2017-01-09_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9c. Attachment A Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 2016 Page 19 provements for its utilities and capture those in fees, it still essentially had a monthly or quarterly assessment instead but only in a different format for residen- tial properties. At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, on Topic 4 of 5 for tax levy compari- sons, Finance Director Miller clarified that they were based on sixty-two cities, all metropolitan cities with a greater than 10,000 population. Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:35 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against. Mayor Roe alerted the public that this updated information would be available on the city’s website, with action anticipated on December 5, 2016. Discussion ensued regarding the next meeting of the City’s Finance Commission that would occur after the December 5, 2016 City Council meeting; with a request made for their input if and as available or recommendations to the City Council to inform how they felt the city was doing relative to its fund balances and reserves going into 2017, or any other recommendations beyond the City Manager’s rec- ommended budget for future years. 14.Business Items (Action Items) a.Review and Discuss Draft City of Roseville and Economic Development Au- thority (EDA) Acquisition Framework Jason Aarsvold of Ehlers Inc. was available with the latest draft framework and to seek additional feedback or suggestions since the last iteration on November 7, 2016; with those revisions highlighted accordingly (Attachment A). An “Acquisi- and added to the packet tion Review” form was provided as a bench handout, materials , providing a format for an example project presented as part of this dis- cussion, and using four key questions on which the policy was based (page 1, lines 26 – 30). Framework Councilmember Laliberte referenced the grant language in blue (page 3, line 29) and the city’s identification that it didn’t want grants to drive pursuits, even though it was still listed as something likely to be included. Mr. Aarsvold responded that revised language attempted to clarify that the goal was that a particular project was not intended to be shaped by the likelihood of grant funding, but if there was a realistic opportunity and gap financing needed, grant funding may be one of the tools or potential sources. However, Mr. Aarsvold noted this would intend that a site was identified for a potential project and that in itself would then define if or when grant resources may come into play.