My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda_Packet
>
2016
>
2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2016 10:36:04 AM
Creation date
5/23/2016 10:35:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
6b. Attachment A <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 18, 2016 <br />Page 20 <br />4)love to see HH jobs, certainly willing to provide assistance to attain that, bur <br />want to have good idea of its viability and whether it will sit vacant for 10 <br />years <br />Are there any economic development programs from other communities that <br />you would like to have considered as possible models for Roseville? <br />Councilmember McGehee noted some recent programs like Excelsior and Grand <br />in St. Louis Park that had achieved a successful end and provided an interesting <br />area for revitalization. <br />Mayor Roe clarified that this question wasn’t limited to the next eighteen <br />,months; with Ms. King responding that some things started in the first eighteen <br />months may simply lay a foundation going forward. <br />Mayor Roe stated his leeriness in using a tax abatement approach for development <br />that tended to lure the Amazons of the world into Roseville (e.g. Shakopee) ex- <br />pressing concern with the long-term impact to the community and its tax collec- <br />tions. While understanding their rationale, Mayor Roe noted there wasn’t too <br />much competition for local sales tax initiatives to any great degree at least for <br />specific economic development programs; but remained unsure if he’d want to <br />consider it as the flip side. <br />Ms. King sought clarification of the interest in looking in general at financing <br />tools or options. Ms. King stated that one thing she’d like to do it make sure <br />when incentives area used, it was done responsibility and the tool was tied into <br />the process to address particular challenges or financial gaps for a specific busi- <br />ness. Ms. King opined that she found this a wise approach for the accountability <br />with their public for public sector agencies to provide. While it may be fine for <br />one particular too for a certain period based on a case-by-case situation, Ms. King <br />suggested looking at various tools and the City Council defining parameters for if <br />and when they’d use a particular tool.Ms. King offered to provide those nuances <br />for the City Council that could serve to make the community more competitive <br />but also not create situations where they felt any need to apologize to their con- <br />stituents for doing so. <br />Along the lines that Roseville may want to see development above and beyond <br />what a typical developer or their client wants to spend, Mayor Roe agreed with <br />developing a policy or purpose for each tool and to have those policies in place <br />ahead of time for timeliness and practicalities sake. As an example, Mayor Roe <br />mentioned using public funding for additional amenities, such as pedestrian con- <br />nectivity. <br />Ms. King stated that she encouraged communities to have those public policies <br />upfront for the developer or business to know their being dealt a fair and con- <br />sistent hand, as well as the public, and to allow staff more confidence in their ini- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.