My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-01-09_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda_Packet
>
2017
>
2017-01-09_EDA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2017 11:21:04 AM
Creation date
1/17/2017 11:20:55 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.
/
77
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
9c. Attachment A <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 28, 2016 <br />Page 20 <br />While she understood that, Councilmember Laliberte suggested, with a section in <br />the acquisition form available to fill out, it was important for future City Coun- <br />cil’s to have an understanding of this discussion and intent, opining that she didn’t <br />see that clearly articulated beyond current presentations and discussion. <br />Mayor Roe referenced Section 4, Identification of Potential Benefits and Cost Re- <br />covery (page 3, lines 20-30), and Item 3 addressing “outside grant funding” sug- <br />gesting that be at the bottom of the list and Item 4 estimating a change in market <br />value and tax collections receive a higher priority in that section. <br />Councilmember Willmus concurred with Mayor Roe. <br />Mayor Roe further clarified that his recollection of the intent was that any change <br />in market value and tax collections not only be specific to the parcel(s) being con- <br />sidered for acquisition, but also surrounding properties and the community as a <br />whole. Mayor Roe asked that this be added to language as well. <br />Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding a ‘but” statement regarding outside <br />grant funding when feasible, “but…” <br />Councilmember McGehee suggested language such as “Outside grant funding <br />\[for potential gap funding only\] indicating that grant funding was not considered a <br />driver. <br />Mayor Roe stated he wasn’t sure he wanted to limit grant funds to gap financing <br />only, since they may be gap plus other funding. <br />Councilmember McGehee pointed out that Items 6 and 8 on page 5 were dupli- <br />cated; duly noted by Mr. Aarsvold. <br />Specific to #3 and outside grant funding, Councilmember Etten noted it didn’t <br />say there was any determinant factor in any way; but a series of ways to find <br />money available and a list of costs and benefits. Councilmember Etten agreed to <br />moving estimated changes in market value to the subject property and surround- <br />ing properties further up in the list. Councilmember Etten stated he wasn’t sure <br />changes in grant funding became cumbersome if they were available, but suggest- <br />ed no weightier language than that. <br />Ms. Collins and council members discussed other language options in various sec- <br />tions related to grant funds, but in conclusion and without objection, decided to <br />leave “outside grant funding” in place in Section 4, and simply move Item 3 be- <br />low Item 4 in that section. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.