My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/18/2022 Minutes
City-of-Paris
>
Boards and Commissions
>
PEDC
>
2022
>
01/18/2022 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 9:16:48 AM
Creation date
2/17/2022 9:16:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
PEDC Board Meeting Minutes <br />Monday, January 18, 2022 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Discuss and Consider Approval of the November and December 2021 Financial Statements <br />Mr. Bray stated December 2021 financials will not be presented due to late closing on recent land acquisition <br />and minor inaccuracies on monthly report. Mr. Bray acknowledged revised December 2021 financials would be <br />presented during the next PEDC board meeting for review. <br /> <br />Mr. Coleman reported on financials for November 2021. He stated for the month of November our statement <br />showed total assets of $6.8 million. Of the $6.8 million, $2.4 million was reported in cash, $2.1 million in <br />investments, $330,000 from taxes receivable and $1.9 million was in real estate holdings within Paris Industrial <br />Park. Total liabilities are $1.2 million, leaving a net cash position of $5.6 million. Mr. Coleman completed review <br />for the month of November stating that the Sales Tax Revenue was $173,562, with a total Net-Income of <br />$126,578. <br /> <br />Following review and discussion of financial statements, Mr. Homer made a motion to approve the November <br />and Financials. Dr. Hashmi seconded the motion. <br />Vote: 7-ayes to 0-nays. <br /> <br />Discuss and Consider Approval of the Interlocal Agreement between ATCOG and Paris Economic Development <br />Corporation <br />Ms. Hammond discussed the procedure of applying for an EDA grant in an effort to make PEDC properties site- <br />ready and fund infrastructure improvements related to current prospects. <br /> <br />Ms. Hammond discussed different approaches to applying for an EDA grant and explained rationale for engaging <br />Ark-Tex Council of Governments (ATCOG) for management/administrative services of the grant. She elaborated <br />on administrative cost structure of consultants versus ATCOG as well as the importance of aligning the grant <br />application with the CEDS, a regional planning strategy developed by ATCOG in partnership with regional <br />economic developers. She added that if approved, the PEDC staff will be working jointly with ATCOG on <br />application of this grant to the EDA and receive support from ATCOG via administration and management if the <br />grant is awarded. All fees to ATCOG will be dispersed through the grant if awarded. <br /> <br />Following review and discussion of the Interlocal Agreement between ATCOG and PEDC, Dr. Hashmi made a <br />motion to approve the execution of the agreement. Mr. Roddy seconded the motion. <br />Vote: 7-ayes to 0-nays. <br /> <br />Discuss and Consider Approval of the Procurement Process and Bid Selection of an Engineering Firm to <br />develop a Preliminary Engineering Report for EDA Grant Application <br />Ms. Hammond stated that a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to describe the details and costs associated <br />with the project is required when submitting a grant application to the EDA. <br /> <br />She stated the PEDC had gone through the required procurement process and requested qualifications <br />from a number of engineering firms. The PEDC accepted responses through January 3, 2022, and as a result <br />Statements of Qualifications from three firms were received. The three firms are EST Inc., Hayes Engineering, <br />Inc. and MTG Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. <br /> <br />Ms. Hammond explained that each of the submitted proposals were subjected to a specific review process <br />wherein each firm was scored in reference to their demonstration of experience with municipal construction, <br />state and federally-funded construction projects, the competitive bidding process, and other elements of project <br />management. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.