_08242026-1375

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 8/24/26 Mtg (Meets monthly on 2nd Tuesday of each month) Page 1 of 2 PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 24, 2026 Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chair Paine at 5:02 pm on August 24, 2026, in Government Center Room 204. 1 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jim Paine, Lynn Wohlwend, Brian Finstad, Garner Moffat, Tylor Elm, and Anne Porter VIRTUAL: Lindsey Graskey ABSENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Serck, Tech Granlund and Jeff Skrenes OTHERS PRESENT: Jennifer Dalbec, Jason Dalbec, and Sam Schafter 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1 Plan Commission Minutes (July 14, 2026) MOTION to approve the July 14, 2026, minutes by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Elm. Carried. 3 OLD BUSINESS 3.1 Review and Approve Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area Ordinance and Resolution Planning department will incorporate changes and bring to the September Plan Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Elm, seconded by Commissioner Moffat to hold in committee until next meeting. Carried. 4 NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Small Business Grant Application Review & Recommendations a. Superior Tavern b. Flow Studio Director Serck introduced the small business grant applications representees from both applicants attended the meeting in person. MOTION to approve the small business grant applications by Commissioner Elm, seconded by Commissioner Moffat. Carried. 4.2 Review and recommend to the City Council that a public hearing be set for October 6th, 2026, in order to facilitate recreating and replacing ARTICLE VII. FLOODPLAINS within the City of Superior Zoning Code. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 8/24/26 Mtg (Meets monthly on 2nd Tuesday of each month) Page 2 of 2 Director Serck introduced the floodplain ordinance and the need for the update. Sharing with Plan Commission the changes that will be made with the new floodplain ordinance. MOTION to approve to recommend to the City Council that a public hearing be set for October 6th, 2026, in order to facilitate recreating and replacing ARTICLE VII. FLOODPLAINS within the City of Superior Zoning Code by Commissioner Elm, seconded by Commissioner Finstad. Carried. 4.3 Review for Approval – Downtown Superior Design Guidelines Commissioner Moffat presented the proposed Downtown Superior Design Guidelines to the Plan Commission and discussed the potential positive impacts the guidelines could have on the City. Commissioners asked questions regarding the proposal, including the involvement of the Superior Business Improvement District in the process and the potential for putting the project out for bid. MOTION by Commissioner Elm, seconded by Commissioner Finstad to put the Downtown Superior Design Guidelines out for bid. Carried. Commissioner Porter abstained from the vote. 4.4 Discussion and consideration of the proposed design and framework for the City’s Community Land Trust Program. Jeff Skrenes spoke to the Plan Commission regarding the proposed Community Land Trust Policy Framework he developed. Commissioner Moffat shared a policy memorandum he had prepared outlining the Community Land Trust framework. Commissioners discussed the proposed framework and agreed to hold the item in committee for further discussion, including the City’s Community Land Trust Partners Framework. MOTION by Commissioner Paine recommended holding in committee until next meeting. Carried. 5 RECURRING BUSINESS 5.1 Planning & Development Director Report Director Serck shared with the Plan Commission about an upcoming grant opportunity for a WEDC business grant to support small business during the bridge rebuild. Director Serck shared that the CHS sale has closed. Next Plan Commission meeting will be September 8, 2026. 5.2 Housing Coordinator Update No new updates. 6 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:34 pm Respectfully submitted by Amanda Granlund. CITY OF SUPERIOR | PLAN COMMISSION POLICY MEMORANDUM Community Land Trust: Decisions for Commission Discussion TO: City of Superior Plan Commission FROM: Garner Moffat, Plan Commissioner DATE: August 24, 2026 SUBJECT: General support and policy questions requiring Commission direction Recommendation. Continue developing the Community Land Trust framework, but ask staff to return with revised language after the Commission discusses four policy choices: permanent subsidy retention, continuity if the nonprofit partner withdraws, applicant-selection priorities, and essential homeowner/program safeguards. Why the framework should move forward A Community Land Trust can create affordable homeownership that lasts from one buyer to the next. The proposal is a strong foundation, but several choices belong to the City rather than solely to a future nonprofit partner. The Commission does not need to resolve every technical detail tonight. It should identify the outcomes Superior wants and direct staff to prepare enforceable language. Four questions for Commission discussion 1. How should public subsidy benefit each generation of buyers? My preference is that City land or subsidy reduce the home's restricted purchase price at the beginning and remain embedded in the CLT home. A buyer should not pay the unrestricted market price for a property when the buyer does not own the land or unrestricted resale rights. Down-payment or closing-cost assistance may still be needed, but City assistance should ordinarily be repaid at resale and recycled for another CLT buyer. 2. What happens if the nonprofit partner withdraws? The program should not depend indefinitely on one organization. If the partner stops participating, the City should be able to preserve the program without disturbing homeowners or their mortgages. The agreement should provide notice, a transition period, and a City option to take over or designate a successor for the CLT land, ground leases, resale rights, subsidy documents, reserves, records, and any unsold properties. Existing homeowners would continue to own their homes under the same protections and restrictions. 3. Should some qualified applicants receive preference? Every buyer would still have to meet income, mortgage, education, owner-occupancy, and other eligibility requirements. The Commission should discuss whether otherwise qualified applicants should receive priority points or placement in preference tiers. ● Households selling a property to the City for rehabilitation, redevelopment, right-of-way, hazard reduction, or another public purpose, when a CLT home would provide a suitable replacement and the household income-qualifies. ● Current CLT home owners who may need a different home due to documented accessibility needs or household size changes. ● Households displaced or at imminent risk of displacement through no fault of their own. ● Employees serving the community, potentially including City, County, school-district, nonprofit, health-care, public-safety, childcare workers, or other qualifying public-service workers. ● Applicants needing an accessible home, households with children, veterans, current Superior residents, or other locally identified housing priorities. I do not recommend adopting any of these preferences without staff and legal review. Employment, residency, and other preferences must be tied to documented housing needs, applied consistently, compatible with funding rules, and reviewed for fair-housing impacts. A broad Public Service Loan Forgiveness definition may be too difficult to administer and may include occupations unrelated to Superior's workforce needs. A transparent preference-tier or points system followed by a lottery among equally ranked applicants would be preferable to subjective selection. 4. Which protections must appear in the framework? ● A City-approved initial-pricing method and resale formula. ● Permanent retention of City land and subsidy for affordable housing. ● Clear income limits and affordability based on the complete monthly housing cost. ● Separate leasehold appraisal and home-inspection requirements. ● Homeowner representation, annual reporting, stewardship, and foreclosure-prevention responsibilities. ● Clear ground-rent, inheritance, refinancing, maintenance, default, partner-withdrawal, and lender-protection provisions. Suggested direction Ask staff to return with: (1) a revised policy framework; (2) draft partner-agreement provisions protecting the City if the nonprofit withdraws or defaults; and (3) two or three legally reviewed applicant-selection options for Commission comparison before a preference system is adopted. Possible motion Move to express general support for continued development of the Community Land Trust and direct staff to return with revised framework and implementation language addressing initial and resale affordability, permanent subsidy retention, continuity and City step-in rights if a partner withdraws, objective and legally reviewed applicant-selection options, and the homeowner and program safeguards identified in this memorandum. STAFF DRAFTING ATTACHMENT Community Land Trust Policy Framework TO: City of Superior Plan Commission FROM: Garner Moffat, Plan Commissioner DATE: August 24, 2026 SUBJECT: Specific revisions, options, and proposed implementation language Purpose. This attachment translates the Commission policy questions into specific drafting instructions. It is intended as a working document for Community Development staff, the City Attorney, the future CLT partner, participating lenders, and funding agencies. Bracketed choices require policy or legal review before adoption. A. Initial pricing, resale affordability, and subsidy retention Proposed general provision Initial and resale affordability; retention of public investment. The initial sales price of a CLT home shall be based on the value of the purchaser's leasehold interest and shall be affordable to the targeted household-income range when total housing costs are considered. City-provided land, grants, development subsidy, and other public investment shall, to the greatest extent practicable, reduce the restricted purchase price and remain dedicated to permanently affordable housing through an approved ground lease, resale formula, purchase option, deed restriction, subsidy covenant, or equivalent enforceable mechanism. Any City-funded buyer assistance shall supplement, rather than replace, an affordable initial sales price. Unless otherwise required by a funding source or expressly approved by the City, such assistance shall be documented by a deferred subordinate loan and shall be repaid upon resale, prohibited refinance or encumbrance, loss of owner occupancy, or other specified default. Repaid funds shall be returned to the City or CLT restricted account and reused for CLT or other permanently affordable homeownership. The resale formula shall provide the homeowner a fair opportunity to build equity while preserving affordability for subsequent income-qualified purchasers. Program documents shall address return of buyer equity, mortgage principal reduction, approved capital improvements, transaction costs, damage or deferred maintenance, the homeowner's share of appreciation, the maximum resale price, and the CLT's preemptive purchase option. B. Partner withdrawal, default, dissolution, and continuity Drafting direction ● Distinguish voluntary withdrawal, material default, insolvency, dissolution, loss of nonprofit status, loss of required insurance, and inability to perform stewardship duties. ● Apply the continuity provisions through the framework, partner agreement, recorded covenants, ground leases, and any deed conveying City property or subsidy agreement, as appropriate. ● Preserve homeowner ownership, existing mortgages, lender protections, and all affordability restrictions during any transition. ● Require lender and funding-source review so City rights do not invalidate mortgage eligibility or conflict with superior liens, grant conditions, bankruptcy law, or foreclosure protections. Proposed partner-agreement language 1. Notice of withdrawal. The CLT partner shall not discontinue its participation in the Superior CLT program or materially reduce required stewardship services without at least 180 days' prior written notice to the City, affected homeowners, participating lenders, and other parties required by program documents. The notice shall include a complete transition plan. 2. Default and cure. A material failure to perform the partner agreement shall constitute a default after written notice and a cure period of [60/90] days, except that the City may require immediate protective action when necessary to prevent loss of property, subsidy, insurance, records, lender eligibility, or homeowner rights. The cure period may be extended for good-faith corrective action that cannot reasonably be completed within the original period. 3. Transition obligation. During the notice or cure period, the CLT partner shall continue ordinary stewardship, preserve all assets and records, refrain from transferring or encumbering program assets except in the ordinary course or with City consent, cooperate with homeowner and lender communications, and provide the City with an updated inventory of land, homes, leases, restrictions, purchase options, subsidy instruments, reserves, receivables, insurance, contracts, and pending transactions. 4. City designation of successor. The City may designate a qualified successor CLT or other qualified nonprofit to assume stewardship and receive assignment or transfer of program assets and obligations, subject to applicable law, lender rights, funding restrictions, and required third-party consents. 5. City step-in and option. If no qualified successor is available, or if the City determines that direct control is reasonably necessary to preserve the program, the City shall have an option, but not an obligation, to acquire or accept assignment of the CLT partner's interest in Superior program assets. Covered assets shall include CLT-owned land; the lessor's interest in ground leases; resale, purchase, and enforcement rights; affordability covenants; City-funded subsidy instruments; restricted reserves and program income; records and data permitted by law; and any vacant, unsold, or CLT-owned homes. Occupied homes owned by individual homeowners are not transferred under this provision. 6. Consideration and valuation. The transfer price shall be [nominal consideration for assets originally donated by the City or acquired principally with City funds] and, for other assets, [the lesser of documented unrecovered acquisition cost, net book value, or independently appraised value of the restricted interest], less City funds, restricted reserves, liens, deferred maintenance, and other obligations assumed by the City. Staff and the City Attorney shall recommend a final formula that avoids a windfall, recognizes legitimate non-City investment, and is enforceable under applicable funding and creditor requirements. 7. Assumption of liabilities. The City shall not be required to assume debt, contracts, environmental liability, delinquent taxes, litigation, or other obligations unless expressly accepted in writing following due diligence and all required approvals. Any City acquisition is subject to acceptable title, environmental and property review, lender consent when required, and Common Council authorization. 8. Continuing restrictions. Transfer to the City or a successor shall not terminate or diminish affordability, owner-occupancy, resale, inheritance, lender, or homeowner protections. The City or successor shall assume the CLT's stewardship obligations under the applicable program documents. 9. Separate option for CLT-owned homes. For any home or improvement owned by the CLT partner rather than an individual homeowner, the City shall have a right of first offer and an option to purchase upon withdrawal, default, dissolution, proposed transfer outside the program, or expiration of an agreed marketing period, at a restricted price determined under the approved valuation formula. C. Applicant eligibility and selection Baseline eligibility Before any preference is applied, every applicant shall satisfy the same published threshold requirements: applicable household-income limit; owner occupancy; approved homebuyer and CLT education; sustainable prime mortgage qualification; property-specific household suitability; and all lender, funding-source, and program requirements. A preference changes order of consideration, not basic eligibility or underwriting. Recommended selection architecture ● Publish the criteria, point values or preference tiers, documentation requirements, application window, tie-breaking procedure, appeal process, and record-retention rules before accepting applications. ● Use a lottery among equally ranked applicants rather than subjective interviews or discretionary judgments. ● Apply reasonable accommodations and accessible application procedures. ● Review the system before adoption and periodically thereafter for compliance with fair-housing, civil-rights, relocation, funding, and affirmative-marketing requirements and for unintended disparate effects. ● Do not hold a home vacant indefinitely for a preferred category when another eligible household is ready to purchase. Preference option 1 - City acquisition/relocation partner An otherwise eligible household may receive the highest preference when the household voluntarily sells an owner-occupied property to the City or a participating public entity for an approved rehabilitation, redevelopment, right-of-way, hazard-mitigation, code-resolution, neighborhood-stabilization, or other public-purpose project and the transaction will result in the household needing a replacement principal residence. ● The property sale and CLT purchase must be separately voluntary and documented; CLT placement may not be conditioned on accepting less than legally required or independently supported compensation for the acquired property. ● The household must receive any relocation notices, advisory services, payments, and other protections required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, state law, or the applicable funding source. CLT preference is supplemental and does not replace those rights. ● The household must independently qualify for the CLT home and mortgage. If no suitable CLT home is available within a defined period, the City retains no obligation to produce a specific unit unless separately agreed in writing. ● Staff should determine whether the preference applies only to City acquisitions or also to County, school-district, housing-authority, land-bank, utility, and City-approved nonprofit acquisition programs. Preference option 2 - displacement or urgent housing need Consider a second tier for otherwise eligible applicants experiencing documented displacement or imminent loss of safe housing through no fault of their own, including condemnation, casualty, domestic violence, accessibility-related displacement, expiring affordability restrictions, or displacement caused by a public project. Staff should define categories narrowly, identify acceptable documentation, and coordinate with fair-housing and relocation requirements. Preference option 3 - community-serving workforce The Commission may consider a workforce preference, but staff should return with alternatives rather than inserting one employer list into the framework. At minimum, compare: ● Public employers only: City of Superior, Douglas County, and qualifying public school or technical-college employers. ● Public-service workforce: positions employed by government or qualifying nonprofit organizations that provide education, health, behavioral health, emergency response, child care, elder care, housing, transit, utilities, or other locally identified essential services. ● Documented shortage occupations: an annually adopted list based on local recruitment, vacancy, wage, and housing-cost evidence. ● No employment preference: select only by housing need, income targeting, readiness, and lottery. Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility should not be used as the sole definition. PSLF is a federal loan-program status rather than a local housing-need measure; some applicants have no student loans, employer eligibility may change, and the category may be broader or narrower than Superior's intended workforce goal. If used at all, it should be one documentation pathway within a locally defined public-service category. Other selection considerations for Commission review ● Deeper income targeting within the program maximum, while confirming that the household can sustain ownership. ● Households least likely to access conventional ownership because of displacement, disability-related accessibility needs, or documented housing-cost burden. ● Property-specific household fit, including accessible features and bedroom needs, without steering or discrimination based on familial status or disability. ● Applicants completing a City-approved financial-readiness or savings program. ● Current Superior residence or employment only if supported by documented local need and legal review; do not make local status an absolute eligibility prerequisite. ● Veteran status only after review of the policy purpose, funding requirements, and interaction with other priorities. Illustrative tiered model for discussion - not recommended for adoption without review Tier 1: Eligible household displaced by, or voluntarily participating in, an approved City acquisition or public-purpose property transaction. Tier 2 : Eligible household meeting a narrowly defined displacement, accessibility, or urgent-housing-need priority. Tier 3 : Eligible household meeting an adopted community-serving workforce or documented shortage-occupation priority. Tier 4 : All other eligible applicants. Within each tier: property suitability review followed by random lottery among equally eligible applicants. Move promptly to the next tier when no ready and suitable applicant is available. D. Additional framework corrections ● Replace undefined 'low- to moderate-income' language with City-approved percentages of area median income, adjusted for household size, and permit project-specific bands approved by the City. ● Define affordability using mortgage, taxes, insurance, ground rent, association fees, subordinate-loan payments, and reasonable maintenance assumptions. ● Replace an absolute first-time-buyer rule with the applicable program definition and carefully drafted exceptions or priority treatment. ● Require a leasehold appraisal by an appraiser competent in CLT valuation and a separate independent home inspection. ● Replace the automatic 'most restrictive guideline' rule with compliance with all applicable requirements and only reasonably necessary written CLT overlays. ● Require homeowner/community governance representation, annual City reporting, owner-occupancy monitoring, resale administration, delinquency intervention, and foreclosure-prevention stewardship. ● Clarify ground rent, permitted increases, taxes, insurance, maintenance, capital improvements, inheritance, transfer, refinancing, subordinate liens, default, casualty, condemnation, foreclosure, lender notice and cure, and purchase-option procedures. E. Required review before adoption ● City Attorney review of authority, acquisition and option structure, due process, public-purpose requirements, Wisconsin law, creditor and bankruptcy issues, and homeowner/lender rights. ● Fair-housing and civil-rights review of every preference, marketing plan, documentation requirement, lottery, and property-matching practice, including analysis of potential disparate effects. ● Funding-source review, including HOME, CDBG, state, federal, relocation, and grant-specific requirements when applicable. ● Participating-lender and secondary-market review of the ground lease, riders, resale formula, appraisal method, purchase option, step-in rights, and foreclosure provisions. ● Fiscal and operational review of reserves, staffing, data systems, privacy, annual monitoring, potential City asset ownership, and liabilities associated with exercising the City option.