Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_EDAB_05.07.2001 Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 17, 2001 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2001 Chairman F. Scott LaGrone called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Large Conference Room at Development Services, located at 904 S. Main Street, Georgetown, Texas. The following voting members were present: F. Scott LaGrone, Will Moore, Daniel Vasquez, Paula Boggs, Johnny Lacy, Ann Snell, Jack Pittman, Bill Jones, Gordon Baker, and David McLaughlin. The following non-voting members were present: Bill Connor, Clark Thurmond, Annette Ford attended on behalf of David Hays. Also present were: Shirley J. Rinn, Deputy City Secretary The following members were absent: Tim Harris and Mark Dixon. A. Approval of Minutes from April 19, 2001. Motion by Johnny Lacy, 2nd by Gordon Baker to approve April 19, 2001 Minutes. Approved (6-0). B. Discussion and possible action regarding approval of revised by-laws. Brief discussion regarding revised by-laws. Motion by Paula Boggs and 2nd by Jack Pittman to approve the revised by-laws. Approved (9-0). C. Discussion and possible action regarding meeting attendance of Commission members. Scott LaGrone told the Commission that the Council would be reviewing the attendance of Commission Members to its meetings. It was requested that an attendance report be provided to the commission on a regular basis. D. Discussion regarding Joint Meeting with City Council scheduled for June 12, 2001. There was a discussion among the commission members that there was really no reason to have a joint meeting with council until the next regularly scheduled meeting to report with Council in August. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 17, 2001 Page 2 of 5 E. Presentation by John Kirby regarding an Analysis of Performance for Georgetown ISD. This item was deferred. F. Discussion and possible action regarding the organizational structure of the Economic Development Commission. The Commission discussed issues related to the joint meeting that was held with the City Council on April 24, 2001. Commission members confirmed that they concurred with the report that was presented to Council by Scott LaGrone. The Commission went on to discuss at length the organizational structure of the commission and the flow of information it receives from the city council, city manager and the economic development director. They also discussed different economic models and their concerns about the Conroe Model in comparison to other economic models. The commission members discussed its concerns regarding its relationship with the City Council and the City Council’s expectations of the Commission, as well as the expectations of the Commission members. There was a concern expressed that the City Council’s interpretation of the task force recommendations and the Commission’s interpretation of the task force recommendations of the commission’s role were not the same. The Commission discussed issues related to the Rivery development and talked about the things that it would have liked to have been involved in with regard to the economic development process for that project. It also discussed issues related to sales tax and environmental impact of retail developments. The members went on to discuss its role with regard to the council. Paula Boggs indicated that her interpretation of the role was that it was one that was reactive in that the Council gives the commission something to evaluate. She said that the Commission should be given projects to work on and that there needed to be some kind of mechanism to get the information to the Commission. There was additional discussion regarding the need for the Commission to act as a conduit to the City Council in order for it to be aware of trends or issues it might not be aware of. There was further discussion regarding the need for there to be some sort of oversight with regarding to the performance of the Economic Development Director. The Commission members also indicated that they would like to have more information available to them regarding businesses that are interested in Georgetown. There is a concern among Commission members about the amount of information they have received to this point regarding economic development issues. Gordon Baker expressed concern about the current organizational chart because it looked like it broke the link between the Commission and the Economic Development Director. He said that his understanding of the commission was that it would bring everyone together. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 17, 2001 Page 3 of 5 The Commission members discussed the need to let the City Council know what it thinks its role should be with regard to Economic Development, Main Street and the Convention & Visitor’s Bureau. Motion by Ann Snell, 2nd by Johnny Lacy to have Paula Boggs prepare a report to the City Council regarding the Economic Development Commission’s role regarding economic development issues for the City of Georgetown, as well as it’s role as it relates to the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau and the Main Street Program. There was additional discussion regarding the role of the Commission as it relates to Main Street and the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. Gordon Baker addressed the commission and talked about CVB and Main Street and the need to help their boards have a better understanding of their roles as they relate to the economic development plan and the Economic Development Commission. There was another lengthy discussion regarding the Commission’s expectations and the need to have good communication among the boards, city management and the City Council. The Commission went on to discuss the timeframe to get its report to Council, and the course of action it should take in the mean time. Motion was called for a vote. Motion Approved. (10-0) G. Discussion and possible action regarding information obtained at the Public Meeting held on May 16, 2001 regarding the Draft Economic Plan. The Commission talked about the information that was received with regard to the draft Economic Draft Plan. There was discussion regarding the need to have each working group review the plan as written and see if it needs any additional suggestions and/or modifications that will address the needs of the businesses represented by the working groups. Ann Snell told the commission that she would work with Shirley Rinn to prepare a letter to send to the citizens who submitted responses for the draft economic development plan and prepare a summary of the comments received. The Commission went on to discuss some of the comments that were received from citizens. Some of the commission members indicated that most of the responses that were received were already covered in the Plan. Ann told the commission that she thought it was very important that the citizens who provided input be recognized for taking the time to give their opinions regardless of whether or not it would change the draft plan or not. Motion by Johnny Lacy, 2nd by Jack Pittman to have Ann Snell prepare a report regarding the citizen feedback, as well as a letter to send to citizens who responded. Approved (10-0). Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 17, 2001 Page 4 of 5 The Commission talked about having the final Economic Plan completed by the end of the summer. The Commission also discussed the role of the working groups. There was discussion regarding whether or not the role of the working groups would be completed with the review of the goals of the Economic Development Plan. The general consensus of the commission members was that the working groups would continue their work, but that their tasks with regard to the Economic Development Plan had been completed. H. Discussion and possible action regarding economic development models for the City of Georgetown The Commission members talked about the many economic models that are available. Some of the Commission Members expressed concern about the City of Georgetown relying solely on one specific economic model for all situations. They talked about the need to rely on the Industrial Recruitment/Retention contractor to pick an appropriate economic model that will fit specific situations that arise. I. Reports from Working Groups 1. small commercial/retail Will Moore passed out a report to the commission members regarding the progress of the small commercial/retail working group and gave a brief report to the commission regarding the same. 2. large commercial/Industrial Bill Connor said that the large commercial/industrial working group did not have a report for this meeting. Scott LaGrone talked to the commission regarding the brochure that Cedar Park was using to promote its image and indicated that the Commission should consider having a similar brochure completed to promote Georgetown. 3. downtown area and tourism. Gordon Baker gave a report regarding the roles of the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau and the Main Street Program and the differences between the two programs. The Commission talked about the role of the Economic Development Commission and how it will work in conjunction with the boards of the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau and the Main Street Boards. The Commission members again expressed the importance of the flow of communication. The Commission members discussed the limitations for use of the bed tax collected by hotels/motels. The Commission members also discussed the various Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 17, 2001 Page 5 of 5 mechanisms by which information would flow from the CVB Board and the Main Street Board to the Commission. The next meeting was scheduled for June 14, 2001. J. Report from City Manager regarding Economic Development Issues, including the status of new Manager of Economic Growth and Planning, as well as status of possible business prospects. There was no report from the City Manager. K. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. APPROVED : ______________________ Secretary of the Economic Development Commission