Laserfiche WebLink
Economic Development Authority N{inutes <br />June 15,2020 <br />Page 3 <br />\-. <br />\-. <br />Ms. Othoudt explained many of the required attachments are used as part of staffs <br />underwriting and for the Joint Finance Committee to thoroughly review each <br />application. She noted she has feedback from previous applicants she can share with <br />the EDA in the future. <br />President Tveite indicated the balance between helping businesses and being good <br />stewards of taxpayet dollars can be tri.ky. He explained staff and the EDA must do <br />dus diligence and make investments wisely. He questioned if staff could obtain <br />various loan applications ftom a bank to compare applications. <br />Commissioner Ovall indicated he doesn't think our applications are out of line but <br />he would like to see the application based on tlle program and the loan amount. He <br />stated he envisions a flowchat and depending on the fesPonse, the applicant may <br />need to provide additional information. He stated the information can be a lot for <br />staff and the finance committee to review and encouraged staff to focus on only <br />obtaining the necessary and core information. <br />Consensus was the tax increment financing and the tax abatement Programs may <br />require a more complex application but some of the other loan applications may lend <br />themselves to simplification. <br />President Tveite indicated review of these programs and applications should never <br />be finished and staff and the EDA should constandy be reviewing policies and trying <br />to improve and make the processes more efficient. <br />Commissioner \X/estgaard commented the only way to know if we met the criteria is <br />to ask for feedback again. <br />Mr. Portner suggested having the attorney review all progtams and applications and <br />redline what must be kept in the policy and come back for review of the <br />discretionary language fot the EDA to consider. EDA consensus was to move <br />forward with Mr. Pottner's suggestion. <br />Condition #15 The perceived notion the agenda of a staff membet can influence the <br />wav the citv nrocesses and intemrets an application. Shouldn't it be a collective <br />effort, or comrnon goal. for staff and enttepreneuts to build and grow the business <br />communitv in EIk River tosether? <br />Mr. Portner explained staff intelptets written policy on a ftequent basis and if they <br />have questions, they bring it to Council. He asked fot clarification on how this can <br />be construed as having a personal agenda. <br />Commissioner Westgaard indicated during the listening sessions someone btought <br />up city policy versus staff perspective. He added this issue does not only pertain to <br />the EDA but to other departments as well. He stated he believes the divide may be <br />between policy making and communicating the ordinance or statute requirements. <br />?0ttRt! El <br />\-.