My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-04-14 EDC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
>
EDC Packets
>
2014
>
06-04-14 EDC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2017 4:34:26 PM
Creation date
6/13/2017 4:33:40 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.
/
34
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
ARDEN HILLS EDA MEETING – APRIL 28, 2014 4 <br /> <br />Associate Planner Bachler requested that the EDA provide feedback and direction on proposed <br />changes to the EDA Revolving Loan Fund. <br /> <br />EDA Commissioner Holden questioned how grants were factored into this program. <br /> <br />Executive Director Hutmacher reported that there were not a lot of grants available for <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Bachler believed that the City would be willing to partner with businesses on <br />a loan if they had received a grant. <br /> <br />EDA Commissioner Holden thought that this was a great policy for non-TCAAP properties, but <br />did not want to see it made available to small businesses in TCAAP. <br /> <br />EDA President Grant agreed and suggested that applications for the revolving loan fund go <br />through the EDC, with recommendations then made to the EDA. <br /> <br />Executive Director Hutmacher discussed the process preferred by local banks, noting a smaller <br />subcommittee was recommended to streamline the process. <br /> <br />EDA Commissioner Holmes questioned how the $155,000 would impact local businesses. She <br />asked if the money should be given back to DEED. <br /> <br />James Ostlund, Financial Planning and & Analysis Committee, suggested that the decision <br />making process be outsourced to Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC) or that <br />banks be allowed to decide. He believed that the loans would impact small businesses and <br />should proceed. <br /> <br />EDA President Grant agreed that the EDA did not have a lot of additional time to review these <br />matters. He did not want future loan requests to become ‘analysis paralysis’. He supported the <br />requests being reviewed by the FPAC or EDC, or having the requests come straight to the EDA. <br /> <br />EDA Commissioner McClung did not want to overwhelm staff by these requests either. He <br />encouraged the loan review process be streamlined as much as possible. <br /> <br />EDA Commissioner Holden suggested that staff and a banker review the requests and that a <br />recommendation be made to the EDA. <br /> <br />Executive Director Hutmacher stated that CMBC would be an option that would reduce the <br />need for additional staff time and subcommittee review. <br /> <br />EDA President Grant supported this recommendation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.