Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minot economic development panel narrows priorities; rejects adding dedicated economic development staff
Summary
The Economic Development Plan Review Committee debated wording and priorities in its draft report on March 21, adding metrics for jobs and industry diversification, tabling a detailed revision of success metrics and rejecting a motion to restore a dedicated economic development staff position to next year’s budget.
The Minot Economic Development Plan Review Committee met March 21 to continue work on a draft report that will go to City Council. Committee members focused on refining success metrics, possible council‑level actions and funding priorities.
Committee members voted to add language that explicitly lists “create jobs” and “diversify industry sectors” among measures of economic development success. Members said those bullets would help council evaluate proposals against prioritized goals. The committee later voted to table additional wording for the success‑metrics section so members could refine language and return with suggested text.
The committee debated whether the city should restore a previously budgeted economic development coordinator position. One motion to add the position back into the 2026 budget was offered and discussed at length; proponents described the role as a liaison for downtown programs, Renaissance Zone and retail recruitment, and as a coordinator of data subscriptions used for retail outreach. Opponents said the community already uses MAC EDC and other partners for many of those functions, raised concerns about duplicative staffing and about finding sustained funding, and said city staffing increases are unpopular with portions of the public. The motion to restore the position failed on a committee vote.
Committee members also discussed the city’s existing incentive programs—Renaissance Zone, the Magic Fund and façade programs—and whether some incentive funding should be reallocated to priorities such as flood control and infrastructure. After discussion the committee voted to remove two proposed additional items from the draft report—references that would have suggested reallocating economic development sales‑tax funds to cover flood control and related infrastructure—so that the draft would not preempt council’s budget deliberations. Committee members said they may return with more targeted recommendations after further analysis.
Several procedural motions were passed to move the draft forward: the committee directed the chair and staff to compile a detailed list of all stakeholder meetings the committee has held and to return that list at the next meeting, and it tabled the success‑metrics section to allow members to submit prioritized language for the next session. The committee agreed to reconvene on April 11 and asked members to submit suggested language in advance.
Votes at a glance: approve meeting minutes (passed); add “create jobs” to economic success metrics (passed); add “diversify industry sectors” to metrics (passed); table section 2 (success metrics) for redrafting (passed); motion to restore economic development position to 2026 budget (failed); remove two proposed additional items reallocation language from draft (passed).
Ending: The committee set deadlines for submissions and scheduled the next meeting; staff will post the agenda and committee materials in advance.
