HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-10 Economic Development Council minutes.
City of Bozeman
Economic Development Council (EDC)
Meeting Minutes
Thursday
, October 28, 2010, 10:30 am – 1:00 pm
Bozeman City Hall, Yellowstone Conference Room
Members Attending:
Daryl Schliem (Bozeman Chamber of Commerce), Tracy Menuez (Human Resource
Development Council), Gary Bloomer (Montana State University’s Tech Ranch), Chris Mehl
(City Commission) Eugen Graf (Graf Construction/Real Estate), Chris Westlake (Midwest
Welding and Machine), Stuart Leidner (Prospera Business Network)
Members Absent:
Cheryl Ridgely (Bozeman Deaconess Hospital)
Staff Present:
Chris Kukulski (City Manager), Brit Fontenot (Asst. to the City Manager), Aimee Kissel
(Deputy City Clerk – taking minutes)
Guests / Public Present:
Earl Mathers, County Administrator
NOTE: These minutes are not word for word and should be considered in addition to the
audio recording of the meeting.
A. Call to Order – Chair Chris Westlake
Chris Westlake called the meeting to order at 10:42 a.m.
B. Minutes – October 7, 2010
Motion and Vote to approve the minutes of October 7, 2010.
It was moved by Gary Bloomer, seconded by Tracy Menuez to approve the minutes of
October 7, 2010.
The motion passed unanimously
.
C. Public Comment
– None
D. Non-Action Items
1 of 2
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
1. Brief overview of EDC action and direction from the October 7, 2010 EDC
Meeting. (Schliem – 10 min.)
Brit Fontenot explained that the red text on the latest priority draft was added since the last
meeting as well as additional information regarding a sliding scale of estimated costs as a
starting point and some time lines. This data would then be placed within the matrix. The list and
matrix would be provided to the Commission.
Discussion took place regarding how to approach allocating funds and requesting funds from the
Commission for accomplishing the priorities. Allocation of funds can be somewhat flexible,
however the budget has already been adopted for the year making it harder to fund.
Guest Earl Mathers from Gallatin County said the County may be interested in taking part in
partnership possibilities.
Discussion took place regarding adding administrative costs and position costs into the matrix
under item 1a with a note about funds needed during this fiscal year.
Stuart Leidner moved, Chris Westlake seconded to move on to action item #1.
The motion passed unanimously
.
E. Action Items
beginning with No. 2 [Commitment to a
1. Continue to refine EDC priorities 1-7
business-friendly process with a focus on retention and expansion of existing local
businesses].
(Schliem – 2 hrs)
Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding the statement under item 2, sentence one. Add the word goal into
the sentence instead of the hard line statement that Bozeman will become the most business
friendly city.
Discussion regarding making letters more specific.
Item 2. a.:
Design Review Board, Planning Board already working on this item.
Planning Dept. has been meeting with stakeholders, etc.
EDC as the driver of this item – eyes and ears.
As we come across items already underway, add the word support.
Work plan goals similar to these items. Revise wording to match? (Add reform)
Make sure City Commission supporting staff in efforts to streamline, etc.
Change wording for a. to: Streamline the development review processes.
Not just about speedier decision making – also about consistency, etc.
Appropriate timelines and expenses to be added to the matrix regarding amending
Ordinances, etc.
2 of 7
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
Item 2. b.:
Ongoing. Timeline target of June 30, 2011 (end of fiscal year) to identify the process.
Logistics analysis of your processes – implementing may be another timeline.
Item 2. c.
Ongoing
Item 2.c. delete since already under item 6
Item 2. d.
Ongoing, Brit working on this. Timeline is current.
Item 2. e
.
How often and who will be visiting sites?
If the City to become more business friendly, Commission needs to understand business.
Cr. Mehl – visiting as a majority – as a body?
Change wording to: Continue to support and participate in business site visits on a
quarterly basis.
Intimidating when 4 or 5 Commissioners make a site visit together? Intimate
conversation with a smaller group?
Affective communication between business community and policy making body.
Intent of Commissioner visits would be to develop policy to better service the business
community.
Cr. Mehl would like a shared experience with the other Commissioners – quarterly visits
for example: Right Now or Hospital
Original intent that EDC members and liaisons to make site visits?
Conclusion: Continue business site visits with Economic Development Council and ED
liaison and encourage commission as a whole to conduct three site visits per year.
City Commission to work with County Commissioners as well?
Item 2. f.
How do we gather feedback? Email? How can we do this process better? Survey
monkey?
Importance of having applicants experience a customer service attitude within every
interaction with the city. Continual form of feedback regarding how that’s going.
Measurement aspect on annual review – how are they perceived as dealing with
customers? What gets measured – gets done.
Is there a way to create more on a city level that isn’t a periodic review but rather
triggered by your interaction with city. Relates to customer service approach as part of
3 of 7
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
the culture across the city. Ex: how did we do? email, right after applicant / customer has
an interaction with the city.
Form of email or mystery/secret shopper.
Recommend policy regarding what the city and Commission should do on these items,
then the EDC handing things over to the proper staff/body.
Require a customer/applicant follow up email to generate feedback on the departmental
procedure. Move information up to the EDC.
Develop a formal process to get feedback.
How will you quantify feedback – review – metric – threshold standard to be met
Response rate, establish baseline
Two sides of feedback – where do we need more attention and when we get great
feedback – change perception, build enthusiasm and encouragement about doing business
in Bozeman
Change wording to: Design an applicant/customer follow up process for feedback on the
application and review other procedures and services as part of the dashboard of the
economic indicators.
Item 2. g.
Part of the discussion for quite some time
EDC liaison to package the webpage together after branding worked out.
6 to 12 months time frame.
Location of EDC liaison on website should be intuitive to the business community.
Item 2. h. i. j.
Remove h. and combine i. and j
Specificity of the outcome and the goal
What is the communications strategy? How do we want to roll things out to people.
Communications strategy at different timelines.
H. change to: develop a marketing communications strategy.
i. j. – see item 1
i. – Brit to word smith
Focus on providing priorities and recommendations
Item 2. j.
unless a survey is statistically relevant – does not mean anything
What data will be relevant? What are the expectations of the EDC?
Not capturing all that we can and not utilizing all that we capture
Costs? Resources for this item.
4 of 7
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
Ongoing – place dollar sign
Add ‘regularly update’
Better utilizing the data that we collect
10 to 20k for resources
Idea of what is happening now with economic vitality of local community.
Stuart Leidner to work with Brit Fontenot
Take out j. include in 1.d.
Earl Mather – add labor statistics, etc.
Item 3.
TechRanch feels a through g. are under way in concert with the City and potential
sponsors
Measurements of economic dev. that would be meaningful?
95% failure rate of new businesses in first five years – if through incubator able to move
success rate – extension of incubator concept. Business mentorship services
Bank of services, mentorship with ongoing businesses in 1.d.
Need $$. Time frame: 6 – 12 mths as it relates to TechRanch
Longer process – take time to do well. 1 to 2 years for other incubators
Public understanding – mills for funding long term?
Specificity?
Removing TechRanch out of first paragraph? Narrows focus – plural – incubators
Prioritize the tech component with the long term strategy to talk about other incubation
services.
Link between community and university – huge asset
Brit – wordsmith with Tech Ranch as short term priority
Time line as 6 months for TechRanch 1-2 years for remainder of incubation programs
Item 4.
InfoTrac, WesLaw and 2 web based info. databases at the library.
Not assign a cost at this point
Identify some as needing a boost – example: transportation and g. – time lines on
support…
Investigating what type of infrastructure?
Robust and competitive IT landscape
Catalyze the investigation unless an industry that would like to expand service into our
area.
g. and i. – 6-12 months to research, report back. Costs on i.
5 of 7
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
Item 5.
Brit has been researching the economic gardening principles
ED Liaison has been networking quite a bit. Add strengthening County relationships.
B. as the beginning of a.?
See recommendation 1
C, d and e. all ways to fund economic development: Change to Create a funding
mechanism that includes c.d. and e.
Get rid of the word sustainable in two places
Consolidate f-h and c-e
Discussion took place regarding the role and scope of the city within the role of economic
development as well as how to fund econ. development and included thoughts about:
Econ. development commission funded by city and county jointly for long term
o
How would a mill levy for economic development within the city work?
o
Bozeman as an economic hub for the region
o
Economic development district – matter of building long term model to fund a
o
district – mill levy?
City have their own dollar incentive
o
Exploring feasibility of establishing long term model for economic dev. District
o
City as a facilitator not creating an economic development dept.
o
Role of the city as a facilitator / support
o
What the business model is addressing
o
EDC to draw funding mechanisms together?
o
Earl Mathers – Econ. Development District floundered for awhile. Not a clear
o
path to any legitimate funding stream.
Bringing people together – easier in these harder economic times
o
No access to EDA $ now that the District and other orgs. has dissolved
o
Redefining that model because it was attempted and did not work.
o
Voter mill levy – renewal period? How to shift that money to econ. development
o
organizations?
Levy for economic development – What is the related state statute?
o
The commission could increase the levy, earmark it, flexibility in targeting
o
Earl Mathers: likewise the county has inflationary mill levy.
o
capacity under state caps, etc.
o
Using item 5 to discuss who is in charge of development plan incentives?
o
Feasibility study on how to revive an economic council or regional council
o
Proportional per capital basis that feeds into one program / fund
o
Looking at how to start funding/putting together incentives
o
Item 5 to develop strategy of how you fund, how you put those together
o
6 of 7
Minutes of the Economic Development Council, October 28, 2010
5 as a way to establish some partnerships that were willing to contribute to the
o
whole.
Gardening principles as a guide
o
Discussion took place regarding where within the priorities these letters should be placed.
A decision was made to remove Item 5 and move A-h, splitting them between Items 1-7.
Item 6
:
City supportive of feasibility study to identify this?
One stop shop – share common secretary – build a convention center with (econ. dev.
Org.) offices surrounding it?
City as supporting / recommending rather than having a role
Chamber doing a feasibility study
Decision to remove item 6 and put line back in 2.c. ‘Create and promote economic
development partnerships and co-locations where appropriate.’
th
Item 7
: Discuss during meeting on November 4.
Emphases on what are the barriers to economic development and how are we addressing those
barriers.
F. FYI/Discussion
1. Next steps/agenda items for the November 4, 2010 EDC meeting.
Discuss item 7.
G. Adjournment
Daryl Schliem adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.
____________________________________
Chris Westlake, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Brit Fontenot, Assistant to the City Manager
PREPARED BY:
____________________________________
Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk
Approved on November 18, 2010
7 of 7