7.0. EDSR 08-11-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MARKETING COMMITTEE • HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM TUESDAY,JULY 22, 2003 Members Present: Jim Barthel,Chris Carlson, Gary Santwire,Jim Simpson,Daryl Thompson, and Mark Urista Members Absent: Dan Tveite Staff Present: Catherine Mehelich,Director of Economic Development Heidi Hall, Economic Development Assistant Others Present: Sid Inman, Ehlers&Associates 1. Update on Meetings with Property Owners: Sid Inman, Ehlers&Associates Mr. Inman stated that he and staff had met with for of the five industrial landowners since the Marketing Committee's June 3`d meeting. Mr. Inman stated that the landowners agreed that Elk River must become competitive with its surrounding communities. Mr. Inman added that the landowners seemed excited about a competitive marketing strategy for light industrial development. 2. Discussion • Committee Member Gary Santwire expressed the importance of remaining realistic regarding industrial land that is readily available rather than land that is still in the concept phase. Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich stated that only the following properties are "development ready" (i.e. platted, serviced with rpads and/or infrastructure): • Elk River Business Park • Cascade Industrial Park(7 acres) • Country Crossing (city-owned 2.79 acres) Mr. Santwire responded that Cascade Industrial Park is not a realistic option for most prospects due to the lack of city services it provides. Mr. Santwire added that the City needs to develop a short term plan (as well as a long term plan) for industrial development in order to accommodate the small to medium size prospects that are currently choosing to locate elsewhere. The Committee discussed providing incentives for current industrial landowners to develop their land. Mr. Inman stated that deep subsidies to most landowners will be necessary in order for Elk River to compete with surrounding communities. As an example,Mr. Inman mentioned that discussions with two of the landowners indicated that they cannot afford to improve their land. Two incentive ideas brought forth to reduce land cost were deferring park dedication fees until a building permit is issued or paying for park dedication fees with tax abatement revenues. Mr. Inman also proposed that the city sell assessment bonds for the improvements and capitalize TIF interest ito cover carrying costs. The Committee analyzed Matrix 2:Comparison of Key Industrial Client