My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-08 EDC Meeting Minutes - Unsigned
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
>
EDC Minutes
>
2008
>
02-26-08 EDC Meeting Minutes - Unsigned
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2015 2:44:10 PM
Creation date
7/30/2015 2:44:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
EDC Minutes <br /> February 26, 2008 <br /> Page 7of10 <br /> Kvilvang indicated that if what she is hearing that the group thinks we are a good employment <br /> center and it's service needs are what we need focus on, then she would say to look to lower the <br /> number of jobs that you require and the wage levels that are required. <br /> Ed noted if more restaurants do come in to the City, then one of the jobs that is created is a <br /> management job and they are going to make considerably more than 150% of the minimum <br /> wage. Nancy noted that there are typically a lot more individuals employed by a restaurant that <br /> make substantially less than a manager and this wouldn't reduce any effect a higher income job <br /> is going to create. <br /> Ms. Kvilvang noted whatever your job creation minimum goals are you need to be paid that level <br /> no matter what that position is. <br /> Ed asked how "tipped" employees are handled. Ms. Kvilvang indicated typically they wouldn't <br /> meet the requirement. Typically, in most cases where restaurants are part of that, it's usually in <br /> redevelopment districts and it's already exempt from the business subsidy policy or reporting so <br /> they don't have to meet job and wage goals because there is another public purpose they meet <br /> which is clearing up blight. <br /> Jim Paulet asked if this would apply in a TIF district or redevelopment. Ms. Kvilvang indicated <br /> it may apply, so again you have to look to see it can be exempted from the reporting <br /> requirements. A City can always choose to not go along with their business subsidy policy by <br /> explicit findings in the form of a resolution. If exemption findings are not met, a Council can <br /> still making findings that job creation is not the main goal. <br /> Chair Kunkel indicated he thought what was initially said was that restaurants are exempt in <br /> redevelopment. Ms. Kvilvang indicated that was incorrect and that again, it all depends on the <br /> qualification that you meet have for redevelopment to exempt yourself from business subsidy. <br /> She indicated there is a list of about 25 exemptions and redevelopment criteria happens to be one <br /> of them. Most cities will typically look to exempt it in redevelopment because they goals are to <br /> clean up the area. <br /> Nancy asked if spot redevelopment can be looked at. Ms. Kvilvang indicated spot development <br /> can be looked at,but typically larger parcels are the focus. <br /> Ms. Kvilvang noted the thing to remember about job and wage goals is the minimums. Other <br /> requirements can always be added when forming a development agreement, but the minimum <br /> must always be met. <br /> Jim Paulet asked about the dangers of stating these goals versus not stating them. Ms. Kvilvang <br /> stated simply put, if you go with one job at"X" amount, you provide the maximum flexibility. If <br /> you put on an onerous number, it may be difficult for some employers to meet that goal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.