Friday, April 21, 2006

Minutes: Redevelopment Authority; March 21, 2006 7PM

Evansville Redevelopment Authority

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 7:00 PM

City Hall, 31 S. Madison St., Evansville, WI

MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM. Present were Ald. Anderson, Betsy Ahner, Dean Arnold, and John Decker. Ald. Aikman was absent. Chairperson Hagen and Vice-Chairperson Eager arrived during the discussion of agenda item 8a. James Otterstein, Rock County Economic Development Manager, and Bill Connors, Executive Director, also were present.

The agenda was modified as follows: add item 8b, trade market analysis study; add item 8c, discussion of encouraging Main Street businesses to apply for financial assistance for alternative entrances; add item 8d, discussion of date of April regular meeting; and change preliminary agenda item 8b, closed session, to item 8e. The agenda was approved as modified.

Motion by Ahner, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2006, regular meeting with on correction: on page 2, it should read, “Based on a suggestion by Mr. Otterstein.” Motion passed.

Citizen Appearances Other Than Agenda Items Listed None.

Unfinished Business
The commissioners continued their discussion of the “pay back” provision in section 5 of the agreement with Triple B Investments regarding the Badger Coach Building. Mr. Connors presented two versions of possible new text for the provision and a calculation of the annual payments that would be due from Triple B Investments to the Redevelopment Authority under either version of the new text. Roger Berg for Triple B Investments said the owner would prefer to have the city assessor increase the value of the property on the property tax roll so that it complied with the target value in the agreement. The commissioners directed Executive Director Connors to ask the city assessor to look at the property again and see whether the value on the property tax roll should be increased.

New Business
The commissioners discussed why the property at 357 Union St. was omitted from TID No. 5. Jim Krueger, the owner of the property, said his parcel should not have been excluded based on a conversation between Executive Director Connors and Rick Symdon of Symdon Chevrolet, as disclosed in email message from Mr. Connors to members of the Redevelopment Authority and Plan Commission. Mr. Krueger said there never was an offer from Symdon Chevrolet to purchase his property. He wanted to know how the city was going to make this right.

Mr. Connors said he had a conversation with Rick Symdon months before the Redevelopment Authority started discussing the possibility of enlarging TID No. 5 in 2005. Mr. Symdon asked Mr. Connors if Symdon Chevrolet’s and Mr. Krueger’s property could be included in TID No. 5. When Mr. Connors asked what improvements Symdon wanted to make and might seek assistance for, Mr. Symdon said the dealership might want to acquire Mr. Krueger’s property, knock down the building, and expand their parking lot. Mr. Connors said he told Mr. Symdon this would not generate tax increment revenue, and instead would reduce the amount of tax increment revenue, and so it was not a good candidate for tax increment assistance. Mr. Connors said that months later, when the Redevelopment Authority started discussing enlarging TID No. 5, he remembered this earlier conversation, and excluded Mr. Krueger’s property from the list of parcels to avoid creating a risk of losing tax increment revenue. Chairperson Hagen said he spoke with Mr. Symdon, and Mr. Symdon told him Symdon Chevrolet has no immediate plans to acquire Mr. Krueger’s property and to knock down the building. Roger Berg said he also said he spoke to Mr. Symdon, and Mr. Symdon never asked Mr. Connors to exclude Mr. Krueger’s property. Mr. Connors said that is correct.

The commissioners asked Mr. Krueger what sort of redevelopment project he might come forward with if his parcel is added to TID No. 5. Mr. Krueger said it is not his obligation to come forward with a proposal in order for his property to be included in the district.

Executive Director Connors suggested that the Redevelopment Authority could publish a notice asking if anyone wants to have their property added to TID No. 5. Motion by Eager, seconded by Anderson, directing Mr. Connors to publish a notice informing property owners that they could come to the April meeting of the Redevelopment Authority and request to have their property included in or removed from TID No. 5. Motion passed.

Mr. Otterstein informed the commissioners that the Economic Development Committee has been working with Sortis LLC to identify economic-development related grants the city might apply for, and tentatively concluded that two grants the city might apply for could be used to fund a trade market analysis study. A trade market analysis would examine where the people come from who purchase goods and services in Evansville and where the residents of Evansville purchase goods and services. This data could be helpful to existing businesses for ideas for new goods and services to provide, and for potential new businesses in Evansville. The estimated cost of the study is $19,000, and would take 3 months to a year to complete. In addition to or instead of the grant, sources of funding for the study could be the Economic Development Committee, Redevelopment Authority, and the Chamber of Commerce.

The commissioners discussed how to encourage Main Street businesses to apply for financial assistance for creating or improving alternative (i.e., rear or side) entrances to their businesses. Ms. Ahner expressed concern that no downtown businesses have yet applied for this assistance. She suggested that maybe the Redevelopment Authority should establish what it was willing to contribute to such projects, e.g., 30% of the cost to a maximum of $1,000 of assistance. Mr. Otterstein suggested that the Building Improvement Grant Program could be modified to provide assistance with alternative entrances.

Chairperson Hagen suggested that maybe there should be a meeting between David Sauer, City Engineer, and downtown businesses owners to discuss how difficult it would be for them to create alternative entrances to their businesses.

Tess Gruenstein, intern from Beloit College, briefed the commissioners on her efforts to reach downtown businesses owners about the 2007 Main Street Reconstruction Project, and asked for suggestions on how to encourage business owners to speak with her. One suggestion was that Executive Director Connors should work with Mr. Sauer to create a fact sheet about the project to distribute to downtown business owners, in hopes this would stimulate their interest in discussing the project. Another suggestion was that Ms. Gruenstein should seek assistance from Becky Heimerl and Trish Graves at the Chamber of Commerce.

Executive Director Connors reported that the next regular meeting date for the Authority, Tuesday, April 18, conflicts with the Council reorganization meeting that evening. The consensus of the commissioners was the next meeting of the Authority should be on Tuesday, April 25.

Motion by Eager, seconded by Anderson, to go into closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. Sec. 19.85(1)(e) to discuss possibly pursuing the purchase of or acquisition of options to purchase property located within TID No. 5, subject to approval by the Common Council. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote at 8:20 PM.

Motion by Anderson, seconded by Ahner, to adjourn. Motion passed.

The meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM.

Prepared by

William E. Connors, Executive Director

6 comments:

  1. I think I can save the City $19,000.

    1) Keep the businesses we have open on weekend afternoons and evenings until at least 7:30. When both wage earners work till 5 outside the city there's no chance to spend money locally. We've got the stores we need here already. we just can't patronize a closed storefront.

    2) Get a fast food place on the North end so those who work in Madison can grab a bucket of chicken when they come into town.

    3) Stop thinking about a motel. If Darrell Wild puts 100 rooms on the south side of Oregon nobody will make it this far south anyway. If the DOT bypasses us the city will be stuck with what's left of a hotel business. Loosen up and support one or two B&B's. Work with our strengths.

    4) Let the CoC survey the town the way the transport survey was run or the Smart Growth survey. Use local resources and volunteer labor and don't even think about writing a $19,000 check to Madison. Grant money isn't free. If it gets frittered away then some organization that could do good works doesn't get it.

    We don't need to fritter away $19,000.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:46 AM

    You had a B&B and you did not want them to do things they wanted to do. Why ask for another and expect them to jump through hoops. Also please tell me if the Baur house is in the tif district as I see they have closed. Someone tried to tell me they sold, it but we have been told different.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure which B&B watchinevillepolitics is referring to. I remember while I was on Planning, that we approved a B&B CUP for "The Coffee House Ladies", but I don't think anything came of it.

    As for the B&B that Bill C. references, there were a few problems associated with it that were hard to overcome. The additional outdoor portion of the business plan, parking, and the fact that B&B's in Evansville require someone on-sight and the business person was not intending to have someone responsible on sight 24 hours while guests were staying. While some of these "hoops" were adressed, others were too hard to ignore in the face of the neighbors objections.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:04 AM

    I think its funny that neighbors concerns were taken into account for that B&B for something that was already in place, when at least a dozen neighbors protested the citgo being rezoned and moved and it would seem are concerns were not taken into consideration.
    Why is that? Historic dist vs the long suffering residents of east main st? One would wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon--

    At the final meeting of Smart Growth on June 15, after listening to exactly that argument,( I know because I made it), the commission changed the plan which had colored the plats from Union and Main all the way out east as commercial to R1 to Curves.

    This is called listening. The residents are well aware that this can come up for review---they are prepared again to battle this issue should it arise. I give credit to the council where it is due. I also do believe that it is inappropriate to change zoning that has been in place for 100 years simply on an annual whim. ....or whenever someone has a development idea.

    The B&B decision to not allow an expansion of the services rendered on Church St. was a difficult one, but I believe the correct one. The change would have altered the complexion of the neighborhood. David Ross made the argument for keeping it R1 and his argument was persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:03 PM

    I don't believe for one moment if the opportunitiy presented it self, that the city would not put some other type of gas station or store right on top of us, smart growth or no smart growth.

    ReplyDelete