1984_0423.ws_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Api 19 8AI 9 TO W City clounicil, FROM: Jim An,dr,e., City Manager SUBJECT: Organization For Economic Development i To assist in determining how the City should organize itself for economic -0 devellopment activity,, a survey was made of 29 cities between populations of 17.,000 and 81,,000. A number, of questions were asked about staffing and what other things were being dione for ecoinolmic development. A sununary of those results are as follows': Jes were comparable to Roseville in terms of amount of Moist ci,t ,effort devoltied to ecionomic development. However, approximately nine of the cities placied no con,certied,ef'fort or priority on lolus reason labie economic dievelopment for var* s (no land avai little or no commercially zoned, land available, not in a growing area, or did not want commercial, development,), 'There were ten cities in which the person responsible for economic dievelopment spent 101% to 50% of his or her time on activities related directly to ecionomic activity. There were another seven, cities in which the person responsible for economic, development spent 5101% to 90% of his or her time on such activities. There was only one city, which employied a full-time professional whose sole function wilas 'to Promote, coordinate, and plan for economic development activity. Moist c ities which expliended efforts loin ecionomic development activiotieg,� wilerie performed by, the Community Development Director. That position a normally shared respions ib 11 i ties with either planning, housing, code enforcement, grantmanship, or a combination thereof, 4 The average salary, for department level positions which are primarily e o nom evelop fr ecoic dment (which, normally 'Included other responsid 1 planning typei duties) was $36,21281, with the range being $30,000 - 46 q ON 4