Laserfiche WebLink
EDA BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Ramsey Business Connection QCTV Program <br /> <br />The EDA viewed the Ramsey Business Connection QCTV Program. <br /> <br />Member Steffen arrived at 7:18 a.m. <br /> <br />Case #2: Development Signs <br /> <br />Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed that the EDA is interested in erecting <br />development signs on City owned property that is intended to be developed with high quality <br />businesses. At the September EDA meeting, the Authority directed staff to obtain information <br />about these signs related to size, cost, and recommended language. Staff contacted two <br />companies and received the following information: <br /> <br />4 x 8 one-sided sign with 2 4 x 4 posts <br />2 x 8 add on (for CMDC) <br /> <br />Jori:Parks Graphics T J Associ~es <br />$345 $300 <br />$150 $125 <br /> <br />Economic Development / TIF Specialist Sullivan indicated when applicable, Central MN <br />Development Company (CMDC) would be interested in adding a 2 x 8 sign onto the <br />development sign stating that financing was provided by CMDC. The cost of the additional <br />signage is approximately $125.00 - $150.00. CMDC is more than willing to pay for the <br />additional signage expense. He explained the signs could be stored in the City's Public Works <br />facility. Public Works staffwould also be available to erect the signs on the designated <br />properties. John Parks Graphics and T J Associates will also store and put up the signs, but there <br />are fees involved in this of approximately $50 for each service. <br /> <br />Member Gromberg stated it would be handled more efficiently and effectively if the sign <br />company were to take care of storing and installing the signs. The signs would not be at the top <br />of the list for Public Works, and there would likely be a quicker response by a company that is <br />being paid for their services. He noted the signs would not likely be moved very often. Member <br />LeTourneau commented there were eight redevelopment properties this year. <br /> <br />The EDA discussed specific language for the signs. Member Gromberg suggested Associate <br />Planner Wald do a broadcast e-mail to members of EDAM requesting input on verbiage for the <br />signs. <br /> <br />The EDA discussed the 2 x 8 foot additional sign for CMDC. Chairperson Riley indicated if <br />CMDC will be taking part they should cover some of the main costs of the sign, not just the add <br />OB. <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/October 13, 2004 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />