Laserfiche WebLink
RHRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Monday, May 25, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />Recess <br />1 <br />2 President Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:20 p.m., and reconvened at <br />3 approximately 8:28 p.m. <br />4 <br />5 Ms. King’s overview asked the following questions: <br />6 What elements would you like especially like to see addressed in 2016? <br />7 2017? <br />8 Are there any elements that should be added? <br />9 Are there any elements that you feel are a low priority for the foreseeable <br />10 future? <br />11 <br />12 President Roe suggested spending time clarifying questions about the <br />13 presented information to help the REDA determine its priorities going forward. <br />14 However, due to time constraints, President Roe suggested individual REDA <br />15 members rank those strategies and submit them to staff in a reasonable time to <br />16 get them to Ms. King for incorporation into the June REDA <br />17 presentation/discussion. <br />18 <br />19 Without objection, that process was approved. <br />20 <br />21 Business Friendly Practices and Reputation <br />22 Specific to shovel-ready sites, Member McGehee opined there was a need to <br />23 determine if that was reasonable as soon as 2017; and suggested that unlike an <br />24 expedited review process, time was needed to think about what and where <br />25 things were best expedited. Member McGehee opined that shovel-ready was <br />26 something that could be done as a business concierge concept in the business <br />27 community, perhaps starting with every business owner knowing about this <br />28 assistance. <br />29 <br />30 Ms. King noted the REDA could promote it or cost-share it without expending <br />31 a lot of dollars. If the REDA was interested in that tool, Ms. King suggested a <br />32 first step would be to start cost-share conversations with local utilities, which <br />33 could be started in 2016; and then formalize the approach and think about <br />34 increasing that dollar amount going forward. <br />35 <br />36 Member Willmus opined this shovel-ready concept would apply across the <br />37 board, and asked from a staff perspective, how much time would be needed to <br />38 identify those parcels and get started. <br />39 <br />40 Interim Community Development Director Collins noted one parcel came <br />41 immediately to mind, the PIK parcel, opining that would be a prime site for <br />42 this type of certification. As development is being discussed, Ms. Collins <br />43 noted that is now very reactive from the city’s perspective with no shovel- <br />44 ready sites promoted to-date. Ms. Collins suggested preliminary discussions, <br />45 with no immediate promotions for the city picking up costs at this time, but yet <br /> <br />