My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014.04.08 EDA Agenda Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
EDA
>
EDA Agenda/Packets
>
2014 EDA Packets
>
2014.04.08 EDA Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2016 10:55:29 AM
Creation date
1/11/2016 10:16:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
4/8/2014
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.
/
45
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
�1 Summary of CRY Feedback: Econoniic Development Su -v �, <br />A survey was sent to each City and the HRA at the beginning of the study. The questions were <br />designed to obtain preliminary input into the economic development study. This information was <br />summarized and shared with the County Board in September of 2013. <br />I. Specific Priorities <br />Please identify the three most significant economic development priorities of your City or <br />organization over the next five years. <br />• Programs administered by HRA at an economy of scale that helps cities and townships <br />• Housing construction <br />• Promotion — marketing for new and existing businesses <br />• Redevelopment -- reinvestment in existing properties <br />• Investment in infrastructure <br />• Development (new) <br />• Jobs and diversity of employment <br />Linkage between living and working within the county <br />• Coordination of efforts <br />• Business attraction — financial incentives <br />H. County -wide Factors <br />Please identify the top three factors that are impacting in any way (driving or impeding) <br />economic growth and development within Washington County. <br />Driving <br />■ Available land <br />• Schools <br />New bridge in Stillwater <br />• Natural amenities <br />• Strength of existing economy <br />• County changing to a "pro ED" place <br />Impeding <br />• Lack of affordable housing <br />• Lack of transit alternatives <br />• Lack of coordinated strategy <br />Lack of coordinated infrastructure strategy <br />• County's historical TIF policy (differing perspectives) <br />d Infrastructure flexibility (regulatory restraint) <br />• Shortage of niche financing programs (grants) <br />• Still a slow recovery <br />■ Digital divide in parts of county <br />• No policy on tax abatement <br />• No economic development staff <br />• The County is diverse — how can we effectively promote the county as a whole when <br />areas are distinct and different (rural -- low taxes) <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.