Agenda

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Tuesday, August 14, 2001 - 7:30 a.m.

Room 220 (NOTE CHANGE)

New Brighton Family Service Center

MEMBERS:	COUNCIL LIAISON:

______ Rakesh Agarwala	______ Ken Johnson	______ Steve Larson

______ Bob Benke	______ John Kaufhold	______ Char Samuelson

______ Gene Delaune	______ Mark Nelson	(alternate)

______ Dennis Flahave	______ Maxine Pierson	CHAMBER LIAISON:

______ Linda Harmon	______ Jeanne Smith

I.	Roll Call

II.	Approval of June 12, 2001 Minutes

Approval of July 10, 2001 Minutes

III.	Brighton Village Redevelopment

A. Public Meetings

B. Proposed Process

IV.	Legislative Changes

V.	Updates

A. Main Street Village

B. NW Quadrant

C. Rice Creek Center

VI.	Other Business

VII.	Adjournment

If you can't attend the meeting, please contact:

David Black, (651) 638-2060

NEXT MEETING - September 12, 2001, 7:30 a.m.

Room 218, New Brighton Family Service Center

NOTES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA

August 14, 2001

II.	Approval of Minutes

A quorum was not present at the beginning of last month's meeting, therefore two months' minutes are presented for approval.

III. Brighton Village Redevelopment

A. Public Meetings

Three public meetings were held recently, to provide opportunities for Kraus-
Anderson and Sentman Enterprises to present and explain their latest redevelopment plans. Attached is a summary of those meetings, and a newspaper article by a reporter who attended the second meeting.

B. Proposed Process

Staff wants to be able to provide clear and objective information to the Council about the likely impacts of this or any other proposal for the site. Following is a suggested list of criteria, developed from residents' concerns, discussions with the developers and planner, and professional experience.

•	Land uses. Are the proposed uses appropriate for the site, given its physical and economic assets and constraints?

•	Tenants. Do the proposed tenants provide services that are valuable to the community?

•	Site plan. Does the site plan provide for an optimal arrangement of the uses? Are reasonable access points provided for vehicles and pedestrians? Is adequate parking provided? Are there adequate pathways? Is adequate landscaping provided?

•	Construction. Is construction of high quality? Would it visually enhance or detract from the area? Can any improvements be made?

•	Effects on surrounding properties. Are there adequate setbacks and buffering to protect against unreasonable visual and aural intrusion?

•	Community impacts. Are there positive or negative impacts on the surrounding community (traffic, crime, etc.)?

•	Financial impact. What is the effect on the city's tax base? Is any city financial participation held to a reasonable level?

•	Community support. Would the development be supported by community, both now and throughout the life of the project? Are there any individuals or groups that would be significantly harmed by this development? If so, can those effects be mitigated in some way?

There may be additional criteria; please consider anything else that should be relevant to consider.

In order to properly evaluate the important factors, staff believes that we need to have a process that encourages discussion. The recent meetings were useful in that they provided an opportunity for some residents to express themselves on this proposal. But the loudest voices tended to drown out others, and no real discussion of alternatives could take place.

Staff is suggesting that a task force be formed, consisting of various members of the community. It should include residents (both from nearby and from other parts of the city), and representatives from the business community, city commissions (EDC and Planning Commission), Chamber of Commerce, and perhaps other groups. There should be a clear objective of evaluating the community impacts of this redevelopment proposal, in order to provide additional information and perspective to the City Council prior to decisions. Modifications or new concepts can also be proposed and evaluated.

Kraus-Anderson would be called on as a resource to provide details and perspectives on various ideas or concerns, but would not be a voting member. City staff would facilitate the meetings and provide analysis, perhaps through a planner, traffic engineer, or other professionals. It is likely that a task force would take four to six months, meeting once or twice a month, in order to direct and evaluate the necessary studies, reach its conclusions, and provide recommendations to the Council.

Scott Schmitt of Kraus-Anderson was initially opposed to a task force, because it would further delay the project, but understands that the current proposal is very unlikely to be approved under the current conditions. The company does not have a "Plan B" to offer as an alternative.

IV.	Legislative Actions

There were two major changes in the way that taxes are collectible, which will reduce the revenues in our TIF districts, both old and new. First, commercial-industrial tax capacity rates have been reduced. Second, the general education levy has been taken over by the state, greatly reducing the reliance of schools on the property tax.

Tax-increment financing was not substantially restricted; proposals to restrict the definition of blight, add further restrictions on pooling of funds from pre-1990 districts, etc. were not passed. Nevertheless, the changes in the property tax system will have a substantial and ongoing effect on New Brighton's program. Note the line "Tax Increment" under "Revenue" on the enclosed projection for all of our current districts, combined. Increments of just under $3 million in 2001 are projected to fall to just under $2 million in 2002. But also note that fund balances continue to increase by over $1 million each year, despite the reduction in revenues. This is a result of a conservative program throughout the nearly 20 years of redevelopment activity.

There will, however, be substantial effects in our future districts, including the NWQ. We have relied on internally borrowing revenues from the older, successful districts in order to pay for land acquisition, paying them back with revenues from the future developments. These revenues will be reduced, as shown. In addition, revenues from the projects themselves will be reduced by 30-40%.

Attached are several pages out of the materials from a recent seminar on the subject.

V. Updates

A. Main Street Village

The housing project at the north end of Main Street Village is expected to break ground this fall.

B. NW Quadrant

Acquisitions:

The acquisition of the Keys restaurant property will be presented for Council approval tonight (August 14th).

Dahlke Trailer has ordered a new appraisal, hoping to increase the City's offer. They expect to call us to discuss the purchase in a week or so.

Appraisals are expected any day on Mengelkoch Rendering, Midwest Asphalt, and the Clinch-On building.

Midwest Asphalt:

A court hearing is scheduled for the week of September 10th on Midwest's claim that there is not a valid public purpose for the City's action. Staff is providing copies of historical records, and will be asked to provide depositions later this month.

Results of the Phase II environmental study were finalized by Barr Engineering. They show that the northern portion of the site, approximately 8 acres, remains heavily contaminated, both in the soil and the groundwater. Expensive cleanup efforts and importing new soil would still leave significant pollution in the groundwater. This would have to be remediated through venting, which is impractical with owner-occupied units, as have been discussed for this area.

It may be possible to circumvent this problem by building rental units, installing some type of active venting system, or arranging a land swap or sale with Ramsey County, which would incorporate the area into the Long Lake Regional Park.

Planning/Finance:

DSU planners and the developers have been meeting to discuss modifications based on the Midwest environmental findings, as well as other concerns. Krass Monroe is updating its projections to reflect recent changes in the tax structure, the acquisition estimates, and the development proposal. A meeting is scheduled for August 21st to discuss the results.

C. Rice Creek Center

Property owners and tenants at the center have not agreed to the proposed improvements, some because of costs and others because they don't see how their business is being affected by the current conditions. Staff is investigating other ways to encourage owners to participate in improvements that would improve traffic flows and safety.