My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. EDA DRAFT MINUTES (3 SETS) 06-15-2020
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
EDA Packets
>
2014-2020
>
2020
>
06-15-2020
>
4.1. EDA DRAFT MINUTES (3 SETS) 06-15-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2020 8:24:14 AM
Creation date
6/12/2020 8:15:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
EDSR
date
6/15/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Economic Development Authority Minutes Page 4 <br /> May 18,2020 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> website approximately a year ago. He stated it addresses the most common business <br /> types looking to locate in Elk River. He asked the Authority for feedback on those <br /> pages. <br /> Commissioner Blesener asked if a flowchart would add value noting the uniqueness <br /> and complexities with each application and the multitude of direction they would <br /> flow through the city process. <br /> Ms. Othoudt stated flowcharts are currently available and are being revamped. <br /> Commissioner Christianson asked if the website is known and advertised. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated marketing could be improved. <br /> Commissioner Blesener suggested sharing with other audiences such as the <br /> Chamber. <br /> Mr. Portner reviewed the flowcharts developed a few years ago. <br /> Ms. Eddy further noted other marketing materials staff utilizes about opening a <br /> business. <br /> Commissioner Wagner stated applicants feel there is so much time needed to get <br /> through the city process and it's not clear on the front end. She stated more work is <br /> needed for Concern#9. Ste stated the items summarized in the staff report do not <br /> meet the concerns of#9. <br /> Commissioner Ovall discussed general examples where communication occurred <br /> with the building or fire department for a project an applicant was considering. He <br /> stated there would be a preliminary conversation about what is required but when an <br /> application package is submitted,more information is required which costs money <br /> and delays projects. He stated moves have been made in the right direction, such as a <br /> summary letter paraphrasing the meeting outcome and next steps, but there is always <br /> room for improvement. <br /> It was consensus of the Authority while there is progress made and while <br /> there are key activities, there is opportunity for better visibility and the <br /> Authority feels this is not quite adequate to this point. <br /> Chair Tviete called for a vote. He stated if the Authority votes yes, they are <br /> stating Concern #9 is not quite adequate, it's getting there, and it's in decent <br /> shape, but there is more work to be done. He stated if the Authority votes no, <br /> they feel the requirements for Concern #9 have been met. The vote was 6 yes <br /> and 1 no. Chair Tviete voted no and disagreed based on his personal positive <br /> experience. He doesn't disagree there is always room for improvement in <br /> communication. <br /> UREJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.