Okay, I'll get that written up for signatures. Uh next up is 26-0527.
openpublica.com