The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About[03a] Minutes - June 22 2011CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AURTHORITY Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 26, 2011 Present: EDA Board Members, Chad Davey, Steve Frank, Carolyn Yaggie-Heinen, Tom Skahen, and Dale Wick. Absent: None. Also present: EDA Director Cynthia Smith-Strack. Call to Order. Chairperson Wick called the June 26, 2011 regular meeting of the St. Joseph EDA to order at 3:00 p.m. Agenda. Chairperson Wick introduced the agenda and requested the addition of agenda item 5e relating to the Gateway Concept Plan, item 5f relating to a concept plan for the College of St. Benedict, and 6a relating to the date of the next EDA meeting. Motion by Davey, second by Frank to approve the agenda with the requested changes. Motion carried 5- 0. Approval of Minutes. Chairperson Wick introduced the minutes of the May 25, 2011 regular EDA meeting. Motion Frank, Second Heinen to approve the minutes from the May 25, 2011 regular EDA meeting as presented. Motion approved 5:0. Accounts Payable and Monthly Report. Chairperson Wick introduced the agenda items and reviewed accounts payable in the amount of $2,591.48 for MDG services. Wick then Wick introduced the May financial report noting the 2010 Audit had been completed and the financial reports illustrated the audited figures. Motion Frank, Second Davey to approve accounts payable and the May financial report. Motion carried 5:0. BFA Standard Update. Wick introduced the agenda item. Strack noted at a previous meeting the EDA requested preparation of revised BFA Grant guidelines to clarify certain standards. These clarifications are primarily housekeeping type issues. Said revised guidelines were included in the EDA packet. The EDA reviewed three suggested changes to BFA guidelines as highlighted below: ÐËÎÐÑÍÛ Ì¸»Í¬òÖ±»°¸Þ«·²»Ü·¬®·½¬Ú¿9¿¼»ß®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´Ü»·¹²Ù®¿²¬Ð®±¹®¿³°®±ª·¼»·²½»²¬·ª»¬±¬·³«´¿¬»ª··¾´» ®»·²ª»¬³»²¬·²Í¬òÖ±»°¸¾«·²»»òÐ®±°»®¬§±©²»®¿®»»²½±«®¿¹»¼¬±½±²·¼»®·³°®±ª»³»²¬¬¸¿¬ ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¬¸»«®®±«²¼·²¹½±³³«²·¬§·²½´«¼·²¹¾«¬²±¬´·³·¬»¼¬±¿»¬¸»¬·½ô»²ª·®±²³»²¬ô½«´¬«®¿´¿²¼¸·¬±®·½ »´»³»²¬ô¿²¼¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®»òÌ¸»»·³°®±ª»³»²¬¸±«´¼½®»¿¬»¿½±¸»·ª»ô·²ª·¬·²¹»²ª·®±²³»²¬òÌ¸»°®±¹®¿³ °®±ª·¼»¿³¿¬½¸·²¹¹®¿²¬º±®¿½¬«¿´¼»·¹²¿²¼½±²¬®«½¬·±²½±¬ô«°¬±üïôððð°»®°®±°»®¬§¿¼¼®»ô°»® ½¿´»²¼¿®§»¿®òòò Ð¿¹»î±ºêê ÛÔ×Ù×Þ×Ô×ÌÇ êòÌ¸»º±´´±©·²¹¬§°»±º°®±°»®¬§¿®»²±¬»´·¹·¾´»æ Ì¿¨¼»´·²¯«»²¬ Í°»½·¿´ß»³»²¬¼»´·²¯«»²¬ Ð®±°»®¬§·²´·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ð®±°»®¬§·²½±²¼»³²¿¬·±²±®®»½»·ª»®¸·° Ì¿¨»¨»³°¬°®±°»®¬·» Û¨½´«·ª»´§®»·¼»²¬·¿´¾«·´¼·²¹ Ð®±°»®¬·»¦±²»¼·²¼«¬®·¿´ Ò»©½±²¬®«½¬·±²°®±¶»½¬±²´±¬°®»ª·±«´§«²¼»ª»´±°»¼ø®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬¿²¼ñ±®®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²°®±¶»½¬ ®»³¿·²»´·¹·¾´»÷ Ð®±°»®¬§½±²·¼»®»¼²±²½±²º±®³·²¹¬±¬¸»ÃYÅÝ±¼»±ºÑ®¼·²¿²½»ô«²´»¬¸»°®±°±»¼ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬¿®»·²¬»²¼»¼¬±½±®®»½¬¿´´¬¸»²±²½±²º±®³·²¹·«»ò Motion by Heinen, Second by Skahen to recommend the City Council approve of the revised changes. Motion carried 5:0. Consideration of Demolition Grant Program/Standards. Wick introduced the topic. Strack noted that at a previous meeting the EDA received a suggestion for implementing a demolition grant program. The EDA agreed to address a potential program in conjunction with the 2012 CIP consideration. Draft guidelines were included in the EDA packet. The draft guidelines are based on language contained in a draft demolition program being requested by Mn. Department of Employment & Economic Development, our existing BFA program process, and similar demolition programs active in similar sized communities. The EDA reviewed the draft guidelines. Motion by Skahen, Second by Davey to recommend establishment of a demolition program and approval of grant guidelines to the City Council. Motion Carried 5:0. 2012 Budget/Reallocation of SCDP Dues from 2011 Wick introduced the agenda noting the City’s Finance Director has convened the 2012 budget process. The EDA must submit a preliminary budget to the City Council for consideration at budget workshop(s) in August. A preliminary budget will be adopted and certified to the County in September and a final budget to be adopted in December, 2011. Strack referenced a worksheet illustrating a preliminary budget for the EDA Fund 150, TIF Funds, and the Revolving Loan Fund that was included in the EDA packet. Strack noted the budget illustrates expenses only and not revenue, and that the budgets for the TIF funds and the Revolving Loan Fund do not feature itemized expenses as these budgets are simply ‘pass through’ and not capitalized by transfers from the General Government Fund. d the line item for staff and/or professional services in Fund 150 mimics that of last year, but Strack state Council Member Loso has requested the City seek competitive proposals for EDA consulting services in 2012 which could alter the staff/professional services line item. Also included in the packet is a worksheet relating to the EDA’s Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 for Board Member review and consideration along with a copy of the 2012 CIP itemized workplan as created in 2009. EDA Minutes – June 22, 2011 2 Ð¿¹»í±ºêê Strack reminded the EDA that the City Council declined to participate in the Greater St. Cloud Area Development Corporation this year. As discussed at the previous meeting, the scheduled dues of $8,000 to the former SCAEDP are available for reallocation within the EDA budget. Strack informed the EDA that th the Rental Housing Working Group is meeting with Stearns County HRA on June 29 to discuss process for applying to DEED for Small Cities Development Grant. If this were to be approved by the EDA/CC there is a possibility a fee may be charged to the EDA (e.g. $2,500). Wick noted that the City Council had not established budget goals for the 2012 cycle however, the EDA could likely expect a hold the line budget or a reduction in spending. Frank stated the St. Joseph Chamber is reinvesting in a strategy specifically oriented toward existing businesses and their needs. Frank stated he was sympathetic to this effort and alluded to previous studies linking the majority of local economic growth to existing businesses. Frank inquired as to what other members of the EDA thought of such an effort. Davey stated the Chamber’s decision to focus on existing businesses was an effort to provide service to existing businesses in order to gain membership and increase meeting attendance. Wick stated existing business was definitely part of the equation as was growth of the tax base, increased jobs, and diversification of the market value of the City. Strack stated in her experience it is evident that growth of existing healthy businesses is responsible for the majority of local economic development. She opined that she’d take that one step further and focus on existing business owners with a demonstrated talent for and interest in entrepreneurship; those business owners who seem to be driven by innovation, energized by possible market needs, and filled with a can-do mentality. In addition, Strack noted cultivation of new businesses was indeed a primary task of the EDA. How much time/energy the EDA wished to put forth on working with existing businesses and cultivating new leads was a policy decision for the EDA and City leaders. She noted clear direction is always welcomed as it focuses work priorities. The Board next discussed potential capital projects for the next year including: revitalization, business development, and infrastructure development. The EDA noted an indication of budget priorities from the City Council would be helpful. Wick suggested Board Members consider potential budget options specifically related to capital items over the next several weeks and be prepared to recommend a preliminary budget at the next EDA meeting. Wick next introduced discussion about reallocation of dues. Wick inquired as to whether or not an association with the Central Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors would/could be continued. Strack noted she had attempted to contact MnCAR representatives but was still awaiting feedback. Wick suggested that that issue be resolved and that consideration be given to marketing outreach efforts at the next meeting. Frank stated Council Member Loso had suggested the dues be reassigned to the Revolving Loan Fund Program. Strack inquired as to the EDA’s wishes relating to the Mayor’s goal of creating renderings of the downtown ‘footprint’. Skahen noted a need to meet with stakeholders prior to meeting with graphic design professionals. Wick noted he is to be working on the ‘downtown footprint’ issue and that a meeting needed to be scheduled. The Board then discussed potential sponsorship of a Small Cities Development Grant application as alluded to earlier in the meeting. EDA Minutes – June 22, 2011 3 Ð¿¹»ì±ºêê Motion Wick, second Skahen to authorize reallocation of up to $2,500 of the dues line item to professional services line item for SCDP grant investigation and writing by Stearns HRA. Motion carried 5:0. CEDS Update. nd Chairperson Wick introduced the agenda item and noted he attended a meeting on June 2 which was very productive. Strack noted she had spoken with Jordan Zeller who indicated he’d like to have the federal EDA representative tour our potential projects. Gateway Concept Plan. Chairperson Wick introduced the concept plan and Strack distributed copies of the plan to the Board. Frank commented on the conceptual roadway progressing toward the east and recommended the conceptual arrow be removed from the map as a means of illustrating the result of a previous study. The EDA will use the concept to market the property to potential interested parties. CSB Concept Plan. Chairperson Wick referenced the plan being distributed to the Board. Strack stated the College of St. Benedict submitted a concept plan for build-out of 54.105 acres of property east of CR121 and north of th . the CSB President’s Residence. The concept plan is the subject of a joint meeting on Monday, June 27 The Concept Plan was being highlighted with the EDA Board to promote an understanding of the potential project from an economic development standpoint and to prevent the EDA from feeling ‘out of the loop’. Strack stated the City Council agreed to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning th request for the subject property at its June 16 meeting. The joint meeting is not intended to discuss the need for or merit of a CPU amendment or rezoning. Cursory review by staff indicates the project could be facilitated under the existing CPU and intended future uses as illustrated in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, or the PC/Council could opt to amend/rezone as requested by the Applicant whichever scenario best meets the goals/policies of the community. Strack stated the concept plans reveal an impressive investment in the community and a great opportunity to work closely with the City’s major employer to promote economic growth and activity within the greater Downtown area. Strack noted the submittal by CSB Attorney John Greer illustrated the following intended uses for the property: 1. A Welcome Center with tentative plans to include an admissions office, conference rooms, a retail coffee shop, and a visitor’s center. 2. College owned student housing which would consist of approximately six separate buildings and house approximately 120 students. The design concept for the student housing has not been finalized. 3. Athletic fields and recreational facilities including: softball fields, tennis courts, soccer fields, a running track, and parking lots for those facilities. 4. The sale of property for development of senior housing. Strack stated the concept plan was presented to staff and that in an effort to meet the time line outlined by CSB the following suggestions were offered by staff to CSB Representatives. The suggestions were provided in an attempt to prepare the Applicant for future public review. CSB Representatives should be prepared to address lighting and public address systems (whether or not envisioned and how buffered from residential neighborhoods) associated with the athletic fields. EDA Minutes – June 22, 2011 4 Ð¿¹»ë±ºêê CSB Representatives should be prepared to address whether or not athletic fields could be used by public and how concept plans related to parkland dedication requirements. CSB Representatives should consider leaving Outlots A & B (contemplated for sale to developer for senior housing) zoned Ag as opposed to rezoned to E/E. CSB Representatives should be prepared to discuss when plans would be finalized rather than evolving concepts described in letter to City Council and illustrated in attachments i.e. (a) finalization of plans for Welcome Center components (especially retail in terms of square footage of commercial and types of uses contemplated such as coffee shop, convenience store, sundry items, etc); (b) final plans for student housing in terms of number of buildings and unit arrangement and potential for re-use in the future if enrollment declines, and (c) finalization of plans for athletic fields). CSB Representatives should be prepared to discuss phasing plan for development, especially when site plans could be anticipated for major portions of the development. CSB Representatives may wish to consider a Planned Unit Development (flexible) versus conventional platting and development of the area. CSB Representatives should be prepared to address miscellaneous issues such as sidewalk adjacent to 121, pathways within the development, ownership of storm water facilities, seeding of phased areas, access to all lots and outlots, utility service, etc. CSB Representatives should be prepared to complete an EAW as required (prior to rezoning) under Mn. Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 32 if the final plans are as presented in the attached materials. CSB Representatives should be prepared to address plans for (or interim/final plans) public safety accesses i.e. two points of ingress/egress to student housing and athletic fields. CSB Representatives should meet with Stearns County Engineer regarding access from CR 121 and pedestrian crossings of CR 121. The EDA Board discussed the major investment in the community in terms of construction jobs created, local spending, the generation of additional foot traffic in the downtown, and opportunities to integrate the College and adjacent neighborhoods. The EDA is enthusiastic about the project. Strack noted the item would likely be on the next EDA agenda. Board Member Announcements. Wick introduced agenda item 6a relating to the date of the next EDA meeting. Strack noted her annual th vacation was the final two weeks of July, including over the next EDA regular meeting date of July 27. rd Strack asked for input from the EDA as to whether they wanted to meet on July 14, July 27, or August 3. rd The EDA opted to reschedule the meeting to August 3. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned by consensus at 4:55 PM. Cynthia Smith-Strack EDA Director EDA Minutes – June 22, 2011 5 Ð¿¹»ê±ºêê