04-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EDC Minutes ,ter April 21, 2006 Not Approved Page 2 percentage. He is more concerned about the overall policies—for example, whether we do • Election A or B regarding fiscal disparities. From a financial standpoint, it may be difficult to do both the decertification of a district and opting for Election B (fiscal disparities only from the district). With those assumptions the City might not have sufficient resources to do critical improvements, such as the Co. Rd 10 Corridor. Backman is seeking input from the EDC as to what the members feel more comfortable with—status quo, decertification, Election B, etc. Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission did not take a position regarding the finances or what should be done with the districts. The PC wanted to focus on four areas—Silverview Plaza, Moundsview Square, County Road 10, and infrastructure. According to Ericson, the greater question is where we spend the dollars. Johnson stated that spending TIF resources for infrastructure is beneficial because it benefits both businesses and residents. She is concerned about the fairness of the distribution of those funds (e.g. for feeder roads). Ericson posed the question of whether the EDC supports current levels of TIF funding or reducing TIF revenues. Field indicated that the public desires to reduce the amount of TIF. Johnson stated that she did not ready to do a motion on fiscal disparities options A or B. Jaker felt he did not have enough information about the clarity of options to make a decision that is helpful to the City. After further discussion,Johnson made a motion to direct the EDA to pursue options to reduce the amount of TIF collected while still meeting the Economic Development goals and priorities set forth by the City. Helgemoe seconded the motion. Passed 5 to 0. 6. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND EDA LIAISON A. Report of Commissioners. Field has noticed the project near Scotland Green during the past several weeks. Being a Commissioner he wants to be informed about all economic development projects in M.V. Field expressed his disappointment at how the residential project proceeded 111 and the clearcutting that has gone on. Ericson indicated that the City's hands are tied since the judge ruled in favor of the developer, Harstad Homes, regarding the approvals and requirements for Red Oak Estates#3. He added that the ruling does not apply to other projects in the City. On a different item, Helgemoe mentioned the upcoming Chamber Golf event on June 2nd at Majestic Oaks. It is a significant fundraiser for the TCN Chamber. Entsminger reminded members of the upcoming Town Hall meeting on Saturday, April 29 at the Mounds View Community Center. B. Report of Staff: 1. Update on Medtronic CRM Corporate Campus: Backman discussed the payments the City has received to date. On March 24, 2006, the City received about$1.4 million—Medtronic paid the City$865,000 for the park dedication fee; Opus,the design builder for the Medtronic CRM Campus, paid $549,643.67 for building permits and utility fees for the North Building and the Parking Ramp. The fees are already greater than the City originally forecasted and additional permit fees will be paid. The larger amounts are due to greater building values and to higher SAC/WAC fees as calculated by the Met Council. Backman showed construction photos and unrolled a large diagram of the County Road J project. Backman discussed different components of the road project. Helgemoe asked about red and green areas on the diagram. Ericson indicated they were raised medians (red) and landscaped medians(green). Road construction is slated to begin in mid-May, and the bridge over 35W will be demolished this fall. Two of the four metal bridges were moved by the City to the Public Works parking lot(Medtronic kept two of them). The pouring of concrete footings for the North Building began during the first week of April. Field asked about the status of the billboards. Backman replied that signs #4 and 5 were removed starting March 14th. Next • year in March signs#2 and 3 will be removed. Ericson noted that the City is looking at the sign code ordinance to facilitate alternate locations for these signs,focusing on areas along I-35W, Highway 10, and Old Highway 8.