My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 03 07
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 03 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:38 PM
Creation date
3/8/2016 11:00:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2016 03 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Business Retention & Development Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 1, 2016 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />we are not privy to. Commissioner Menaker said perhaps BRaD needs to vet <br />applications. <br />DeJong reminded BRaD that he does not bring forth every application. Commissioner <br />Menaker suggested bringing applications that are not brought forth. <br />Menaker made a motion, seconded by Pritchard, to approve recommended LMC <br />changes go to Council. Council member Lipton said he understands these are mostly <br />housekeeping changes but would like more standards set. He is not on -board with the <br />entire program. Given Council member Lipton's concerns, Commissioner Pritchard <br />suggested suspending the LMC changes and looking more fully at the program. <br />Council member Lipton wants standards set in Ordinance. Commissioner Reichenberg <br />said BRaD needs more information to understand Council member Lipton's position. <br />Council member Maloney said Council wants more due diligence so maybe standards <br />do need to be set. <br />There was a discussion about landlord /tenant negotiations. <br />Jim Tienken suggested DeJong outline criteria used. DeJong said: <br />• New employers <br />• Quality of wages (Boulder County average wages) <br />• Existing employers — encourages them to stay. <br />Discussion was tabled. <br />DeJong described the staff time needed to process Consumer use tax rebates. <br />Significant time is spent for the Finance Dept. and the Company to determine which <br />purchases qualify as durable goods lasting more than 3 years. By allowing all <br />purchases to be eligible for rebate, both durable and non - durable, and a lesser rebate <br />percentage applied, processing rebates can be simplified for the City and the Company. <br />Council member Maloney said if we can simplify and there isn't a net increase in the <br />rebate amount, he is ok with the change. <br />Direction was to analyze previous agreements and determine a rebate percentage to <br />keep rebate amounts neutral. Analysis to be brought back to BRaD at a future meeting. <br />CTC ROAD CONNECTION DISCUSSION <br />DeJong said road current road network does not interest RTD for service additions, <br />however addition of connector from 96th Street to CTC may allow RTD to consider a <br />more efficient transit route along Hwy 42 and likely create a new opportunity for retail <br />creation serving CTC. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.