1984_0423.ws_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 1,9,., 1984, In most cities which assigned primary respon 1 sibility to a position for, economic development, that position was either the City Manager or a departmental-head, l,e�vel o III Director of Cmmunity Dev,eilop,men,t) . I Four out o the 27 cities had -received a Star Cities designation (went through a process of - ana,ly,zing the city 11 s needs as prescribed by the I I State,). Five more are 'in, the process, of gett'ng designated, All those who received, the designation believed the disciplined thi-nkinq- through processi was of benefit. Most cities questioned the benefit of the Star es designation, after the process was completedO Eight of the 27 cities have develloped a slide show for purposes of marketing their city. The cities were evenly divided as to the I usefulness or value of the, slide show, Two of' the 27' citiesi have Port Authorities. An additional three citie-!- idering special legislation for a Port Authority. are consi I WJ-ne of' the 27 cities worked, with, a committee whose charge was economiob development or redevelopment. I WJ.thin the past two years,, in particular, there has been an increase in the number of citiles. on, a state-wide basi's which have more aggressively organized the,m,selvesi-f'or economic. development. Advertisements for positions (economic development specialists) within the-pa,sit ciouple of months reflect a sharper focus and priority placed, on this activity. If the present tax increment districts are the ultimate boundaries of business ,development, objectives, there perhaps isi not, the need for a new position, However, if the longer term obiective � Is to continue an aggressive approach H to economic redeivielopm,en,t beyond the immediate tax increment boundaries, a III a is indeed cr*t*cl, new os I I