Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Riley stated he is not sure that he likes the word revitalization on the signs, as some <br />of the work done by the EDA relates simply to redeveloping. Also, the larger print does not <br />include anything about economics or development. Member LeTourneau replied in the big <br />picture the signs are to have the EDA take credit for projects in the City. He does not think the <br />community would care or know the difference between revitalization or redevelopment. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald commented the language on the signs fits with the locations of the signs <br />at this time. <br /> <br />Member LeTourneau asked if the Board will be able to review the design before the signs go to <br />printing. <br /> <br />Member Strommen suggested the size of the logo and the words Economic Development <br />Authority be increased. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated she will inquire about a price break based on the number of <br />signs printed and the final concept will be emailed to the Board. The topic of the revitalization <br />complete signs will be on the agenda of a future meeting. <br /> <br />Member LeTourneau inquired if the development signs could be completed prior to the next <br />meeting by staff communicating with the EDA through email. Associate Planner Wald replied <br />she should be able to have something completed by next week. She indicated the price will be <br />approximately $350 per sign at the worst case scenario. If the cost is less than this, additional <br />signs could be purchased, and if the cost is more she will email the Board. <br /> <br />Member LeTourneau asked if the signs are allowed for in the budget. Associate Planner Wald <br />responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Motion by Member LeTourneau, seconded by Member Steffen, to direct staff to purchase four to <br />five development signs at a cost not to exceed $1,600, with the final concept to be reviewed by <br />the EDA through email. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Members LeTourneau, Steffen, Elvig, and <br />Strom~nen. Voting No: None. Absent: Member Gromberg and Keifer. <br /> <br />Case #2: Business Park Amenities <br /> <br />Economic Development/TIF Specialist Sullivan reviewed with the EDA that at the last meeting <br />the EDA directed staff to bring forth potential business park amenities and potential funding <br />sources for those amenities. The EDA also stated that they would bring options to the next <br />meeting to discuss. He explained EDA dollars are more flexible and thus the types of amenities <br />that can be purchased are many. TIF eligible spending types would be streetlights and <br />monument signs and it would need to be verified within each TIF plan. Inspection of current TIF <br />plans favor these types of expenditures. Budgets for TIF districts vary from one another, but the <br />area of interest, primarily the 116 Corridor, which represents TIF Districts Nos. 2 and 6, have the <br /> <br />Economic Development Authority/December 8, 2004 <br /> Page 3 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />