CC PACKET 10111983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES COMMENTS RE: PROPOSED METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. GENERAL COMMENTS The role of the Metropolitan Council in the past 15 years has been one. of planning and shaping through that planning effort the physical development of the Twin City Area. With few exceptions,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 sewer, transportation, parks, and airports. Council policies to date have been aimed primarily at the economics of providing physical support systems in a controlled manner rather than random fashion yet maintaining the ability to encourage growth not-stifle it. This system has worked. Although, the entrepreneurial aspect of economic development and job creation 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 information 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 existing 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 COMMENTS 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 developmen needs. COJIVSENT: These policies are supported. Recognition of economic development considerations 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 investigated • the economic impact of projects and that data is made available during the normal review process. Policy Eleven of the Investment Framework provides adequate opportunity for comment.