Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-90 ,.,k ,'w i CITY OF LAKEVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Berg at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall conference room. Roll call of members was taken. Present: Berg, Brantly, Detjen, Emond, Erickson, Leslie, Matasosky, Tushie and Meledandri. Also present was Bob Erickson, City Administrator; Jim Robinette, Community Development Director; Roger Knutson, City Attorney. 90.07 Motion was made by Emond, seconded by Matasosky to approve the minutes of the January 30, 1990 Economic Development Commission meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, presented a comparison of the power of an Economic Development Authority and a Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The difference in the powers are not dramatic and some are trivial. An example of when an economic development authority can be advantageous is that they can borrow in advance of a bond sale. They can build and operate parking lots and install special street lighting systems. Mr. Knutson discussed the tax increment law and the outlook is that the legislature will be tightening it up. City Administrator, Bob Erickson, remarked that for five (5) weeks, Messages will be explaining tax increment procedures. Mr. Knutson, at the conclusion of his comments, indicated that during all of his years in Lakeville, he knew of no project that an Economic Development Authority could have done that the HRA could not have done. The Commission held a discussion concerning the proposed ordinance regarding financial responsibility for developers. Mr. Berg asked why 25 percent was picked as a percentage of ownership. It was indicated that percentage of ownership was recommended because someone who has 25 percent ownership i • ECONOMIC DE~)ELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 would have some say in the business. Mr. Berg indicated that he personally believed any ownership less than 25 percent would be appropriate. Mr. Tushie indicated that he felt that the ordinance was too restrictive and would discourage development. He indicated that he would have trouble defining "delinquent" in outlining how the developers were to be handled. Mr. Meledandri indicated that he felt the time length should be well defined before anyone was reinstated in good standing. The Commission felt the staff should conduct a survey on how at least ten different cities deal with the problem of developers paying their bills and bring it back to the next meeting. 90.08 Motion was made by Emond, seconded by Brantly to table discussion of the proposed ordinance regarding financial responsibility for developers until the next meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. • A discussion was held concerning the Metro East membership. A review of memorandums was presented by staff. 90.09 Motion was made by Leslie, seconded by Matasosky to recommend that the City join the Metro East Coalition for Economic Development and pay annual dues in the amount of $SOO.DD. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. A discussion was held concerning the expenses of the 1989 Commerce and Industry Day and program changes. The City had a direct outlay of $658.91 and the Chamber of Commerce had an outlay of $1,434.45. Mr. Erickson and Mr. Robinette both commented that they felt Commerce and Industry Days should be considered only for every other year instead of an every year event. Mr. Robinette stated that he felt the City should try and do a better job in the future of targeting the invitations to people more directly involved with development or with clients in the development business such as venture capital firms, accountants and attorneys who are active in the development business. The staff felt the City should not have Commerce and Industry Day this year, rather, the focus be on business retention. It was felt there should be a review of the program at the end of the year. . 2 • . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 90.10 Motion was made by Matasosky, seconded by Meledandri that the City not hold a Commerce and Industry Day in 1990 and that it be revamped into a new form for 1991 to improve performance and costs. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. A discussion of the Economic Development Commission Work Plan was held. The work plan is a formal part of the Star City report and recertification that the City recently went through. The Commission felt it was a good plan and had no additions. A discussion was held concerning Airlake Industrial Park and the associated problems. 90.11 Motion was made by Emond, seconded by Meledandri for the Commission to review options in marketing property in Airlake Industrial Park and also review the possible purchase or ways to acquire Airlake Industrial Park. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. A review of the Business Retention Survey results was held. The results were a part of the Star City Report and were reviewed by the Commission. The Commission indicated that they hoped a more thorough job could be done this year when emphasis is placed on business retention during the summer months, Mr. Robinette indicated that money had been provided in the approved 1990 budget for an intern to work in the area of business retention. There was no other business. 90.12 Motion was made by Meledandri, seconded by Leslie to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Time: 10:15 p.m. • 3 . , . s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 Respectfully submitted: James A. Robinette Community Development Director ATTEST: Randy r hairma • • 4