Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-20 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting May 28, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Simmons at 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Simmons, Bernhjelm, Butterfield, Cordes, Craig, Hudlemeyer, Wilson Members Absent: None Also Present: Adam Kienberger, Community Development Director; Teah Malecha,Finance Director; Kalley Swift, Community Development Specialist 2. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Craig, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 5. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 6. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Bernhjelm, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Meeting Minutes (April 23, 2020, Regular Meeting) b) Received Monthly Financial Statements APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) EDA Financial Review Finance Director Malecha reviewed the EDA's revenues and expenses for 2018 and 2019. In 2018,the EDA paid broadband expenses of$30,000. The Dakota Broadband Human Resources costs were charged to the EDA in 2019, but reimbursed through the county. The fund balance in 2018 was $302,502 and in 2019 the fund balance was $298,312. Regarding funds available for programming, at the beginning of 2020 the EDA had cash of$232,086 plus a general fund transfer of$40,000. Funds have been allocated as follows: Operations 30,000 Open to Business 5,513 Site Readiness 20,000 Fagade Improvement 20,000 ($10,000 committed to Fletcher building) Utility Fee Grant Program 10,000 CDBG Cashflow timing 32,188 EDA Minutes(Regular) May 28,2020 Page 2 Public Space Improvement 10,000 RRC Plaza (committed) 100,000 Leaving$44,385 available for programming. The EDA tentatively designated$50,000 for the development and reinvestment program. Community Development Director Kienberger requested the EDA discuss what they wanted to do as an EDA for 2020 and 2021. Should additional funds be requested as part of the budget process? The EDA previously decided to pause the reinvestment program for this year. No funds were allocated towards the business retention and expansion program. There is enough in the operating expenses to cover a minimal amount. Member Wilson asked how the city budget is looking and could the $40,000 transfer be reduced for next year. The City Council is not that far into the budget process for 2021 yet. The city is expecting to receive local aid for pandemic expenses, but the amount is unknown. Chair Simmons suggested instead of relying on the $40,000,putting forth a budget on what to spend money on. Would the City Council like to see how we use the current dollars or see how we will use future dollars or both? Member Bernhjelm stated the City Council would like to see the programs the EDA wants funds for; they would like to see the big picture. Regarding the fagade improvement program,we have $10,000 left and there have been no additional submissions. Member Wilson felt it would be reasonable to pause the fagade program and leave the option to allocate those funds to the broader community. Member Butterfield suggested allocating funds to the business reinvestment program. He would like to see a larger pool of money for that program and look for funds from the City Council to spur economic development. Member Bernhjelm noted if$10,000 is left in the fagade program, that rolls over to next year and also any leftover utility fee program funds. Community Development Director Kienberger stated we haven't had budget requests from boards and commissions before. What Finance Director Malecha presented is what we would present to the City Council. The standard transfer amount is $40,000. For 2021, we talked about$50,000 for the business reinvestment program, so we would be asking for additional funds. There isn't a place in the budget for boards and commissions to request funds. If the EDA needs more money, then how much? Chair Simmons stated if we request additional funds, we need to make sure all members understand why we are asking for more. She suggested keeping this on the agenda to provide information when needed. EDA Minutes(Regular) May 28,2020 Page 3 Member Butterfield stated the current budget is to support small businesses. We could redirect funds to help business; pool funds for larger businesses. He suggested discussing this at a joint City Council meeting. Chair Simmons noted with the fall election there could be changes on the City Council. Member Cordes felt it was a good idea to keep asking and it shows we are committed long term. Community Development Director Kienberger stated we need to come to a consensus about what to allocate to the EDA. Member Wilson felt once there is a preliminary budget we could have a better discussion in June or July. Member Craig stated we need to decide now what to put forward. That can be part of the discussion. Regarding programs to lay out, in light of COVID, do we want to change strategy on how to help business owners? Member Bernhjelm proposed to keep the fagade program at$20,000. Dedicate $20,000 to public space and $20,000 - $30,000 to reinvestment program. This makes a total transfer of$60,000 - $70,000 next year. Member Butterfield agreed and if we can get that amount, look at under utilized programs. Member Bernhjelm felt it was reasonable to ask. We will know if this is accepted in late 2020 and can adjust for 2021. MOTION by Butterfield, second by Hudlemeyer to add $30,000 for a total of$70,000 for general fund transfer. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. b) EDA Program Updates The Utility Fee program has been live since May 4, 2020. It allows for one grant up to $500 towards payment of a water bill for a business with less than 100 employees. So far$708 has been issued to two applicants. The utility billing cycle was due April 30. The next cycle is due July 31 so more businesses can apply. When the June 1 invoices for on-sale liquor fees are mailed to restaurants, an application for this program will be included. Regarding the Public Space program,the EDA had discussed accomplishing small victories having tangible outcomes. The EDA had an interest in wayfinding signs and this was identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the TH3 Plan. An example of this program would be replacement of the EDA sign on Elm Street. Staff is starting to get estimates for costs. Staff requested the EDA discuss how much they want to invest in removal,preparation of the site and purchase and installation of a new sign. As far as wayfinding signs, an estimate for a small concept sign is $3,500; a large concept sign would be $6,000 per light pole. A simpler metal sign would be $1,000 - $2,000. Several years ago,the city talked about a dynamic sign with electronic display by the police department for $80,000. If we want something that has lighting, it would be $20,000 - $40,000. Lakeville is providing information also. Member Craig expected more around $80,000. Staff noted the electronic dynamic display adds to the cost. Member Bernhjelm suggested the EDA step back and look at the bigger list of signage to install from welcome signs to EDA Minutes(Regular) May 28,2020 Page 4 direction signs from TH3 before deciding. Chair Simmons noted each individual plan has signage. She would like to see a prioritized list. Member Bernhjelm stated if we want something downtown, she would like a dynamic sign. Maybe do smaller signs first and have a strategic plan where to place the signs. Member Cordes agreed with having a signage plan. Member Bernhjelm suggested if signs cannot be paid through the EDA,perhaps we can find dollars in other funds as they become available. Member Hudlemeyer would like to see consistency with signs so there is a flow through town of the style of sign. Staff asked if there is a desire to create a sign plan using those dollars. Member Bernhjelm stated yes and we also have money allocated to the Rambling River Center Plaza if signs are a better use of the funds. Staff asked if there is a desire to remove the current sign. Member Hudlemeyer stated getting a sign removed shows progress towards a sign plan. Staff estimated it would be $200 to remove it. All members supported removal of the EDA sign on Elm Street. Member Wilson recommended figuring out how to get 100%of the project done at one time. Staff will remove the current sign and develop a sign plan for the next meeting. 9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT a) May Director's Report On May 18,the City Council approved a resolution authorizing temporary outdoor customer service areas. Member Butterfield asked as businesses open, has the city discussed having citywide mask use. Member Bernhjelm stated this has not been discussed by Council. There has been more discussion giving restaurants outdoor space to operate. Chair Simmons stated the MDH is not enforcing mask use because there is more compliance when it is voluntary. At a recent meeting with the CDA, staff was informed the current Open to Business advisor has resigned. There is new contact information on our website. The next EDA meeting is June 25. If we meet in person,the meeting will have to be in the council chambers. Members agreed to continue having virtual meetings. 10. ADJOURN MOTION by Bernhjelm, second by Hudlemeyer to adjourn at 7:14 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Gu.wtkta McAl,er Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant