Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/25 EDA MinutesEconomic Development Authority Meeting Minutes July 1, 2025 Vice-Chairman Huber called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and asked for a roll call. Marlin Reeves- Aye Peter Huber- Aye Jefferey Worrell- Aye Lisa Webb- Aye Collette Hash- Aye Sabrina Cox- Aye Adoption of May 6, 2025 Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Worrell and seconded by Ms. Hash to adopt the minutes as written. Marlin Reeves- Aye Peter Huber- Abstained Jefferey Worrell- Aye Lisa Webb- Aye Collette Hash- Aye Sabrina Cox- Aye Presentation Project Revitalize- Shannon Ainsley, Economic Developer Ms. Ainsley introduced Project Revitalize, an initiative presented to Town Council, which addresses blight and condemned properties that pose a risk to public health, safety, and welfare. The buildings are deteriorated, violate health standards, and are no longer habitable. She reported that Code Enforcement has identified several condemned properties as its main priorities, focusing first on South Madison Ave, particularly a lot located at 1st and Madison, which is owned by the town. The plan is to subdivide this lot into three parcels, each with a new home built on it which will address neighbors’ complaints, and improve community morale and increase property values. Mr. Worrell asked how the town came to own the properties. Ms. Ainsley stated that they are condemned properties and they work out something with the property owner or take it through liens. Mr. Reeves asked once the vote takes place from the Town Council on how they want to proceed, what is the projected timeline for the Madison properties? Ms. Ainsley reported six to nine months, but it could be more once things get started. Ms. Cox asked what factors might determine the Town Council’s decision on which step they take. Ms. Ainsley stated they would consider mostly finances. Manager Day contributed to the discussion, highlighting his background in revitalizing commercial buildings, such as theaters and bowling alleys, and emphasizing the opportunity Pulaski has to transform blight into economic growth. He explains that replacing dilapidated homes with new ones can stimulate the local economy and improve neighborhood stability. He outlined the complexity and costs involved in addressing blighted properties. Legal restrictions mean the town can only condemn properties meeting specific structural deficiency criteria—not simply cosmetic issues like peeling paint or broken windows. Once a property is condemned, the town bears the cost of demolition (often $10k–$15k), but doesn’t automatically gain ownership of the land. In many cases, the owner disappears, leading the town to absorb further costs for maintenance, like mowing overgrown grass. However, recent state legislation—thanks to policymakers like Senator Todd Pillion has equipped towns with stronger tools to manage these properties. The Town Manager concluded that while the process is expensive and difficult, the long-term return on investment (ROI)—via increased property values and livability—is worth the effort. Ms. Ainsley reported on the ARS program, a funding initiative designed to assist with housing revitalization. This program has already contributed to projects on Pierce Avenue, and another ARS-funded home is currently ready for sale. The program provides financial assistance for eligible homeowners, but it comes with strict qualifications and grant stipulations. The town is considering whether to continue using ARS funds for the South Madison properties or proceed outside the program. Success with the initial three homes will influence this decision. The program is seen as a useful mechanism for funding while maintaining regulatory compliance. Ms. Cox asked if the private developer, currently working on a home on Madison Ave intends to do a comparable build to the projected homes. Ms. Ainsley stated that he is aware of the area, and the realtor she is working with is also working with the developer and guiding him on comps in the area, making sure it stays comparable to the area. Manager Day commented Despite the costs, the town feels confident the program can at least break even. Even if the town loses a few thousand dollars per home, the long-term gains in tax revenue (property, utility, and sales taxes) make it worthwhile. The town’s focus is on simple properties—those with no taxes being paid, no legal entanglements, and no significant barriers to redevelopment. These are prioritized because they present fewer complications and allow for more efficient progress. There are, reportedly, many such properties throughout the town. Mr. Reeves asked about the grant program, if there is a limit or cap on the number of houses that can be completed to obtain the $40,000 grant to the town. Manager Day reported that we can only do one at a time, and the reason is mainly finances, we were using LOCs, the fund balance, or the general fund to do that. Vice-Chairman Huber asked if the $40,000 goes back into the town funds or does it get subtracted from what the owner has to pay for the house. Manager Day stated it remains flexible in terms of how the grant funds are applied. Sometimes the money can offset the buyer's cost directly; other times it’s rolled over into future projects. Vice-Chairman Huber asked if Habitat for Humanity or Community Housing Partners had been contacted and asked about the New River Home Consortium. Ms. Ainsley reported they have been contacted but their projects are not here at the time. They go in phases as to where they put their projects and their focus is not here right now. The New River Home Consortium focuses on larger projects, like apartment complexes. Manager Day reiterated that no specific request or vote is being made at the moment. The intention is to keep the EDA informed and invite them to be part of the planning process. Every property is different—some are already town-owned, some are condemned, and others have potential complications. The manager shares his original goal upon starting his role: to eliminate blight, starting with town-maintained lots where they’re already cutting grass. These properties offer a lower-risk opportunity to “practice” before tackling more complex blighted properties. Vice-Chairman Huber discussed the role of the EDA as a potential conduit for redevelopment. A key advantage is that while the Town Council must go through formal bid processes for development and sale, the EDA can operate more flexibly, especially in choosing developers and buyers. While direct developer selection might not be ideal due to fairness concerns, some form of competitive but streamlined procurement could be more feasible and effective through the EDA. Members agree that a better understanding of the real estate market would help guide their decisions. Ms. Cox stated she appreciated the effort to deal with the blight in town, and if there was any way she could participate in that, she would be willing to join. Ms. Hash stated she was good with going forward as the blighted properties need to be addressed desperately if we’re going to get people to move to our area. We just need to make sure the work is going to be maintained and the community can see that the Town Council made a solid decision and that it was good for the area. Mr. Worrell stated he would encourage the Town Council to involve the EDA, which he feels is the most efficient way to approach the project. Mr. Reeves stated he supports the project, and agrees with Ms. Hash, that it has to be done the right way, communicated the right way, and the town management continues to be transparent and support moving forward with more information. Manager Day and Vice-Chairman Huber stress the importance of transparency, but also confidentiality, recognizing the risk of over-hyping the project prematurely. Community expectations need to be managed carefully. Announcing plans too early could backfire if visible results are delayed. The consensus is to stay realistic and strategic, keeping planning work largely internal until there’s something concrete to share. Vice-Chairman Huber insightfully points out that the psychological effect of blight influences homeowner decisions: people are less likely to improve their property if their neighborhood is visibly deteriorating. The cumulative effect of even one neglected property can be significant. Board Member Comments Vice-Chairman Huber asked to add the election of officers to the August agenda. Reminder of next meeting date Tuesday, August 5, 2025 at 10 a.m. Adjournment With no further items on the agenda, Mr. Huber asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was made by Mr. Worrell and seconded by Ms. Hash to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.