Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Economic Development Authority Minutes <br />Avril 8, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />f't~(l'lPsted direction regarding a potential resale price. Commissioner <br />Tra]]e suggested that an appraisal done by the EDA two years ago <br />illdiC'al(~d a value of $75,000. If a real estate agent was involved, <br />L1wy woul d cOlllmand ] 0% of LlJl~ Illlt"chase pl'i CI~. Commissioner' Krupuenske <br />S'lss(;sl,~d hOl"(~VI'I', 1lJi\.L if t.he siLe was going to ue writ.ten down below <br />$ 7:,,000, then 'he bt'ukeragp. fee be t.he greater of a floor of $7,500 or <br />lO~;' (,f t.he PIII'Chase pl'ici~. Pr'l'sjdent C,ollgoll suggest.l~d t.hat. ret.ail <br />should he the first priority for the IIse on t.he site followed by office <br />i[!Hi b(el'vic!' l,,'Lili~d compani(~s. HOI.Jl!ver, staff should be given certain <br />fh',ihility I'egal'(lillg tht~ reuse of tlw property. Commissioner Dwyer <br />slIsgeslpd Lhat I'atller than IT;)' Lo lJ/'ior-i Ii ze the reuse, the f.D.;\ and <br />riiy sJlllllld COl\c('lllrate on achieving th2 best possible project. for the <br />sjb~ iturl that the EDA and City should [,("COllp their cost in the <br />jJl'oject. This cOlll;] be accomplished with the flexibility of using <br />adejj ti ollal tax incremen t expendi tures into the property. Commissioner <br />Eropuenske indicated that. the Elk River Downtown Development <br />(orpol'atioll and t\'iO of [he three comliiunity lenders had met on April 2. <br />The lenders agreed to consider creati Vf~ f inane ing that may be channeled <br />llJJ'(lugli the' Develul'llwlIl Coq)()j'i1Lj('1l aud LllPII on (u all end USIJj'. All <br />pinUes however agl't'~pd that in order lu make the sit.e viable, it \~ullld <br />taLe the cuol'pJ'i11 hili uf the Ci ty, 111c, Deve 11l11111tellt Curpora Liun and <br />lenders. The City and EDA's role in this would be to consider <br />ilddi Lional TIF ('\l'l'IIlJi tlln~s inLo the prujecl. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />Pt'('Sppct Epport <br /> <br />The Prospect Report that. was sent under separate cover was reviewed by <br />the EDA CO~Dissioners. <br /> <br />9.1 Department of Trade and Economic Development Prospect <br /> <br />At this time BiU Rubin explained that he had received a prospect from <br />Uk Department of Trade and Economic Development. (DIED). The prospect <br />is all inslIrance company currently located out of Minnesota that is <br />set:!<"ing to e:sLabl1:::;1I a claim processing center somewhere in Minnesota, <br />lI'i~)c()nsin or Tennessee. Cities wishing to submit a proposal to the <br />DIED are l'equired to do so by April 15, 1991. Bill Rubin requested <br />that Cindi Edward~-Plant of CEP Art & Design assist him with the final <br />layout of an 8 to 10 page proposal. It h;,tS the consenSllS or the EDA <br />("diiloissi"lh-TSt.O incur' Ihis e\:penditure. <br /> <br />i o. t\'-Q1Li ve D iLt.d:!!!~!la L~ <br /> <br />No disl'lIssjon under' lllis itteili Luul, place. <br /> <br />11. AJ.,L:2-ll ~~!t!!U'_D_t <br /> <br />Tlwre beillg no furLher business, CO~lmSSIONER HOLMGREN MOVED TO ADJOURN <br />THE 1vIEETING. COMMISSIONER DIETZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE ~fOTION <br />CAR.RTED 7-0. <br /> <br />e <br />