My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 02 01
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 02 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:38 PM
Creation date
3/8/2016 11:17:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADPKT 2016 02 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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 />January 4, 2016 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />City Manager Fleming believes feedback does get back to Council. Council has adopted <br />changes to zoning based on feedback and BRaD's perspective. He agrees with Chair <br />Loo — we need to hear from the business community. <br />Jim Tienken agrees with Chair Loo that businesses may fear retaliation from the no- <br />growth community. City Manager Fleming said the Chamber should represent business <br />interests. <br />Sue - Is there is a place for an Economic Development Council separate from City? <br />Mike Kranzdorf agrees retention visits are good. BRaD should present minutes to <br />Council once per month. Sue — packets are so big, things get lost. She plans to make <br />announcement during Council comments as Chair of BRaD. Commissioner Lathrop <br />asked can we condense retention visit comments to present to Council by industry? <br />2016 BRaD Discussion Topics <br />Business Assistance Program (BAP) <br />There have been questions about the effectiveness of BAPs. Are guidelines still <br />effective? <br />Council member Maloney said criteria are good. How do we determine risk? If we don't <br />do a BAP, what is the consequence? What is the ROI? Commissioner Menaker said <br />much of a BAP is retaining primary employment. <br />Chair Loo asked if BRaD is willing to revisit BAP program, revisit report DeJong creates, <br />include a section on the value of primary employment, rolling in retail component <br />discussion, include what Aaron does weekly. <br />Downtown Parking <br />Chair Loo sees a role for BRaD. Council did not fund parking study. LRC does not have <br />money to fund study. Commissioner Pritchard suggested waiting till underpass is <br />completed and see what impact is. We need to look at permit parking for downtown. <br />We need an enforceable plan. Further discussion about what the impact is of not <br />funding parking study. Revisit parking and present to Council for consideration in the <br />2017 budget. <br />Signage <br />Planning Commission trying to clean up sign issue. For Centennial Valley in particular, <br />PUD regulations supersede the City's signage regulations. <br />Industrial sign guidelines at CTC needs a refresh. <br />Not a BRaD issue other than listening and forwarding complaints. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.