My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013.06.11 EDA Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
EDA
>
EDA Agenda/Packets
>
2013 EDA Packets
>
2013.06.11 EDA Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2017 1:10:23 PM
Creation date
9/7/2017 1:10:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
6/11/2013
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
EDA
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
Arcand asked if the policy is intended to be used in industrial/commercial areas or <br /> residential areas. <br /> Bryan stated that is focused on commercial/industrial areas. <br /> Klein asked Ron Otkin how the City will pay for these improvements, and specifically <br /> how the City will pay for the Rosemary Way project petitioned by Len Pratt. <br /> Ron responded in saying that the City will develop a finance plan depending on the <br /> project, and will use State Aid funds for the Rosemary Way project. <br /> Denaway stated that, ultimately, the developer pays 100%plus interest with this policy. <br /> The only risk is when the City gets directly involved in the financing aspect. <br /> Puleo asked if this policy could be used on smaller residential lots or lots with no sewer <br /> or water. <br /> Bryan responded in saying residential areas or local streets cannot benefit from this <br /> policy. The extension of utilities requires a complicated process. This policy does not <br /> restrict anything,rather it guides. <br /> Puleo stated that the EDA should consider expanding this policy for other <br /> commercial/industrial properties that are not related to only road improvements. <br /> Arcand stated that the EDA should look at this policy as a way to attract businesses. <br /> Bryan stated that the EDA can make recommendations to the City Council to prioritize <br /> certain public improvements. <br /> Klein invited developer Len Pratt to the podium. <br /> Len stated that he would like to see how this policy could attract more businesses, and he <br /> hopes that could be a successful outcome of this policy. <br /> Denaway stated that the level of risk is not out of the ordinary for a City to be involved <br /> in. He said that he would like two items added to the policy. The first would be the 60% <br /> of the Letter of Credit (LOC) to be split between LOC and cash portion to share the risk <br /> between public and private. The second item would be to have a third party review the <br /> project and financing as a way to take a full look at the situation. <br /> Arcand stated that she believes that it is time for the City to be aggressive and would like <br /> to see more develop take place. In that case, she is in favor of the policy. <br /> Puleo stated that he does not think the policy is expansive enough, and he does not agree <br /> to change the policy for one project. <br /> Bever asked Len Pratt if the policy meets his needs. <br /> Len responded in saying that it does. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.