Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lindstrom EDA weighs increasing predevelopment grants vs. keeping popular facade loan program
Summary
The Lindstrom Economic Development Authority discussed whether to prioritize a predevelopment grant program to prepare land for commercial projects or continue funding a $5,000 facade-revolving loan that supports local businesses; members split on reallocation because 58% of EDA revenue currently covers debt service.
The Lindstrom Economic Development Authority debated whether to shift resources from its long-running facade program to a new predevelopment grant aimed at creating shovel-ready commercial sites.
Dan, who led the EDA presentation, said the city has prioritized downtown business support and that a recently completed BR&E survey helped design a facade-incentive program used by local merchants. He said the revolving facade loan carries a $5,000 cap, a 10-year term and 1% interest, and that the program’s current fund balance is “approximately $25,000.”
Members asked whether shortening the loan term — for example, moving from a 10-year amortization to a five-year term — would free up resources; one member said a five- to seven-year loan is more typical for small-business lending. Dan cautioned that if demand for facade loans in 2025 matches current inquiries, “the asks would exceed the funds that are available,” and the EDA “would either have to turn programs away or figure out a funding source for it.”
The conversation focused on trade-offs. Dan told the group the EDA’s rough budget picture shows about 58% of revenue currently going to debt service, which limits the authority’s ability to add new discretionary programs without reallocating funds or growing reserves. Several members urged a two-pronged strategy: maintain successful business-support efforts while building modest capacity for predevelopment grants so Lindstrom can respond quickly to opportunities.
Supporters of a predevelopment program argued that city-funded concept planning, wetland delineations, and pre-engineering work can reduce developer costs and make small parcels competitive in regional recruitment efforts. One member recommended partnering with Chisago County and neighboring townships to cost-share predevelopment work and to consider revenue-sharing arrangements instead of annexation when appropriate.
Dan recommended the EDA “keep a foot in both courts” and asked for guidance on immediate funding priorities. Members did not adopt a formal funding reallocation at the meeting; instead, they asked staff to prepare budget-alignment options and cost estimates for concept planning and to bring back recommendations ahead of the '25–'26 budget process.
The discussion underscored a recurring tension: facade programs produce immediate, visible results for downtown businesses, while land acquisition and predevelopment work are longer-term, costlier bets that may take years to yield a commercial tax base.
