My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3.1A EDSR 07-017-2017 DRAFT MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
EDA Packets
>
2014-2020
>
2017
>
07-17-2017
>
3.1A EDSR 07-017-2017 DRAFT MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2017 8:25:00 AM
Creation date
7/13/2017 8:25:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
EDSR
date
7/17/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Meeting of the Elk River <br />Economic Development Authority <br />Held at the Elk River City Hall <br />Monday, June 19, 2017 <br />Members Present: President Tveite, Commissioners Provo (5:09 p.m.), Olsen, <br />Westgaard, Ovall, Wagner, and Blesener <br />Members Absent: None <br />Staff Present: Economic Development Director Amanda Othoudt, Eco <br />Development Specialist Colleen Eddy, and City Clerk Tina Allard <br />1.Call Meeting to Order <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk <br />Development Authority was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by President Tveite. <br />2.Consider 06/19/2017 Agenda <br />Moved by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Blesen <br />approve the June 19, 2017, EDA agenda. Motion carried 6-0. <br />3.1 TIF Policy Discussion <br />Ms. Othoudt presented the staff report. She stated the purpose o <br />is to identify the development goals the Authority considers pri <br />Commissioner Provo arrived. <br />The Commission discussed the following: <br />An applicant should be able to review the policy and application <br />reasonable expectation of whether their project would be approve <br />Better consistency and clarity in verbiage throughout the policy <br />Example: public purpose language in the two documents. <br />Whether criteria should be ranked in order of importance of the <br />goals or whether it should matter as long as they are meeting specified criteria in <br />policy. <br />What would be the process in selecting the strongest candidates if there were <br />multiple applicants? <br />Evaluate fee structure and consider an initial or preliminary review process and <br />fee so applicant can quickly understand how their project ranks. <br />The review process and if/where the finance committee, EDA, and <br />should be in the approval process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.