Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Riley noted the Board would like t° see this project through; however, he has a <br />problem contributing EDA funds into a TIF district. <br /> <br />Member Kurak asked how healthy TIF District No. 2 is. Economic Development / TIF <br />Specialist Sullivan explained each year an allocation is received from the county. The future <br />looks good for TIF District No. 2, but they are now in an area where the budget is getting very <br />thin. This is why he is requesting supplementation at this time. He noted next year TIF District <br />No. 2 will have a large expenditure to go toward CR 116 between Iodine Street and Highway 47. <br /> <br />Member Kurak suggested there may be another area the EDA could put their name on. She <br />stated $60,000 does not seem like a good amount to her. <br /> <br />Chairperson Riley stated even if the EDA does not contribute funds, the EDA has been the group <br />leading the charge and he still Wants the EDA to be involved and have the name regardless of <br />where the funds come from. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald inquired if there is flexibility to move forward with this project while <br />also looking at what other projects may be available. Economic Development / TIF Specialist <br />Sullivan explained there are restrictions on funds moving in and out of TIF districts, and it could <br />get difficult to report. It could be done, but it may be better to save the funding for another <br />district. The funds do not need to be spent today. He noted the next case will be a discussion of <br />contributing funds to a project outside of a TIF district. <br /> <br />Member Strommen suggested although it !s not always known when an opportunity may come <br />up, they may want to look at where the EDA woUld most like to contribute. <br /> <br />Member Kurak clarified the $60,000 is in the EDA fund and does not go away at the end of the <br />year. Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Member Kurak commented it makes her even feel more comfortable to leave the funds at this <br />time, as they do not need to be spent by the end of the year. <br /> <br />The consensus of the EDA was that EDA funds would not be contributed to the property at <br />14140 Azurite Street, although the EDA should be given credit for its lead on these properties, <br />and to direct staff to research redevelopment signs with other cities that could be used in the City <br />of Ramsey. <br /> <br />Case #3: 14280 Sunfish Lake Blvd. Demolition <br /> <br />Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed that in 2001 the City acquired land <br />from Waste Management of Minnesota adjacent to the landfill site. A major portion of that land <br />was platted into Sunfish Lake Business Park First and Second Additions. 14280 Sunfish Lake <br />Boulevard was separated from all the other parcels due to a large wetland. Thus, the parcel was <br />left out of the plat and left as is. Currently, a vacant metal building sits on the site in very poor <br />condition. Its location adjacent to Ramsey's largest employer (Life Fitness) does not help <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/August 9, 2004 <br /> Page 5 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />