Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Wage andjob goals, Item 2: Correction to Minnesota Department of Emplovrnent and <br />Economic Development. <br /> <br /> <br />(I):. Loan repayments: Grammatical correction. <br /> <br />Member Kiefer questioned if retail should be excluded from eligible activities. He commented a <br /> <br />situation like the 167th Avenue node might benefit from the Revolving Loan Fund. Also, the <br /> <br />Revolving Loan Fund was used for the Sunshine Commons Project. Economic <br /> <br /> <br />DevelopmentlTIF Specialist Sullivan replied the Sunshine Commons Project prompted the <br /> <br /> <br />discussion on whether Revolving Loan Funds should be utilized for retail projects. This should <br /> <br /> <br />be discussed by the EDA. Staff s recommendation is to remove retail as an eligible activity for <br /> <br />the funds. <br /> <br />Economic Development Consultant Mulrooney indicated this issue was discussed at the staff <br /> <br />level as well. Part of the reason staff recommends retail being excluded is due to situations <br /> <br />where a loan has been provided to one retail business that might be in direct competition with <br /> <br />another retail business. This could be seen as the EDA showing favoritism to one business over <br /> <br />another business. This type of situation does not occur often in industrial businesses. He <br /> <br /> <br />explained the language has been worded to allow the funds to be provided for rede~elopment. In <br /> <br /> <br />the case of the Sunshine Commons Project, it was a building and site that needed redevelopment <br /> <br /> <br />and may ~ave been able to meet that definition. <br /> <br />Member Gromberg noted the entire project would be considered, which would be key to <br /> <br />allowing the funds to be used for redevelopment. <br /> <br />33 <br />