Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 [09] Sep 20CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AURHTORIY Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, September 20, 2006 Present: EDA Board Members Ross Rieke, Caryolyn Yaggie-Heinen, and Ken Jacobson. Absent: Tom Skahen and Carlbom. Also Present: Cynthia Smith-Strack of Municipal Development Group and Mai Yang Agenda Chairperson Rieke introduced the agenda. Strack requested the addition of a discussion regarding a joint bioscience zone acreage allocation to Section Five on the agenda. Moved by Jacobson seconded by Heinen to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried: 3-0. Approval of Minutes. EDA Chairperson Rieke noted the minutes from the July 19, 2006 meeting were included in the packet. Strack explained that approval of the July 19th meeting minutes was tabled in August since several members of the EDA were not present at the July meeting and wished to abstain from any motion. Rieke noted the minutes from August 16, 2006 meeting included in the packet. Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Heinen to approve the minutes from the July 19th and August 16th, 2006 regular EDA meetings as presented. Motion carried: 3-0. EDA Accounts Payable. Rieke introduced the topic. Strack noted accounts payable for the month included an invoice for contract services in the amount of $2,152.82. The total hours provided through August 31~` equal 271.25, on target for the projected 420 hours of service for the year. Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Heinen to approve EDA accounts payable for the month of August 2006 in the amount of 2,152.86. Motion carried 3-0. Financial Report. Rieke introduced the agenda item. Strack noted the August financial reports were contained in the packet. Reports presented included: revenue, expense, check register and fund balance. Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Heinen to approve the August financial reports. Motion carried 3-0. CSAH 75 Renewal Project Rieke introduced the topic and requested Strack explain the draft corridor renewal plans for the first tier of lots adjacent to CSAH 75 between 2"d Avenue and NW and 3~d Avenue NE. Strack reviewed items included in the information packet including a parcel map of the area of potential interest, spreadsheets containing information regarding each property and redevelopment projections and analysis of potential impediments to redevelopment of the sub area. In the first tier of lots (sub area A) the development cost analysis resulted in an estimated development cost of $3,106,067. The second tier of lot (sub area B) resulted in an estimated development cost of $3,546,943. The existing properties within Subarea A are zoned Highway Business and Single Family Residential. Subarea B is zoned Single Family Residential and General (Downtown) Business. The future land use for Subarea A is a combination of Highway Business and Single Family Residential. In Subarea B future land use is guided toward Single Family Residential and General Business. If vehicular oriented redevelopment is to occur in the subareas, rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment requests would be required. A potential significant impediment to redevelopment as asuper-majority vote is required to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Strack not next reviewed potential transportation issues associated with any type of redevelopment within Subarea A or Subarea B. Strack noted preliminary feedback from the County Engineer included a likely need for a left turn lane at the intersection of College Avenue North and Ash Street E and a right turn lane at College Avenue N. Strack suggest planning for an alternative access to the subareas either from Ash Street or the interior east/west alley, since turning movements from Birch Street to CSAH 75 are curtailed. The EDA noted this is a potential impediment to redevelopment of the subareas. Rieke suggested finding out whether or not the two businesses in the first tier would be interested in relocating. Rieke suggested City staff be informed of the CSAH 75 renewal project and comments from staff be requested. The EDA noted a desire to reach out to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding any potential renewal activity. A next step would consist of considering comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests as a means of reducing impediments to redevelopment. Business Retention and Expansion Program Update Rieke introduced the agenda topic and requested an overview of the program from Yang. Yang updated the EDA members with a PowerPoint presentation on Business Retention and Expansion Program (BRE) and updated the Board Members on a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce. In addition to the Chamber presentation, Yang noted she sent out a press release to the Newsleader for publication consideration. Yang shared with the members that BRE is available online for easy access and download. The next step to the BRE program will be contacting businesses to schedule site visits and follow up with urgent issues that need to be addressed in the short-term. Strack stated that Yang should visit Daniel Funeral Home and Complete Electronic by next meeting. Project Inventive Analysis Rieke note the topic on the agenda. Strack stated that the previous meeting EDA Board members requested information regarding available incentives be compiled for potential distribution to business owners within the renewal area north of CSAH 75. In further discussion note specific incentives available for specific projects would vary widely with commercial incentives. Strack introduced three type of incentives that are available: tax abatement, local revolving loan fund (RLF) and the Minnesota Community Capital Foundation (MCCF). The analysis of tax abatement assumes 100% of the City's portion of property taxes will be abated for a term of ten years. The incentives policy precludes the issuance of bonds with debt retired from abated taxes, instead of "pay as you go" is employed. Other available incentives is St. Joseph Revolving Loan Fund and Minnesota Community Capital Foundation (MCCF). St. Joseph Revolving Loan Fund has a current balance of $20,000. It has a maximum term of seven years for material expense and 15 years for real estate purchase. MCCF is a program available statewide to loan funds to qualifying businesses, which cannot secure conventional financing or SBA loans to cover project costs. The EDA request $10,000 be included in the annual CIP budget to capitalize the fund. The funding can be use for number of purpose including purchase of option by the EDA. This would include a matching grant to business of an X amount to pursuing building enhancement or for short-term loan for construction activities of an X amount. Heinen believe this is a great idea and would like business along CSAH 75 to be aware of this. Wanted to know how much it cost to send this information out to them. Jacobson suggest having coupons for permits to do improvements. The purpose of this is to help pay permit for Business owner who are interested in getting a Building Agreement or any kind of Improvements. Reike suggested that this need to be talked more about and should bring back more incentives and ideas we can offer, to the businesses along CSAH 75. Bioscience Zoning Strack explains the plans for Bioscience zone. Four surrounding cities: St. Cloud, St. Joseph, Bartell, and St. Augusta are planning on signing an agreement for Bioscience zone. This would include free zone for bi-tech science. Potential areas in St. Joseph are: Gill Farm, Puerginer, manufacture home park, southeast of CSAH 75, Gohman, and all the industrial park. The total is 300 acres. It would nice to see industrial park built to accommodate Bio-Tech/Bio-Science Park. Reike stated, what are the risks of this? Strack believe the risk is getting denied. The application due date is October 15, 2006. Prospect List and Activity Report Due to Bioscience Zone, this section will be included in the next October meeting. Board Member Announcement Rieke note the topic on this agenda. Strack told members of the board that the city had received the proposals from two firms: Maxfield Research and McComb. One member of the contributing fund will have to meet to discuss the best firm. Adjournment Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Heinen to adjourn. Motion carried 3:0. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM. C" ;ia~L~