Laserfiche WebLink
Not Approved <br /> Minutes of the Economic Development Commission <br /> City of Mounds View <br /> • Ramsey County, Minnesota <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> April 21, 2006 <br /> City of Mounds View, Council Chambers <br /> 2401 Highway.10, Mounds View, MN 55112 <br /> 1. CALL TO ORDER: <br /> Chairperson Toni Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:40 a.m. <br /> 2. ROLL CALL: <br /> Members Present: Jackie Entsminger, Tom Field, Jerry Jaker, Jason Helgemoe, Toni Johnson <br /> Members Absent: Greg Belting <br /> Staff Present: Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman <br /> Others Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson <br /> 3. APPROVAL OF EDC MINUTES: <br /> • Motion/Second: Field made a motion to approve the March 18, 2005 minutes. Seconded by <br /> Entsminger. Approved 5 to 0. Johnson noted correction at the adjournment of the March 17, 2006 <br /> minutes. Jaker made a motion to approve the March 17, 2006 minutes as amended. Seconded by <br /> Entsminger. Approved 5 to 0. <br /> 4. SPECIAL BUSINESS <br /> A. None. <br /> 5. EDC BUSINESS <br /> A. Discussion of the Economic Development Funding Priorities and Philosophy. Backman reviewed <br /> Jim Ericson's April 19, 2006 report to the M.V. Planning Commission. Ericson explored five <br /> potential outcomes of its economic development policy review. First,the City could maximize the <br /> flow of increment or revenues. Continuing TIF in the present fashion generates $14.4 million <br /> over the next nine years. A variety of projects can be funded because of the flexibility with these <br /> TIF districts. Second, the City could reduce the amount of increment available for economic <br /> development purposes. Third, the percentage of the tax capacity captured in the existing <br /> districts could be reduced. Fourth, the geographic area contained in the current TIF districts <br /> could be reduced. Fifth,the City could reduce the financial burden of the TIF districts on non-TIF <br /> properties. Backman reviewed the existing obligations for the three districts. District#3 is the <br /> district that could be decertified the earliest based upon its current obligations. Ericson noted <br /> that with these options the City would be looking at a percentage or specific dollar amount target. <br /> • <br /> Johnson asked if 16.3% of captured tax capacity is high or low. Ericson replied that there is no <br /> standard with the state or the Office of State Auditor. It is really up to the individual communities <br /> setting their priorities. Backman indicated that he was less concerned about the specific <br />