Agenda Packets - 1983/10/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ASSOCIATION ()1' METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES COMMENTS RE: PROPOSED RETROPOUTAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN'P POLICIES A. GENERAL COMMENTS The role Of the MotrvpOlitan Council in thr. pant 15 years has been one of planning and shaping through that planning effort the physical development of the Twin City Area. With few except ions, the council has maintained that role. Through the adoption of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, the council and the cities of the area have in fact, developed a large scale growth plan which will control the investment needed for the major systems of sower, transportation, parks, and airports. Council policies to date have Leon aim±d prG.urilg at the economics of providing physical support systems in a controlled manner rather than random fashion yet maintaining tho ability to encourage growth not stifle it. This system has ' worked. Although, the entrepreneurial aspect of economic development and job creati has not been specifically delineated in policy, it certainly has been discussed in terms of the four systems policies effect upon the ability to develop. To recognize in policy the need to consider economic development impact along with the physical systems development is good. The Metropolitan Council in its planning and informati gathering role for the physical systems can and should provide data concerned with economic development needs and patterns. however, because of the vast number of already existiny programs and agencies involved with promoting economic development and job creation, the council should show restraint and limit its role to one of economic planning as per the 1974 Metropolitan Reorganization Act rather than operations of new and overlapping economic programs. B. SPECIFIC POLICY COMENTS 1. AREA WIDE ECONOMIC POLICIES A, B, C, D, AND E Area Wide Economic Policies A through E are a restatement of current Development Framework policies with the addition of consideration for area economic developme, needs. COMMENT: These policies are supported. Recognition of economic development r.On.siderations while discussing the impact of various proposals on the four physical systems is sound. POLICY F. Includes Economic Impact and Fiscal Alternative Assessments or Public/Private Cost Sharing in the general review of project impacts on the. physical systems. COMMENT. Although commentary with this policy indicates that it is not intended to add significantly to the review process, the policy itself taken literally could open the door to major time consuming and costly reviews that could be initiated by the council or demanded by competing interests. The policy is too open ended, in that there are not guidelines or criteria establishing what or how to gage impact. Typically, developers and cities have thoroughly investigate the economic impact of projects and that data is made available during the norma: review process. Policy Eleven of the Investment Framework provides adequate opportunity for conunrnt.