Minutes - Economic Development Authority - 08/09/2004

Home

Mike Mulrooney assists him with MIF funds and things along these lines. It might be advantageous to have him attend an EDA meeting. Member Strommen suggested staff provide the EDA with more options to consider for another area to target funds, as was done with the Critical Blight Redevelopment Area. Mayor Gamec left the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Councilmember Pearson commended the EDA for the work they have done concentrating on one area. He noted once one area starts to clean up the others get the idea. Associate Planner Wald indicated staff will do research and bring back information to the next meeting regarding a tour with the EDA and City Council. Case #6: EDA Levy Authority Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed that the resolution creating the Economic Development Authority EDA) gives alt the statutory powers of an EDA and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (I-IRA) to the Ramsey EDA. He explained the EDA budget is funded primarily through two sources: 1) proceeds from the sale of City/EDA owned property and 2) the HRA Levy. It is important for the EDA to have the ability to make purchases of property, sometimes on short notice, so that it able to assemble properties in a timely manner for redevelopment. Additionally, it is also important to have adequate funding in order to utilize consulting tools for development and redevelopment. The EDA is still paying for the acquisition of Alloy Recovery through the HRA levy, and a minimum of $60,959.03 will need to be levied for payable 2005. He advised the enabling resolution adopted in 1998 requires that all r[commendations by the EDA be sent to the City Council for approval before any action is taken. The Board discussed whether the HRA levy for 2004 was at the full amount. Member Kurak directed staff to forward the information of the 2004 HRA levy to the EDA members. Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan explained the City has recently increased its redevelopment activity in TIF District No. 2. A sewer and road project was completed the Summer of 2004 and there has been interest by private parties to facilitate redevelopment in the area. The city needs the flexibility to continue playing a significant role in redevelopment in "Tin Pan Alley", now known as the CriticalBlight Redevelopment Area (CBRA). If the City does not continue to proactively approach redevelopment in the area, progress could slow, or stop, and future redevelopment costs will continue to rise. At some point, it will likely become necessary to relocate current businesses in the area to parcels outside TIF District No. 2. TIF Funds cannot be used for this purpose so it becomes necessary to have access to different funding sources to complete redevelopment projects. For instance, the KIH, B & A Cylinder and Debee properties are located outside of TIF Districts, but have similar acreage to parcels located within Tax Increment District No. 2. These types of parcels would be good relocation destinations for businesses that are willing to sell in the CBRA. Unfortunately, the City General Economic Development Authority/August 9, 2004 Page 10 of 12