Laserfiche WebLink
• NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS <br /> DEVELOPERS AND BUSINESS INTERESTS <br /> Since the impetus for this project started with feedback from business developers to the <br /> Economic Development Committee, we will examine the concerns of the developers first. <br /> Feedback from developers indicates that they have observed a significant improvement in <br /> the Review and Permitting process in the past year. Although there are different <br /> perceptions among developers, and even with the improvements, developers want to feel <br /> more of a partnership with the City through increased communication at various stages of <br /> the Review and Permitting process. This will reduce costly last minute surprises for both <br /> the developers and the City planner. <br /> 1. Specific concerns <br /> a. Both groups of business people expressed a strong desire for more dialogue <br /> and problem solving with the City Staff during the review process. They <br /> understand the City's position that a closed Review meeting is more efficient <br /> for everyone, but feel there could be more formal conversation either before <br /> the Review meeting to outline the requirements for a successful Review, <br /> and/or after the Review meeting to go over the City recommendations. There <br /> should be enough time to respond to these recommendations before the City <br /> Planning Commission meeting. <br /> b. Timing is critical for developers. Any official documents need to be delivered <br /> to the developer as quickly as possible. <br /> c. The issue of better teamwork between the City and the municipal utility <br /> was brought up by several people, although it may represent only one <br /> incident. <br /> d. Fees have increased dramatically in the past few years. Some developers <br /> question why, others accept this as the cost of doing business. An explanation <br /> would alleviate much skepticism. <br /> e. Business people strongly feel the need for the City to take an impartial "Just <br /> the facts, ma'am" position rather than strongly advocate the City's <br /> recommendations with the Planning Commission or Council. They suggested <br /> that the tone of the Review process should be one of choices and explanations, <br /> rather than adversarial. <br /> • <br /> page 3 <br />