My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Report to University City Council
Public Access
>
Advisory Board on Economic Dev
>
Report to University City Council
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2007 1:03:26 PM
Creation date
5/2/2005 3:48:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
<br />information on their backgrounds and expectations of this Board. Members also created <br />a common definition for economic development. <br /> <br />Two additional meetings were held in September and October 2004 to provide the Board <br />with information, educational background information and relevant University City <br />economic development data. Presentations to the Advisory Board were made by the <br />University City Manager, Mr. Frank Ollendorff, Director of Planning and Development, <br />Mr. Lehman Walker, and Director of Finance, Willie Norfleet. Additional presentations <br />were made by the President of the Historical Society, by the attorney for the city on <br />matters of tax increment fmancing and tax abatement, by advisory board members Marc <br />Hirshman and Kathy Sorkin who discussed additional developmental tools. The <br />Advisory Board also toured the city-to review, fust-hand, potential development sites. <br />In addition, a subcommittee was created to review reports and studies on development <br />and redevelopment that University City had commissioned in years past. <br /> <br />Advisory Board members developed an analysis of Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities <br />and Threats (SWOT). The SWOT analysis was used to focus the work of the Board on <br />critical issues/opportunities for the city. The issues/opportunities were discussed and <br />prioritized in order of their importance as determined by the Board. The prioritization <br />was in response to four questions posed to the Advisory Board. <br /> <br />1. Will the issue/opportunity add to our community's strengths? <br />2. Will the issue/opportunity improve a weakness? <br />3. Can we exercise some control or have some real influence over the <br />issue/opportunity? <br />4. With investment (time & money), is there a significant return? <br /> <br />Four key areas were selected for serious consideration and in November 2004, four small <br />group issue/opportunity subcommittees were organized to "clarify, research, analyze and <br />prepare each issue/opportunity for Advisory Board review and feedback." In February <br />2005, the four subcommittee reports were presented and feedback was solicited from <br />other board members, and the reports were rewritten to incorporate the <br />comments/criticisms of the full Board. The final subcommittee reports were forwarded <br />to the Steering Committee for placement into this final report. <br /> <br />Members of the Steering Committee who worked to provide guidance and direction to <br />the process are: Roslyn Borg, Richard Goldberg, Marc Hirshman, Tim Michels, Cameron <br />Sanders, Dan Savory, John Solodar and Kathy Sorkin. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.