Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDA MIN 08-06-12ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF' AUGUST 6, 201.2 IN CONFERENCE ROOM I The meeting was called to order at 7:12 prn by Chair Peterson. Members Present: Bruce NaATocki,, Gary Peterson, Donna Schmitt, Gerry Iferringer, and Tanimera Diehm. Members Absent: Marlaine Szurek and Bobby Williams Staff Present: Walt Felist, Scott Clark, Sheila Cartney, and Shelley Hanson. Also present were: Peter Jesh of Coventry Senior Living and Keith Ebensteiner from ReMax Real Estate Company. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- RECITED 3. CONSENT ITEMS 1. Approve the Minutes from Special Meeting of May 7, 20�12 and from the Executive Session of May 7, 2012, 2. Approve the Financial Report and Payment ofBills for April, May and June 2012 on Resolution 2012-09. Questions- from members: There were no questions. Molion b)) Diehin, seconded 1�y Schmiti, to va,,aive the reading of Resolution 2012-09, there being an ample aniouni (#`coj)ies ai,ailable to the public. All aj es. MOTION 11A&VD. ,illotion /yy Diehin, seconded by .Sala fiu, to al?])rove the MiMwes an(I odov?l Resolution 2012-09. A// ayes. MO:77ON JA&VD, EDA RESOLUTION 2012-09 RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) APPROVING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE 2012 AND PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR THE MONTHS OF APRIL, MAY, ANTI UNE 2012. WHEREAS, the COILInibia 11eights Econoinic Development Authority (EDA) is required by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.096, 'Subd, 9, to prepare a detailed financial statement Nvhich shows all receipts and disbursements, their nature, the money on hand, the purposes to which the money on hand is to be applied, the EDA's credits and assets and its outstanding liabilities; and WHEREAS, said Statute also requires the EDA to examine the statement and treasurer's vouchers or bills and if correct, to approve them by resolution and enter the resolution in its records; and EDA Minutes Page 2 August 6, 2012 WHEREAS, the financial staternent for the months of April, May, and June 2012 has been reviewed by the EDA Corninission; and WHEREAS, the EDA has examined the financial statements and finds therm to be acceptable as to both form and accuracy; and WHEREAS, the EDA Commission has other means to verify the intent of Section 469.096, SUbd. 9, including but not firnited to Cornprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Annual City approved Budgets, Audits and sirnilar documentation; and WHEREAS, financials statements are held by the City's Finance Departnient in a rnethod outlined by the State of Minnesota's Records Retention Schedule, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Conirnissioners, of the Colunibia. Heights Economic Development Authority that it has examined the referenced financial' staternents including the check history, and they are found to be correct, as to fibrin and content; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the financial staterrients are acknowledged and received and the check history as presented in writing is approved for payment out of propel, funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution is made a part of the perinatient records of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. Passed this 6th Day oaf f August, 2012 MOTION BY: Dielirn SECONDI"'D BY: Schmitt AYES: All ayes . . .... Gary Peterson, President Attest By: Shelley Hanson, Secretary BUSINESS ITEMS 4. General Discussion Nvith Coventry for Assisted Living Proposal at 37�h and University Clark explained that Peter Jesh, representing Coventry Senior Living which is part of a Company named ICON, was present to have an informal discussion with the EDA regarding a potential assisted living, facility at 37'r' and University. The EDA's role in this is that the sub cabs property parcels are under the "Iluset Park Redevelopment Agreement" which specifically calls for 183 units of owner occupied condominiums or cooperative units, plus 11,600 sq. of retail. If this project proceeds, a formal amendment to the Agreement would have to be made in addition to the normal land use permitting process through the Planning Commission and City Council. Clark explained the ownership history of the site to the members. )'CIA Minutes Page 3 August 6, 2012 Mr. Jesh introduced Keith Ebensteiner from ReMax who is working with BNC Bank to market and develop, the remaining pieces of this site. Jesh stated that ICON is interested in constructing an Assisted Living building on the remaining Phase 2 piece and a Sr. Independent Living building on the site by the roundabout. If those buildings are successful they would potentially build another Assisted Living Building on the south piece at 37"' and University Ave. lesh says having an independent building nearby naturally feeds the occupancy of the Assisted Living building. He told members that if the project moves forward, they plan on having Ebenezer manage the building(s). Jesh said they have done ii-iarket studies and there is a. need for this type of housing in this area. He told members the preliminary plan is to construct a 95-100 unit, 4 story building on the Phase 2 site of Assisted Living space, and a 50-100 unit, 3 or 4 story building on the roundabout site of Sr. Independent Living space. He said it generally takes one year to build and two years to fill the units. Development of the south piece would depend on how quickly the units rent out. Clark asked Jesh if ICON would be taking Fee: Title for all three pieces and Jesh stated they would, if they can come to an agreement with the bank. The members asked if the retail component would still be considered as part of their plans. Jesh stated that would depend on the market needs, in the area. He intends to keep it as a possibility. Dichin said there are currently other Assisted Living facilities in Columbia Heights and that those buildings are not full. She questioned whether he has done recent market studies tojustify additional construction of this type. Jesh said he had, and that the studies indicate a need for "Elderly Waiver" units. N r ew Perspectives/Lighthouse is a market rate building. He told incinbers their buildings would primarily be "Elderly Waiver" or a mix of both. Herringer asked if the "Elderly Waiver" would apply to the Independent living units as well. Jesh said no, just the Assisted Living Building. He told members that part of the plan is to react to the needs of the public as there are many types or levels of Sr. Assistance. Jesh said that often times they can tie some of the services for both buildings together such as the emergency life line alerts. Nawrocki asked if the Units Would be owner-occupied condo units, or rental units. Jesh said they would be rental. Coventry Senior Living has found it beneficial to have Ebenezer manage their buildings since they are affiliated with Fairview Health Systems which also direct people to their housing options. Jesh told members Coventry Sr. Living has the following buildings: Maplewood-they are 90% done with construction of 107-Unit building and that 25 units are already reserved. They will be breaking ground this sunnier for another building, in Mounds View. Coon Rapids-90 units that is 90% full, and a new building in Malitornedi with 48 units that is 75% full. Jesh said his job is to find sites and get the financial deals put together. Schmitt asked if the EDA is in favor of this, how soon it would be until ICON started construction. Jesh told them it would take 4 or 5 months to complete the sales transaction if the bank accepts their off'er, and the), would probably start construction in the spring of 2013. Ebensteiner told members EDA Minutes Page 4 August, 2012 there are 23 banks involved in the ownership of this site and they must work through that, but they felt the first step was to see if the EDA is interested in. this type of pro.ject before they expend funds to pursue this. Diehm stated she was excited to see any interest in the site and would like ICON to keep an open mind about including some space for retail in their plans. Schmitt thought it was a great idea, especially since they are interested in developing all three pieces. She also stated she is very comfortable with Ebenezer managing the buildings as they have a good reputation with such facilities. Herringer said lie believed it is a positive move to complete the development and that he would keep an open mind about the deal and the plans. Nawrocki said he wouldn't commit yet as lie didn"t have enough information. Peterson stated he felt it was a good option for the community, Ile knows there are a lot of hurdles, but is excited to see the proJect move forward. Peterson told Jesh, that four of the five members present were in favor of them pursuing the purchase and development of the remaining parcels for Senior Living Buildings as informally discussed. 5/6. Resolution 2012-10 HI A Levy Budget Clark explained that the 2013 budget for all of the Community Development Department was enclosed in the agenda packets. Although some of the Departnient's budget (fund 201) is not controlled by the FDA, the EDA traditionally reviews and acts on this budget as a whole, which is in turn, finalized by the City Council. The actual EDA portion of the budget is fund 204 and the attached resolutions serve as a recommendation to the City Council for levying both an EDA and a IlRA levy. The Department's operating budget is straightforward due to the size of the department and no on-going capital and/or rolling stock requirements, and expenditures (combining fund 201 and Z�I 204) have been reduced by 2.6% comparing 2012 to 2013. Clark reviewed this year's budget highlights are as lfollows: I.The 2012 HRA levy (called statutorily a special benefits levy), is driven by a State formula using the City's market value, has been reduced by $8,553 from $218,343 to $209,790. The EDA traditionally maximizes the IJRA levy as budget revenue, and the aforementioned reduction is due to market value reductions. The l"DA levy (under separate resolution) has been maintained at prior year levels equaling $84,811. 2.The reduction in the IIRA levy, coupled with the EDA levy and one quarter only of Parkview administration revenue ($9,250) almost balances the fund 204 expenditures. The anticipated $20,209 expenditure over revenue difference, if realized, will be made up by fund 204 fund balance. 3.Fund 201 (Protective Inspections which includes building inspections and planning) has a proposed shortfall of $69,049. The difference will be made up by existing, fund balances EDA Minutes Page 5 August 6, 2012 in Fund 201, The aforementioned loss is a projected worst case scenario and one or two unanticipated projects in 2013 Could Substantially change these figures. Due to the inconsistency of building inspection revenue, revenue seldom matches expenditures. Fund 201 fund balances are used to offset years in which there are operating losses and the fund is replenished in years when revenues exceed expenditures. Staff recommends the Levy's as recommended. Qy-�-qiqqs by ivienihers: . . . . . . ............ . .................. Nawrocki stated he was surprised at some of the figures. He believes the whole budget should be reviewed, not just individual departments or funds. I-le went on to say there should be further reduction of expenditures. Clark said Fund 204 (EDA Administration) has been reduced by $16,4W Ile went on to explain that the EDA does not approve Fund 201 (Protection Inspections) - --that is done by the City Council. Information on that fund was included since Community Development is responsible for both funds, Navvrocki stated that the budget indicates that fund balances will be used to balance the 201 budget, and he disagrees with doing that. Clark explained to members that some years the revenues exceed protections due to a healthy economy, and a lot of construction and remodeling being done. Other years do not bring in enough revenue to cover expenses, so fund balances must be used. This is something that is hard to foresee and action one way or the other is usually done in hindsight. This service is something that must be provided per State Law, but revenues constantly fluctuate and are hard to predict. Nawrocki then asked about increased amounts in the contingency fund and was told that was where tile cost of living expenses were categorized. He then complained about the cost of refreshments for residents who went ID through the Citizen's Academy. He noted that the reduction In the administration fee from Parkview Villa indicates that the sale will probably too through and it is another reason that personnel should be cut fi -orn Community Development. Felist stated that this Department cut three positions in the last five years, and that none of them have been replaced. Schmitt stated she thought the Parkview Administration Revenue should be included in the budget for the entire year since the sale has not been finalized. Clark will make that adjustment. Nawrocki asked for clarification on the two Resolutions and needed to know which figures went with each Resolution. Motion fit' Diehm, seconded by&,hmitt, to vraive the reading of Resolutions 2012-10 (1102012-11 there being amlVe col)ies ovailable to the public. All Ayres. MOTJOIN PAK5ED. Afolion b'Y Diehm, seconded bY &hmiit, to al,)yw-ove Resolution 01? -1f)', Resolution A11117orizing the Levy Ql'a �Ije•ial Benefit Lev, PUrSIOnt to Alil7nesota,SIamles, S�,cfion 469.033', Subdivision 6 andAJ)proval of 61 BI&IA!e/ Y fi)r.Fiscalyeor 2013, Roll Call: ci'yes-Diehm, Wmiu, Peterson, and llerringer, Nqjr -Ncnvroeki A101ION PA& ED. Motion by Diehin, seconded by&hmilt, to aly)rove tie solution 201241, Resolution cif the EFC0170fnic Development Authority (EDA) in un(Ifor Corm nbiu fleighis A(,loping the 2013 budget and setting the EDA Levy with the correction oJ'adding revenues.for entire „y ear Parkview f✓illa AdminiStralion. Roll Calk qyes-.Diehni:, Schmitt, Peterson, e.vid Iferringer Mqj�-v-Navvrocki MOTION PA, ,SF.D. EDA Minutes Page 6 August 6, 2012 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 AUTHORIZtNG THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 4+ 9,033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET FOR FISCAL, YEAR 2013 WHEREAS, Pur -suant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.1081 ("EDA. Act") the City of Columbia Heights (­City") created the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Resolution 2001-62 and Ordinance No, 1442, the City Council granted to the EDA all powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority Under the p�rovisio�ns of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"), except certain Powers that are allocated to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights (the "HRA"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the EDA and I-IRA, together, to levy and collect a special benefit levy of up to .0 18,5 percent of taxable market value in the City upon all taxable real property within the City; and WI IEREAS, the EDA desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of .01' 85 percent of taxable market value in the City, and WHEREAS, the EDA understands that the HRA does not expect to levy a special benefit tax for fiscal year 2013; and Wl IEREAS, the EDA has before it for its consideration a copy of a budget for its operations for the fiscal year 2013 and the amount of the levy for collection in fiscal year 2013 shall be based on this budget. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority: I . The budget of $324,060 for the operations of the: EDA presented for consideration by the Board of Coin in i ss ioners of the EDA is hereby in all respects approved. Such budget includes the amount the EDA requests (by separate resolution) to be levied by the City Linder Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 107, together with the amount to be levied hereunder by the EDA under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.03 ), Subdivision 6. 2. Staff of the EDA are hereby authorized and directed to file the budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469,033, Subdivision 6. 3. There is hereby levied, subject to the approval of the City Council of the City, a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, in the amount equal to the lesser of a levy at a rate of .0185 percent of taxable market value in City, or $209,790 with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2013. 4. Staff of the EDC A are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by resolution of the City Council of the City of the levy of special benefit taxes in 2013 and to take such other actions as are necessary' to levy and certify such levy. EDA Minutes Page 7 Page 6, 2012 Motion by: Dicbm Second by: Schmitt Roll Call: ayes-Diehm, Schmitt, Peterson and Herringer Nays-Naw roc ki Motion passed this 6"' day of August 20 12 Attest by Walter R. Felist, Executive Director Gary L. Peterson, President EDA RESOLUTION 2012-11, RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (EDA) ADOPTING THE 2013 BUDGET AND SETTING THE EDA LEVY. BE IT RESOLVED By the Columbia I leights Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Columbia Heights, Minnesota as follows: WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights City Council established the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority January 8, 1.996 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.090 to 469. 1081 and WHEREAS, the City Council has given to the EDA the responsibility for all development and redevelopment projects and programs; and WHEREAS, the EDA is authorized under State Statutes, Section 469.107 to levy a tax on its area of operation for the Purposes authorized under State Statues 469.090 to 469. 108 1, subject to consent by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FDA FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. Tile EDA adopts and recommends to the City Council for approval a budget of $324,060 for year 2013, 2. The EDA adopts and recommends to the City Council for approval a levy of $8,4,811 for year 2013. The Executive Director is instructed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the City Manager and Finance Director/City Clerk of tile City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota. APPROVED THIS 6"' day of August 2012 MOTION BY: Dielim SECONDED BY: Schmitt Roll Call: ayes-Dielim, Schmitt, Peterson, and Herringer nays-Nawrocki MOTION PASSED. Attest by: Walter R. Fehst, Executive Director Gary L. Peterson, President EDA Minutes Page 8 August 6, 2012 7. Resolution 2012-12 Approving Funding for the Single Family Deferred Loan Program Cartney requested that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorize funding of $35,000 for the Single-Faniily Horne Deferred Loan Program (SFDL), which was included in tile Housing Maintenance Plan 2008 — 20 17, approved by tile EDA on August 18, 2007. The purpose of the SFDL is to provide low-interest loans to homeowners of lower income to complete structural improvements that would help ilia.intain the quality of their horties and the City's housing stock. Assistance is targeted at homeowners who need to perform home maintenance, but who may not be able to pay, a monthly debt service of a conventional loan. The SFDI, would provide half of the total proJect costs, or up to $7,500, in a deferred loan to homeowners making 80% of the median area. incorne or less. To qualify for the program, the homeowner must provide matching funds for the remaining project costs. Exterior home i rnproverne tits related to health and safety, code violations or energy efficiency, such as windows, siding and roofs, would be eligible. siding of the loan, plus siniple interest of two percent, will be required upon sale of the house or transfer of title. Tile liorneowner can use the proceeds from the safe ofthe house to pay the loan. Repaid loans will be returned to the funds available to finance future loans. In February 2011, the EDA allocated $3)5,000 to this program, to date $60,940 in loans have been obligated resulting in $0 fund balance for the remainder of 2012; if the ED�A would like to continue the SFDL program staff suggests allocating $35,000 for 2012, which historically has been sufficient for a )?early alloallent. Staff recommends the EDA obligate $35,000 from fund 420 for the Single Family Deferred I,oan Program. uaestions from members: Mernbers inquired how much money was in the fund 420. Cartney responded that currently there is approximately 1.9 million in that fund and this request is for $35,000. Herringer asked how much interest applicants pay for this money. Cartney stated they pay 2% simple 'interest at the time of sale. The interest is not accrued on an annual basis. Nawrocki stated that the EDA recently approved $50,000 in funding and wondered why we are approving another $35,000. Cartney said the $50,000 funding approved in May was for the Rebate Program. She explained the difference between the two programs and told members how much was used last year. Herringer asked how many applications we currently have waiting. Cartney told him staff has not beer] taking any applications for this program since additional funding had not yet been approved. He asked if the funds Would carry over till next year if not used in the remaining rnonths, of 2012 and she told him, yes. Holion by Diehin, secontled lay Yehmitl, to waive the reading qf'Resolulion 20.12-12 there heh g ample colfies availcible to the public. All ayes. A10TION1'ASSED. Notion 19y ,w chndlt, secon(lecl by Die hin, to aj�prove Resolution 2012-12 6119191-01417g,fiff7dil7g (?f S35, 000fir the Single P"aini4, De ,fear ed Loan fi,omfitnd 420. All a3,,es. AIOTION PAS'SED. EDA Minutes Page 9 August 6, 20,12 EDDA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-12 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM ($35,000) WHEREAS, since 21007 the Economic Development Authority (ED,A) has provided the Single Family Deferred Loan Program to residents of the City of Columbia Heights, and WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights EDA through its Comprehensive Plan has established as a goal the preservation of the single-family housing stock; and WHEREAS, the EDA approved the Housing Maintenance Plan 2008-2017 to improve and maintain the residential homestead housing stock; and WHEREAS, this resolution seeks to authorize and provide additional funds for the Continuation of the City's Single Family Deferfed Loan Program to be administered by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the EDA allocates $35,000 for the Single Family Deferred Loan Program frorn Fund 420 — Capital Improvement Development Fund. Passed this 6"' day of August, 2012 President Walter Felist, Executive Director 8. Scattered Site Update/Direction Cartney told mernbers that in February, the EDA approved R_ FP guidelines and directed staff to send out the RFII for development of four scattered site lots (4303 Reservoir Blvd, 4502 Washington, 41.10 6`n, , and 4421 5"'). Staff sent out twenty RFP's directly and also listed the lots and RFP'on the City's Webpage. The RIP provided a two month window for applicants to submit their proposals, no proposals were received. Currently the four lots are listed for sale on the City's webpage, on findinginyroof,com a free real-estate listing site and Postlets.com a website that lists the real estate on several •ebpages for free. Because of the direction in February to only list the four lots, staff has not listed any other lots for sale on the webpage, as price points have not been established. In February the EDA also discussed three other options: (1) City continue to market and sell the properties with assistance of the EDA attorney, (2) I-lire a realtor to market and sell the propel-ties, (3) Partner with Anoka County's Realtor who is tainiliar with the area and restrictions as he is selling the County's NSP lots. If the EDA were to choose option (1) a budget should be created for marketing (signage, web listings etc). If option (2) is selected an RFP would go out to the St. Paul Realtors Association and oil our webpage and staff would bring back a recommendation at a later EDA ineeting. Staff met with Anoka County's, realtor, Jared I-loylo with Rernax Advantage Plus, in January to discuss what Anoka County is doing with their lots, at that time lie indicated he would be interested in listing the EDA lots, but has not EDA Minutes Page 10 AugList 6, 20:12 been contacted since then (option 3). Regardless of what option the EDA decides to go with staff recommends using the established guidelines for all the lots. Staff recommends the Board give approval to send out RFPs to various Realtors and see what they propose. The RFPs will ask them to submit their contacts, background, credentials and the amount of Commission they will charge to market the lots for us. Questions from members; Schmitt asked about the possibility off selling the lots to neighboring properties. Fehst said he'd rather see the lots marketed for construction of new homes. This way we would recoup :sore of our expenses and it would generate more tax dollars through the years. Cartney said the lots would have to be taken out of the'rIF District in order to do that. It was noted that if these empty lots were combined with another lot that it would generate much less tax dollar revenues. Nawrocki thought the goal should be to try and recuperate some of our costs associated with buying these properties and demolishing the structures. Clark, said the EDA knew it would take sore time to sell the lots for new construction, and we must try different ways to market them to meet this goal. Her�ringer asked if they would fall under the" 9 year rule" for paying taxes on them. Clark told him, yes. Schmitt liked Option 2, plus she suggested putting up "For Sale" signs on the 4 properties we are focusing on currently. She also stated that when we get the RFP's back from the Realtors, that we should be able to negotiate the amount of commission and that a list of all the lots should be included 4-1 for them to market, not just the four "select" lots. The members agreed with this direction. 9. Anoka County Tax Levy Clark stated that in 2007 both the Economic Development Authority and the City Council entered into discussions and approved participating with the Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for five years,, to levy a tax for economic development purposes. Enclosed in the packet was the August 28, 2007 EDA report and City Council Resolution #2007-156 which will give the rationale for the participation. At that time, it was calculated that the total five year allocation would be approximately $1.285,776 minus the County's adininistration fee of 15% (the final net number would be $1,092,,250). However, the total net anticipated allocation from years 2008-2012 is only $937,524 since the levy amount is driven by State formula and is calculated based on City marketable tax value, which has decreased greatly over the past 5 years. Also enclosed was a spread sheet showing the obligated and unobligated funds for the 200�8 through 2012 allocations. fhe majority of the funds were previously dedicated to the Purchase of the "Mady's Property" as part of a large redevelopment action, but the offer to purchase the property was rescinded by the owner. EDA Minutes Page 11 August 6, 2012 The Anoka County levy program is a rolling five year program which means that the City/EDA has to either (1) Agree to be part of the prograrn for another five years (.years 2013- 2017 with an estimated total net allocation of $850,000 ($170,000 annually) or (2) Not re-up and forfeit the opportunity to participate for the full five year cycle. The policy question for the EDA is whether or not to use this program as a future source for redevelopment, housing and/or economic development programs. The EDA has limited resources for future activities and this allocation provides another tool for activities that could otherwise be halted due to a lack of funds. From a staff perspective, the lack of a specific program attached to these funds should not be a rationale for discontinuing the levy program. As the City ages, new issues and hopefully opportunities, will present themselves for public assisted reinvestment. As stated previously, these funds can't be generated at a future date, nor are they characterized as grant funds that could be applied for when needed. The funds can be viewed as a ineans to create a fund balance towards future expenditures that are consistent with an aging community and match the goals of the City. Examples of future use could be purchasing or assisting in a major redevelopment effort (such as a Mady's type project) or a loan program that would leverage these funds and allow access to a greater range of incorne levels. According to Anoka County, if the City desires to proceed with a new five year allocation no new resolution has to be passed and the extension is automatic. If the City elects not to pursue this funding levy a letter should be forwarded regarding the same. Staff views that as an aging C011111ILinity the EDA should avail themselves to whatever funding sources that they can for future projects. As stated in the 2007 report, if an EDA has a future project that is critical these funds can serve as an alternative to bonding, reducing the EDA's current redevelopment funds and/or the need to seek funding from other sources. Many first ring suburbs have compiled significant levels of redevelopment fund balances from old tax increment districts and this City has not had that luxury, meaning that building fund balances for redevelopment efforts needs to come from whatever sources can be found. 'chat being said staff recornmends continuing with the five year program. Questions from Members: Nawrocki strongly opposed continuing with this program. He feels this is a deceptive way to collect additional tax dollars from our residents and that $125,000 is taken off the top by Anoka County, He said if additional funds are warranted for redevelopment efforts then raise the taxes to do so, and not go through this process which hands over funds to the County that could be used by the City. 1'elist agrees with Nawrocki to a point on how it's done. However, we have no other way to get money for redevelopment projects, and if we don't have funds in place, then we cannot take action on properties that may become available to us for improvement. There was a brief discussion about the options we have to increase levy amounts that would provide funds without continuing with this particular program. EDMA Minutes Page 12 August 6, 2012 VY once Parkview Villa is sold, Clark stated will still have an IA RA le in T)i,ehin questioned whether we R mndeal with other hous 9that, yes there: will still be an HRA levy ��� on't be changer the other than just Pa,w Villa. The levy structure IN issues and programs e to make a decision �s�tt��atrmore od tier sale. Dichm then asked how Soor, we haNr infornation can be tabling this until the nexmeetint fund balances. October. She then suggested ' s, additional tax levy options, and curreil reviewed in regards to potential target area bel- meeting� All qyvs, Alotion by Schmilt, seconded by Herringel-, to bring this item back at the Sept(-'111 MOTION PASSED. Ut� rfaX Exemption Status 101. 828 40th Aven , n oldTV repair building 011 the lot. In 20,01 the In 19919 the EDA purchased property at 828 40'' Ave with a Block Grant (CDBG) neon ey ut green space. Con"I'llu"ity DevelOPI-nent building Nvastorn down leaving a vaca , 'Tile purchase price was $72,246.50 and olemolition was'$7,117.20 a was used for the purchase and demolition. lot, the property was placed into tax exempt total of $79363-A) of CDBG funds used. After purchase of tile status, , years tile subject lot has been Used as a community garden and in 20 k I the EDA turned down a For the past three lot proposal for an adjacent accounting firm. it was also at that firile proposal to sell the subject lot for a parkin; t or the city would need to pay back some of the that Anoka County explained national objective needs, to be tile CDBG funds (market value not tile total funds used)�. as of Deceruber 31, 2012 the subject lot will no Based oil a letter dated January 23, 2012 from Anoka County, 0 of property by a political subdivision Of longer be tax exempt. State Statute 272-02 Subd, 39 states "The holding d a public purpose in accordance t7 for economic development purposes shall be considered the state for later resale f �ceed nine years.." Anoka County 2013 value is . $31,600 resulting in t . The EDA has three options: 'With subdivision 8 for a period not to ex 2013 taxes of $659 ill which $309� would come back�o tile Cihis site for redevelopent and y taxes Start marketing t onal objects will need to be net or the market value a. if sold for redevelopment CDBG nati will have to be paid back to Anoka County. jig ta e i the site until ready to market, ace, which will 2. Keep the site as, is, and start payip S ol mullity garden or green space, ermanently use as a coil the need to pay back CDBG funds to 3. Dedicate tile lot as park land to 1--lowever, this Will trigger Maintain the tax exempt Status. Anoka County ($3100), tile cost to repay CDBG funds, staff recommends option 42 using Fund Due to tile small net amount ill taxes Plus 420. Q14gsti )nsfrotarne�'�Ilers' intended to be L recon"I'lendation to go With option 42. Nawrocki said it was,originally inte Peterson agrees N�vith staffs rking lot for the Library that we would have Cartney explained that if we turned it into a pa unty as it doesn-t Meet the national used by the Library. to Anoka Co rchase the lot a year or so ago. to pay back the CDBG funds in the amount of $3 1,6�00 objective',. Staff checked on this when the Accountant wanted to pu EDA Miulutes Page 13 August 6, 2012 Motion by Diehin, seconded by Peterson, to keep the parcel as a coinnninity garden andpay taxes until the EDA is reaely to niarket the loffir sale. All oyes. MOTION PASV.D. It. Administrative Repo rt There were no further reports. The next regular EDA meeting will be Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at City Flail at 6:30 pm. Diehm stated she will not be at that meeting. '"Ehe meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. Respectfully subinitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary