HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-17 Special MtgMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
APRIL 17, 2010
A special meeting was held by the Riverside Board of Aldermen on Saturday, April 17,
2010, at 1251 NW Briarcliff Parkway, Suite 50, Kansas City, Missouri 64116, at 8:00
a.m. Aldermen, Hurt, Super, Cope, Thatcher, Bruns and Mayor Rose were present;
Alderman Fuller was absent. The meeting was also attended by attorney Nancy
Thompson and Meeting Facilitator, Jeanie Lauer.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Rose at 8:14 a.m.
An introduction was given by facilitator, Jeanie Lauer, with an overview of the process
and topics were to be discussed: Economic Development, Budget, General Updates
and Questions. Each attendee was requested to provide a background introduction.
Economic Development:
The participants were asked to take part in a 15 minute exercise in which each person
drew a picture of their vision of what the city should look like in the reasonably near
future (5 to 10 yrs.). Each participant presented their drawing to the group along with a
narrative of their ideas for the future growth and development of the city.
Out of the picture discussion, the following common themes for implementation of an
economic development "vision" were identified by the participants:
• the need to develop a transition plan addressing the question: "What steps
will it take to make it happen?" (housing, retail commercial, office,
recreational opportunities, educational opportunities, industrial, medical, etc.)
• the need to establish criteria for consistent quality, regardless of size
• protect current revenue streams for the city
• capitalize on location and existing natural resources
• a strong desire to continue to "redefine Riverside" through development -
unique brand
• establishment of criteria for investment
• What do we want to be when...
• the necessity to be proactive in a competitive market
• establishment of priorities
• desire for development to help define and build sense of "community"
• the need to evaluate the cost of doing nothing -how much retail leakage
• a desire to be prepared with resources to create a `turn key' situation when
development opportunities are identified and presented
The Economic Development Policy was briefly reviewed by the participants to determine
its applicability and relevance in light of the vision discussed. The participants were
supportive of the policy components with suggestions provided to enhance opportunities
within the community. It was the desire of the Board to begin proactively implementing
the economic development goals and objectives of the community to redefine itself by
considering the following:
• weight/prioritize the guidelines for development
• take steps to proactively re-zone existing buildings to conform with the
community vision (possibly utilizing overlay districts)
• review and upgrade existing codes to ensure ability to implement vision
• continue aggressive property maintenance enforcement to stabilize existing
property investment
• evaluate the application of updated design standards to existing commercial
buildings
• evaluate the application of sign code regulations to existing sign structures
and new businesses locating in existing structures
• address visual impact of vacant commercial property
The Economic Development Committee structure was reviewed in an effort to evaluate
whether it provided the necessary tools to achieve the goals and priorities established as
the vision. Alternative options were discussed, including the possible formation of a
stand-alone Economic Development Corporation to work with potential developers. It
was the consensus of the group that the committee structure was a beginning "working
tool" and was needed at this time to provide advisory guidance on potential projects in
the development stage. Board participants thought it was also important to continue to
utilize the existing economic development partners as a resource and to add the
involvement of City Attorney Nancy Thompson to the committee. There was general
agreement that further evaluation of the internal/external structure and commitment of
public/private resources needed to focus on economic development as a high
community priority was needed.
The importance of sharing information regarding potential development projects to Board
members not serving on the Economic Development Committee was discussed. Board
members expressed a strong desire to have Ward representatives meet in pairs with the
City Administrator and Mayor to hold informal discussions. The discussions would be a
time during which all parties would have the opportunity to receive and share non-
confidential information about economic development matters as well as engage in
ongoing dialog regarding various ward issues/concerns.
Budget:
A summary budget ending in March 2010 was provided to all board members for their
review and for them to be thinking about the upcoming budget workshops and to think
about their goals and vision for the upcoming year. The Board discussed fund balance
requirements with Jeanne Lauer stating that in most public entity budgets an operating
budget with an 18-20% fund balance was considered to be conservative. The Board
expressed a desire for staff to be more fiscally conservative with the annual operating
budget for departmental expenditures and to bring the annual budget more in-line with
true anticipated expenditures (no fluff/contingency).
Budgeting for economic development and capital improvement projects was discussed.
There is a perception that the capital improvement project fund is a "slush fund" with
dollars easily transferable between projects without Board prioritization.
It was the consensus of the Board that funding for economic development activities was
the highest priority for the City. A set-aside for incentives to fund economic development
was discussed as an option. Guidelines for utilization of the economic development
incentive funds to the greatest benefit of the City were briefly identified as:
1. Return on investment
2. Shared risk
3. Other options available (ie -cost of doing business vs. cost of doing
nothing)
Adournment:
Motion to Adjourn at 11:45 a.m. by Alderman Thatcher, seconded by Alderman Hurt, all
voted aye.
Kathy Rose
Mayor