10-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 development in the City of Mounds View. He explained that if the Economic Development Commission could agree upon some general priorities, they could go from the general to the specific, and use that information to help craft their work plans. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Metropolitan Council and Aier Planning organizations had set forth a recommended format for Economic Development:; tions, which included seven or eight different parts. He commented that some of these, psappeared to be too specific, and for that reason, they were deleted, and some of the<`44:::..`itl d captions of the recommended format were changed. He stated the Eco c Developmentkvmmission h determined to approach this section as a document that ,:0,11'd closely41,6011:eittk, believe:. e City should do in terms of economic development, and :this resulted in many' yt -`.; tate: ;ents contained in the first part of the document, "Communit`� coo Goals." ' , �` 1-1106 141, Economic Development Coordinator Carroll explained ggAgi next section of the document "Priorities for Economic Development Decisions," was f ebaf t " gard to whether or not they should list the priorities in order. He noted, as this was would"1cu]t and time-consuming process, it was recommended that they utilize bullet `oint. The stayer on •provides a list of the Economic Development Commission's highest M' collectively. „,kr. 14461.0aftwOr Economic Development Coordinator Carroll state"the.>s r :sc#ion, "Resources to Support .sem '=:�:� <x;::;r�.��,�.�t` Economic Development" is a list of the present assets and re urces of the City that would assist or promote Economic Development. ittf Economic Development Coordinator Carrollstated the`last section of the document, "Economic sw:AntlawDevelopme t Challenges, w' *:ghly debated . i the Economic Development Commission members =:.ne> d sever : rots had'comeTar ard, however, the ultimate consensus was to provide r ':`<`"tnthe p 4` >'of economic development within the City. He explained x:'.. ... p ,.: >«< «� 4: p � ��:-�<« ... that this section pert in 'to e current r p s ls, and was included in order to make the document more proactive, andlEiNtette to thellOittici general, that the challenges exist, and the Economic Developme t : opis 1 *Atts to constructively address these issues. Economic Developmentcoord`nator Carroll commented that the Economic Development Co < ssion had spent s e ,eight monthly meetings discussing the Economic Section, and the d•Att ent presently before the Planning Commission is the best culmination of those efforts. i ssioner Mil ; ointed out there were several references to Highway 10 contained in the • e ; t:Otiuired clarification. Coo •i : `it Carroll stated there appeared to be some confusion regarding this road. He stated in earlier drafts they had referred to the road as US Highway 10, which it was at one time, then they had references to County Road 10 or County 10, and had decided to omit those. He stated "Highway 10" was somewhat generic at present, and it would be helpful if the County and City could agree upon what the road will be called. He stated in his opinion, it would ultimately be called County Highway 10. He noted the document would go through several processes of review by the Economic