Laserfiche WebLink
Case # 2 <br /> Business Park Amenities <br />By: Scan M. Sullivan, Economic Development/TIF Specialist <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Staff presented the summary of the prices for construction of monument signs to the EDA <br />on Novemberl0, 2004. The EDA questioned the expense of EDA funds, as well as TIF <br />funds on monument signs. EDA directed staff to bring forth other potential business park <br />amenities and potential funding sources for those amenities. The EDA also stated that <br />they would also bring options to the next meeting to discuss. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />It is important to define what types of amenities can be funded and by what funding <br />sources. The information provided is an attempt to better define how TIF dollars can be <br />spent and on which type of amenity. EDA dollars are more flexible and thus the types of <br />amenities that can be purchased are many. TIF eligible spending types would be Street <br />lights and monument signs and it would need to be verified within each TIF plan. <br />Inspection of current TIF plans, favor these types of expenditures. Budgets for TIF <br />districts vary from one another but the area of interest, primarily the 116 corridor, which <br />represents TIF District Nos. 2 and 6, have the ability to fund monument signs from their <br />existing budgets. Amenities such as Parks (and possibly trails) have been prohibited with <br />legislation over the years for TIF spending. Funding for picnic areas, trails and parks <br />would have to come from alternative sources. <br /> <br />There are grey areas in determining what TIF eligible expenses are and in these cases <br />legal counsel will be consulted for clarification. For instance a sidewalk would probably <br />be an acceptable use of TIF whereas a trail may not. There surely will be many more <br />amenities discussed during the meeting such as Cooperative Daycare, and Staff will try to <br />identify which category of spending that would fall into at this time. The purpose of this <br />discussion is to identify priority spending for the EDA and to determine if an amenity <br />such as a monument sign is worth the cost compared to other alternatives. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Based on discussion <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br />City Administrator, Jim Norman <br />Associate Planner, Megan Wald <br /> <br />EDA: 12.08.04 <br /> <br /> <br />