COOK- When the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation board set up a multi-million dollar loan fund to help flood-damaged Cook businesses get back on their feet, they also set in motion something that will benefit the city’s economic future for years to come.
That’s because the payments business owners make on the low-interest loans won’t be going back to the IRRR but will instead go to the city of Cook to create a fund for future economic development projects.
For that to happen, the city will need to establish an economic development authority, similar in some respects to the housing authority but also different. IRRR representative Chris Ismil was at the Cook City Council meeting last Thursday to talk about what an economic development authority can do for the city and the timeline for creating one in Cook.
“We’ve been working for some time on the EDA planning – it’s been a goal of the city to have an economic development authority and now it’s really come to the forefront and moving forward,” city administrator Theresa Martinson said.
Ismil referred back to the creation of the $2.5 million assistance package, $300,000 of which was designated for Quick Start economic recovery grants.
“To date, $275,00 of that $300,000 has been issued to businesses,” Ismil said. “The majority of that has been paid out to businesses, with a few that we’re still working on some paperwork. And then there’s the Cook economic revolving loan fund. There are some businesses already working with the Entrepreneur Fund to access some of those funds to help rebuild and restart their businesses.”
“What’s going to happen is that those loans are going to be in part repaid, and that money is going to come back to the city,” Ismil continued. “Those funds are recruited back into the city through that revolving loan fund. The EDA is a toll or mechanism to use those funds to further advance economic development within your community.”
As the process for forming the EDA moves forward, a key date will be Jan. 23, when the public will be invited to attend a public hearing about the proposed entity.
“I would come back with a presentation about the difference between an HRA and an EDA, and why you want the EDA,” Ismil said. “That public hearing will really define what an EDA does, what you’re able to use the funds for, what the structure of that EDA could look like.”
Experienced with the process through their work with other communities, Ismil said the IRRR has all of the basic paperwork in place to share with the city and its attorney to facilitate the formation of Cook’s EDA.
“Hibbing has an EDA. Aurora has an EDA and they’re working on a $15 million spec building in their community. They would not be working on a $15 million spec building without an EDA to help move that industrial park development forward. Tower has an EDA. Some of these communities have capitalized on funding from our agency through their EDAs, funds that you have not been able to access because you don’t have an EDA. So this will open up opportunities for your community.”
Ismil noted that the recommendation for the authority board would be to have two city council members and three at-large members.
“You don’t want an EDA that’s made up of five councilors where it becomes politicized, and they may not have the business experience, because councilors come and go,” Ismil said. “We’re trying to connect in the business, the finance, the banking (to the board). Folks who understand business and economic development have some of that expertise to come to the table on that while still having some transparency and some accountability.”
Ismil also added that while the IRRR is providing a proven EDA framework for the city to use as a model, the council does have the ability to make changes if local circumstances warrant.
If all passes muster, the council would approve the enabling resolution for the EDA and appoint the board at the Jan. 23 meeting. The board would then hold an organizational meeting on Feb. 27, and be ready to hold its first regular meeting by March 13.
Annexations
City council members decided on Thursday that it was time to take a hard look at the idea of annexing properties outside of the city limits that receive city services but don’t pay city property taxes to support them.
The issue of annexation was added to the regular agenda by council member Ron Bushbaum. The discussion came after the council discussed and declined a request from Steven and Stacy Ratai to detach two properties from city jurisdiction due to the high taxes being paid for only city sewer service.
Initiataing the discussion about annexation, Bushbaum said, “For me, this is a long time coming, and the situation tonight is kind of pushing it forward. There are properties around town that are receiving city services, and for the equalization piece I think it’s time for us to attempt to annex them into the city. This morning, I made a list of seven properties that I would imagine receive city services, and this would help us clean up the border of Cook – it’s a pretty jagged edge right now.”
Bushbaum said he could also think of five additional properties that could potentially be candidates for annexation.
To move forward, Bushbaum said the city council would need to revise the existing ordinance for annexation of properties, as the language is inadequate to support the needed action.
“It doesn’t say anything about annexing properties,” Bushbaum said.
Bushbaum proposed specific language to include all properties that receive city services such as water, sewer, streets or alleys, lighting, plowing, or any other service as being eligible for the city consider for annexation.
Martinson took the opportunity to remind the council how decisions were made to extend city services to properties outside of the city limit.
“So you understand, administration has never said that those properties should get support without being annexed,” she said. “Those are requests that are brought to the city council and the previous council.”
Council member were in general agreement with the idea that there should be more equity in the services provided for the taxes assessed and paid, and voted to pass Bushbaum’s suggested ordinance language to the city attorney for review and discussion at the next meeting.