My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.4. SR 03-20-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
03-20-1995
>
4.4. SR 03-20-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2007 9:12:35 AM
Creation date
12/18/2007 9:04:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/20/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
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 unprovement 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 tune 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.