Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA reviews Majestic Ballroom 'structurally substandard' finding to preserve redevelopment TIF options
Summary
Staff presented facts and a legal framework to declare the long-vacant Majestic Ballroom structurally substandard under redevelopment TIF law to preserve future tax-increment financing options; no formal action was taken because the EDA lacked a quorum.
The Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority received a July 14 briefing on a proposed finding that the Majestic Ballroom building is structurally substandard, a designation intended to preserve the property’s eligibility for a redevelopment tax-increment financing (TIF) district.
Nate, the community/economic development manager, told the Authority the building has been vacant for more than 20 years and was last used in 2005. He said prior removal of an HVAC unit and boarding of openings contributed to significant interior deterioration, including standing water, mold and asbestos concerns, and that the structure is in rapid decline. "It was boarded up, which has led over the last, you know, two decades to increase mold, asbestos, standing water, wildlife, great deterioration," Nate said.
Nate explained the EDA is considering a third-party inspection report (prepared by LHB) to document structural deficiencies as defined in the redevelopment TIF statute. He cited the statutory standard for a “structurally substandard” finding — which addresses defects in structural elements, essential utilities, light and ventilation, fire protection and egress — as the legal basis the city would use to preserve the option to seek a redevelopment TIF before any demolition.
In response to a question, Nate said the city has been working with the owner and is exploring a deferred-assessment approach in which the city could front demolition costs, assess the owner for those costs, and seek reimbursement at sale. He said a demolition quote was scheduled to be considered by the city council the next evening.
Jennifer advised that, because the EDA could not act without a quorum, staff should consult legal counsel about whether the council could proceed the following night or whether the Authority’s action should be continued until the EDA’s next meeting in August to preserve the project timeline.
No finding, resolution or vote occurred at the July 14 Authority meeting because members lacked a quorum. Staff said it will return with the LHB report and recommended next steps when formal action is possible.
