My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Business Retention and Development Committee Minutes 2008 07 07
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUSINESS RETENTION & DEV COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2008 Business Retention and Development Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Business Retention and Development Committee Minutes 2008 07 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:09:41 PM
Creation date
10/6/2008 1:51:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BRADMIN 2008 07 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
City Council Business Retention & Development Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 7, 2008 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Discussion/Direction -Comprehensive Plan Update, Economic Development <br />Language <br />Hogan presented her suggested changes to the Comp Plan language. She noted that <br />her intent was to make the language more active and less passive than what is in the <br />existing Comp Plan. <br />Michael Menaker, 1127 West Choke Cherry Drive, asked if there should be <br />encouragement in the Comp Plan for neon signs as they are often noted as an asset in <br />downtown. <br />Paul Wood stated that that is a specific design standard that should be addressed in the <br />PUD process, not the Comp Plan. <br />Yarnell asked if any members had any changes to the suggested language. No one did. <br />Members approved the recommended language. <br />Discussion/Direction - 2009 Budget <br />Hogan stated that the work of the committee over the past 18 months has been setting <br />the stage for future economic development programs. But she added that staff and <br />committee time is limited so that the 2009 budget needs to be realistic in its approach to <br />demands on time. <br />Hogan asked the following: <br />• Should the City continue to fund Shop Louisville? <br />• Should the City change how recommendations are made for funding the <br />Chamber and the DBA? Should there be deliverables identified in return for the <br />funding? <br />• Should the City dedicate funding to identifying targeted industries that we would <br />like to see grow in Louisville? <br />• Are there other programs that BRaD would like to address in 2009? <br />Yarnell stated her support for funding research on how we can encourage targeted <br />industries. <br />Menaker stated that the City should continue to fund Shop Louisville. If we don't <br />continue the program we have wasted the work and money put into the program for the <br />past two years. <br />Jay Keany, 722 Front Street, stated his opinion that the City has not done enough to <br />advertise the program in the ways that would not cost additional money. For example, <br />printing the Shop Louisville web site address on the utility billing envelopes. <br />Malcolm Fleming reminded the members that it was clear in 2008 that the City would <br />fund it for one year and that if the business community could not or would not step up <br />and take over the program in 2009 then the City would discontinue funding. <br />Keany noted that the DBA simply doesn't have the funds or staff to take over the project. <br />He added that even if they did, they would only want to fund it proportionally. Covering <br />only that portion of the businesses represented in the downtown. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.