Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SECTION I <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />The following report is submitted by the University City Advisory Board for Economic <br />Progress to the University City Council. <br /> <br />The Advisory Board for Economic Progress was created by University City Council <br />resolution on July 21, 2004. A report of the actual work, content of meetings and <br />structure for the Advisory Board is presented in Section II. <br /> <br />The Advisory Board was charged to: <br /> <br />"... study the current situation in University City, look at possibilities for <br />future development and redevelopment that will enhance our community, <br />and will examine ways to increase the competitiveness of University City <br />in the St. Louis Metropolitan area; present the University City Council <br />with its thoughts on the tools and best practices available for development, <br />the opportunities for collaborations and alliances for economic progress in <br />the city, and will provide data and analyses to support its <br />recommendations. " <br /> <br />"It was further resolved that the Advisory Board may designate possible <br />sites for development, will advise the Council of those sites, and the <br />Council may then request that the University City Manager direct his staff <br />to develop a plan for the development of the site ..." <br /> <br />The Advisory Board for Economic Progress met from September 9, 2004 through March <br />15,2005 to work towards the final recommendations presented in this report. Four <br />subcommittees of the full Advisory Board developed these recommendations. Each <br />recommendation is discussed briefly in abstract form in Section III. The full <br />subcommittee reports follow in Section IV. <br /> <br />In addition to the recommendations presented below and in more detail in Section III, <br />three key themes emerged from the Advisory Board deliberations. Those themes are <br />more directed to the collective attitude of the city, the city administration and elected <br />officials. <br /> <br />1. University City must become more proactive in its desire and commitment to <br />engage in economic development activities. Although it has made progress it <br />needs to extend itself further and create even more collective momentum, energy, <br />passion and programs necessary to attract business and redevelopment. <br /> <br />2. There is a need for University City to sharpen its vision of what type of <br />development and redevelopment it wants. The absence of a clear vision in some <br />areas can be a hindrance. <br /> <br />1 <br />