Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Paying for the costs associated with improving the property for economic <br />development, recreational, housing, transportation or rail traffic. (MN Statutes, <br />Section 383.81) <br /> <br />The kinds of activities the County could be involved in for the purposes described in <br />Number 5 are listed below. If Number 5 is selected, the Board will also need to <br />determine which of these activities (a-e) to focus on. <br /> <br />a. Economic development activities would generally occur with the County <br />providing grants to developers or municipalities to assess the level of <br />contamination, assist in remediation, or acquire and remediate land for <br />redevelopment. Land that is subject to this would then be developed so that it <br />would provide an economic stimulus to an area. <br /> <br />b. Recreational uses of ERF funds would typically involve the acquisition of land <br />and remediation of the contamination, with the resulting land being used for <br />recreational purposes. This concept of "brown fields to green fields" has been <br />recently promoted by the MPCA and the Metropolitan Council to the Solid Waste <br />Management Coordinating Board. <br /> <br />c. Housing uses of the ERF could follow several patterns. It could include <br />environmental work on contaminated land on which a developer is going to <br />develop new affordable housing. It could include rehabilitation of existing <br />housing, or development of new housing in existing structures, to create <br />affordable housing. It could be used to leverage federal, state or local dollars to <br />take existing contaminated (e.g., with lead and asbestos) bousing to make <br />structures safer and longer lasting. <br /> <br />d. Transportation uses of ERF funds could include cleaning up land that would be <br />used to promote transit alternatives, such as park-and-ride lots. <br /> <br />e. .Rail Traffic uses of the ERF could include cleaning up and acquiring right of way <br />for rail traffic. <br /> <br />Municipal Response on ERF Priorities <br />Input on the ERF was solicited from all municipalities in Ramsey County via a discussion <br />at the County Manager's quarterly meeting with city managers on September 18,2002, <br />and a follow-up written survey. Eleven municipalities out of a possible 16 responded to <br />the survey. <br /> <br />The municipalities that responded included Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Gem Lake, <br />Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, North St. Paul, Roseville, Vadnais Heights, <br />White Bear Lake and White Bear Township. The municipalities that did not respond <br />included Maplewood, New Brighton, North Oaks, Saint Paul, and Shoreview. A <br />reminder email was sent to the entities that did not respond by the due date, and an <br /> <br />3 <br />