My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Economic Development Authority - 05/24/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Economic Development Authority
>
2005
>
Minutes - Economic Development Authority - 05/24/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2026 1:21:21 PM
Creation date
1/15/2026 1:20:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Economic Development Authority
Document Date
05/24/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Further discussion: Economic Development Consultant Mulrooney noted there are some things that can be done through TCCCF that cannot be done through SBA. The TCCCF does not include <br /> any owner occupancy requirements. There are instances where TCCCF funds might be a viable tool to use for certain projects in the City of Ramsey. If they are looking strictly at the <br /> borrower in terms of benefits to a small business it is clear the rate under the SBA 504 being charged to the borrower is better with no major reserve required. The reason for that <br /> is that the SBA 504 funds are guaranteed by the U.S. Government, which is not the case with TCCCF. If the EDA were to join TCCCF with $50,000 they would have the ability to increase <br /> that to $200,000 and do a larger project, which is only an option for charter members. <br /> <br />Member Elvig stated one of the things that concerns him about TCCCF is that it is quick and easy to get a hold of. He likes the idea of owner occupied projects and a quality deal. <br /> He prefers the funds being more restrictive, as they are with the SBA 504 program. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Members Steffen, Elvig, LeTourneau, and Strommen. Voting No: None. Absent: Members Gromberg and Kiefer. <br /> <br />Case #4: EDAM Participation <br /> <br />Moved up in the agenda to precede Case #1. <br /> <br />Case #5: Staff Update <br /> <br />The EDA reviewed the staff update. TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed the following Community Revitalization Projects: <br />14040 Azurite St. NW <br />14140 Azurite St. NW <br />6030 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW <br />14280 Sunfish Lake Blvd NW <br /> <br />TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed the status of the following properties: Mate Building, Debee Property, Amoco Property, and Adolfson-Peterson. <br /> <br />TIF Specialist Sullivan noted staff has been in contact with six new business prospects that range from 20,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. The prospects include a bindery, a <br /> rigging company, an office user and three manufacturers. The City may have the ability to find homes for four of the businesses, and if that is done a new business park would be needed. <br /> <br /> <br />Member Elvig stated the new business park should be moved on as quickly as possible. Chairperson Riley concurred. He stated the City is behind on this if the space could already be <br /> full and they are two to three years away from having new space. <br /> <br />The consensus of the EDA was to direct staff to begin identifying areas and financing options for a future industrial park site.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.