Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-04 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 8, 2004 Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, March 8, Study Session of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p. m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. The topic for discussion was: economic development strategy update. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Tim Lecklider, Tom McCash, Mike Keenan, Cathy Boring, John Reiner, and Amy Salay. Staff Members: Jane Brautigam, Mike Stevens, Marsha Grigsby, Gary Gunderman ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY UPDATE Mr. Stevens stated the City retained the services of Burns, Bertsch & Harris to prepare an update to the Mt. Auburn Study, the economic development strategy which was completed in 1994. Burns, Bertsch & Harris hired Curtis Williams & Associates to be the project manager. Part of the update involved a series of roundtables and one-on-one interviews with business and community leaders, a summary of which has been provided to Council. The roundtables were with developers, real estate professionals, local business representatives, and City Council. One was a regional roundtable with regional leaders, and a fifth roundtable was with homeowner association presidents. The interviews were with 12 community business leaders. The summaries of those roundtables and interviews were provided to City Council mid to late January. It was subsequently determined that Council would discuss the findings formally in a study session. Mr. Stevens stated that the summary of the roundtables and interviews would also be addressed in the economic development strategy update through recommendations. He noted that the roundtables and interviews are only one component of the strategy update. Future components will address the local economy and economic development tools. He invited Council's discussion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is necessary to look back over the past 20-25 years to understand what the economic development goals of the City have been before moving forward. This would be helpful in developing new strategies and goals. Ms. Grigsby stated that when the first strategy was completed in 1994, the City had just come through a period of slow development in the early `90's. Preceding that was the rapid growth in the mid to late `80's. The slow down created concern, due to the fact that the City and school district's financial stability was contingent upon the City's tax base. The decision was made to look at what was best on along-term basis for the City and school district. At that time, there were issues, such as tax abatements, that were becoming popular. Dublin's philosophy had been not to use tax abatements, but the City desired to evaluate all options for development incentives to determine which were of greater benefit for the City and the school district. It was learned that the City's policy of not offering tax abatements was sound, due to the potential impact on the City and school districts when abatements expire. There is also the perception of citizens that, with tax abatements, corporations are not required to pay taxes, while everyone else is required to do so. It was determined that the City would use TIF's as the mechanism to build infrastructure, for which there was significant need in the early 90's. There were needs to City Council Study Session page 2 March 8, 2004 improve access for existing business and to open up new Class A office sites. Emerald Parkway opened up many acres for office development. The intent was to establish incentive and financing policies that both Council and staff agreed upon. This served as the basis for the City's economic development strategy, which, for the last ten years, has been building a tax base and building infrastructure. The current update is the next step. The focus will move toward maintenance, retrofitting buildings to meet current technology needs, and ensuring that Class A office space is not downgraded to a Class B. The update will look at how the City will compete at the next level. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the City intends to marry the economic development goals and policies to planning and zoning. Ms. Grigsby stated that is where significant discussion has focused. Some of the issues deal with land use, and on which sites could more dense development occur? Land use is a critical component, as it determines how much income will be generated from those sites. Another component is the planning process. Comments received with this update again reflected the difficulty the development community has with the Dublin planning process. This is due to the fact that Dublin has high standards, although no one wants those standards lowered. The effort must be made, however, to facilitate the process for achieving the community everyone wants. Council has expressed concern about the perception of the business community regarding how they are treated in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there have been internal meetings and/or other communications about this issue. It appears that economic development goals and planning goals were not complementary. Ms. Grigsby stated that there have been some differences of opinion, and there may always be some regarding how development should occur. However, some level of agreement must be reached an how Dublin will handle the process. Credit should be given to Council and staff on the degree of progress that has been made. There were difficult recommendations that were part of the first strategy, and those have either been or are now being implemented. For instance, before 1994, the City had no economic development staff; now, that department exists, and businesses know who their staff liaison is -where they can go for assistance. The permit review center was created in 1997-98, following the last economic development strategy update, and the City's permitting process has greatly improved. Much progress has already been made. Some criticism will always occur, but in striving to improve the process, the key is to identify where comments/complaints are consistent, and address those areas. Mrs. Boring stated that the reason there is an economic development director position is that Council responded by selecting a point person to address these concerns. Mr. Lecklider stated that the update did not appear to take into consideration the progress that has been made in the last 3-5 years. Some of the comments appear as ax grinding over old issues. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that businesses have located in Dublin because of Dublin's assets. Some of the concerns seem to be related to the external environment, which is completely different today than it was in the 1990's. If Dublin wants to continue to be an "edge city," it will need to make some changes to regain and maintain that reputation. Concerning the criticism of planning and zoning -because that is where the review process occurs, that can be expected to be the area that is criticized. City Council Study Session page 3 March 8, 2004 Ms. Grigsby agreed that being in a regulatory position is difficult. The public's natural reaction to regulation is not positive. However, there probably are some ways to improve the tone or manner in which the communication occurs. Mr. Keenan stated that there definitely are some ways that contact could be improved. He has previously shared his personal encounter with this side of the City. He was in his present building for just one month when he received notification from the City of an expired conditional occupancy permit. He did not know much about that process, as the interaction had occurred through the developer. The tone of the letter was not goad. It stated: "You are in violation of the codified ordinances of the City of Dublin. If any construction has been started that has not been completed, the applicantlowner shall be in violation of the building code. If final inspection approval is not obtained, further legal action will be necessary." Mr. Keenan added that this was his first encounter with the City's code enforcement. As a businessperson, he had a very difficult experience with his building project, which is at the corner of Avery-Muirfield and Post roads. In retrospect, it appeared pointless to have hired an architect, because the City changed the plan four times. It would have been better to have just asked the City's planning department what they wanted to see on that site. The City's planning process resulted in changes to the entire structure. The roofline had to be changed, at a cost of nearly $100,000. He was also required to have an all-stone dumpster enclosure. He is not opposed to efforts to address the aesthetics of a property, but all those items amounted to a large sum of money for a small project. There is also a sign that is not readable. The tenants -- aretinal surgeon, neurologist, prothodontist, and financial advisor -all complain that their clients cannot find them. He found the City's planning process very frustrating. In the end, he does have a nice project, but it cost much more than he anticipated, and there are still some things not to his satisfaction. Because of his personal experience, he knows what the business community is going through. He can only guess what a developer attempting to construct a building for Cardinal or BMW must experience. The City needs to address its process. Certainly, the letter threatening legal action was unnecessary. A cordial site visit would have been better. He could not deal with his customers in such a manner. Today, when there is so much more competition in the suburban ring, the City should be viewing the corporate citizens as their customers. The interaction should reflect how Council would like corporate citizens to be treated. Mrs. Boring stated that she has experienced frustration from the "other side of the fence." Applicants hire professionals, e.g., a signmaker, who create designs that are not compliant with City code. Applicants should not hire professionals who do not make the effort to know and understand the City's code requirements. Mr. Keenan stated that he understands the need to abide by City code. However, there is a problem if City code requires signs that are not readable at 35 mph. Mrs. Boring stated that she was referring to Mr. Keenan's comment about the architect's drawing that was revised four times. The architect ought to have become cognizant of the City's code for designing the building. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the problem is that the professional -the architect, signmaker, etc., should first obtain a copy of the City code so that they can begin with a design that is in compliance with City code. City Council Study Session page 4 March 8, 2004 Mr. McCash stated that it would also be nice if it were possible to receive a return phone call from the City planning department. A client waits a week to three weeks before hearing from the City. He also completely agrees with Mr. Keenan regarding signs. He drives by Mr. Keenan's building every day, yet he has been unable to determine the tenants of the building from the sign. Mr. Reiner stated that in a case such as Mr. Keenan's where there are multiple tenants in a building, it is not possible to list all the tenants on a sign in a size large enough to provide identification from the street. Businesses should tell their clients to look for a street number or a building name. Mr. Keenan stated that he could provide another example of the cost he incurred in meeting Dublin's planning and zoning requirements. Because the building was located next to a residential area, he was required to install crank-out windows. This is very unusual for an office building. Most offices avoid use of this type of window due to its effect on an HVAC system. However, Planning required this type of window, as it would lend itself to a more "residential feel." It also added significantly to the cost. Ms. Salay expressed puzzlement. Whether the window opens or not cannot be determined from the street. Mr. Keenan stated that his objective was not to discuss his building, but to share that because of his recent personal experience, he can confirm what the business community is saying about the City's planning process and the way in which applicants are treated. The comments that are in the report confirm that this is a disturbing problem. Although everything cannot be fixed, perhaps, some compromise is possible. Politics is the art of compromise, and the City ought to do better in that area. Mr. McCash stated that Mr. Keenan's experience is not new. It has been this way for years. Where in the City's code are they given the authority to require crank-out windows? They have exceeded the Code requirements. Mr. Keenan stated that it becomes a leverage situation. The applicant wants to get everything approved, so he finally agrees to the requirement, even if it costs an additional $20,000. He's been holding the land for a year and a half, and losing money with the interest and holding costs. Mr. Reiner stated that when it is possible to achieve the same design results with fixed windows, that is the direction that should have been given. It is admirable to try to achieve the residential feel for an office building, but if that is possible with fixed windows at $20,000 less, the requirement makes no sense. In Mr. Keenan's case, he wouldn't want his clients opening windows and letting all the heat or air escape -that adds additional cost. Mr. McCash stated that the reason the planning department is becoming "out of control" on some of these issues is that they have been frequently told by current and past Council members to be "tough." Then staff takes it beyond Council's intention. That occurred with the update of the zoning code. Although staff was asked to incorporate the desired rules into the zoning code, the result was the unified development code, which provides more discretion in the code. As could be expected, the business community objected strongly. City Council Study Session page 5 March 8, 2004 Mr. Keenan stated that theme is reflected throughout the comments in this study. The business community desires to know what the rules are, and they will then follow them. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, for the record, that would be identified as an issue to be addressed. First, is customer service. Second, is clearly identify the rules. The Appearance Code was recently adopted. What other efforts are being made to address this issue and result in less discretion for staff? Ms. Salay inquired if the zoning code update would address the planning processes. It is a recurring complaint with the business community that they meet with the City numerous times, and each time, additional requirements are added or even changed. They repeatedly have redesigned their projects, at an additional cost each time, with little acknowledgement of their efforts from the City. Then the project is reviewed by P&Z, and one additional requirement is always noted -- that the applicant will meet any additional requirements of the Engineering Department or the Fire Department. Engineering's additional requirements can be quite costly, perhaps $50,000. All of those issues should be addressed at the outset by both Planning and Engineering, so that when the application is reviewed by P&Z, new issues are not brought forward. With the zoning code update, the parameters for all planned districts should be the same. Ms. Salay added that there is a consistent theme throughout the comments that the planning department and planning commission are receiving significant pressure from Council members. Who is doing so? Who calls and gives directions to the planning commission and planning staff? Is the planning department getting direction from one or two Council members? Council ought to determine where that is coming from and address it. She would be interested in hearing from the planning department about where that pressure is coming from. Perhaps the solution is simple, just a "thanks for the phone call.... we'll take that into consideration," or perhaps it should be, "Council will need to discuss that in roundtable." Mr. McCash stated that not only is this a consistent theme of these comments, it was also brought up at Council's goal-setting retreat that members of Council were calling planning staff on a regular basis. Mr. Reiner stated that this should be easy to resolve by checking with the planning department to see who is calling. Mrs. Boring responded that, to protect their jobs, it is doubtful they would identify anyone. Mr. Keenan stated that it is the same concern with the P&Z members who serve at the pleasure of Council for a certain term. They often would be influenced by a Council member who called to offer their opinions. Ms. Salay stated that there is a case of calling to find out what is going on, and the other case of calling with the intent to influence. When she served on BZA and later, the Planning Commission, Mr. Kranstuber often called her to discuss cases. She welcomed the discussion, and never felt any influence was exerted on her vote. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, personally, she does not call Planning Commission members. It may be a perception issue. Some commission members may not feel pressure. City Council Study Session page 6 March 8, 2004 Others may feel pressure to respond to any opinions offered. Perhaps the Council member would not realize howtheir comments were perceived. Ms. Salay stated that she would be interested in a casual dinner meeting with the Planning Commission and perhaps BZA to discuss the perception of these comments. First, there is a lack of communication. Also, people can take things different ways. It is clearly not good to have this type of perception occurring; therefore, some changes are needed. Mr. McCash stated that there is a substantial problem concerning attitudes and perceptions. A meeting does need to happen at which time Council should provide clear direction on certain issues, for instance, the Community Plan. Is it a hard and fixed document, so if a project does not fit within the parameters of the Community Plan, they need not apply? Or is it, truly, a flexible planning document, regarding which there may be opportunities to make adjustments? It is actually a planning document, and should not be administered otherwise. Mrs. Boring noted that the Community Plan is often used in that manner to defend the Planning Commission's decisions. That is the direction of the Law Department. The Community Plan is a defensible document. Mr. McCash stated that does not seem to be the full understanding of the Planning Commission. The minutes reflect that if a project does not fit within the parameters of the Community Plan, the Commission believes they cannot approve it. Mrs. Boring stated that is not the approach at all. The Planning Commission asks Planning staff if the application fits the zoning code, the Community Plan or the economic development strategy. If it does not, and the Planning Commission sees no other redeeming qualities in the project, the noncompliance with the plan(s) is used as the basis for non-approval. Mr. McCash stated that the first part of the Community Plan addresses land use. Anything controversial has been put in the low-density, single-family residential section. Mrs. Boring stated that there is also a full report on the number of existing multifamily homes in the City and the number of existing single-family homes -the balance. The concept was that Council would not mix the numbers, but trade one for the other, maintaining the overall balance. Mr. Reiner stated that the Community Plan sets up all the models far the community's development and traffic circulation. The Plan contains a series of well-tested models upon which the well being of the City depends. The document cannot be disregarded, nor should it be inferred that it could be disregarded. It has to be the basis for decision-making. Mr. McCash responded that he had not suggested disregarding the plan. However, the concern he has with the Planning Commission is the attitude that if an idea doesn't fit with the Community Plan, which has already been tested, it can't be considered. The Community Plan is a flexible planning document. Residences, businesses, land use, parameters within and without the City change. It can be used as an important source of information about the City, but it cannot be used as law. Mr. Reiner stated that if the City were lenient in one case, it would have to be rigid in another, to offset that. Someone then would have to keep "score," or the whole balance would be impacted. It is not true that it is an entirely flexible document. City Council Study Session page 7 March 8, 2004 Ms. Salay stated that both positions are correct. For instance, the southwest area is not addressed very well in the Community Plan. The Community Plan acknowledges that, stating that more study will be needed and that the Plan will require modification in the future. That is particularly true now that some major changes have occurred in the southwest area - Ballantrae, the Dublin Community Pool, and the residential development on Avery Road. The Community Plan doesn't go far enough in addressing development in the southwest. There are multiple outstanding issues -the residential, the balance of residential to commercial, and the locations of residential and commercial. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Community Plan is being updated at this time, so that issue will be addressed. Ms. Salay stated that the southwest is still developing. Staff reports never acknowledge that the Community Plan is weak in the southwest, and therefore allow opportunity for that area to be discussed, as the Plan itself suggests. Instead, staff's position is that the Community Plan identifies that area as such, and that is what it has to be. Planning Commission members are new, and without the benefit of experience, they view the Community Plan as a hard and fast document that they can rely upon. For the most part, that is fine, but it does not accurately reflect the Community Plan's position regarding the southwest. Ms. Brautigam stated that one component missing from the Community Plan is an interim process to amend it. She suggested that if a developer should submit a project that differs from the Community Plan, along with their application, a proposed amendment to the Community Plan would be included which would also include the burden of proof that their project complies with the traffic model and would not negatively impact the rest of the community. The application and Community Plan amendment would be packaged and processed in tandem through the Planning Commission and Council. If the criteria and justification made sense to Council, the rezoning would be approved and the Community Plan amended. Currently, there is not a process for that, and the Planning Commission's hands are tied. They have to abide by the Community Plan. Mr. Reiner expressed approval for the idea. He added that the reason the southwest is categorized as it is, is because the traffic model does not work unless there are two houses per acre. Ms. Salay inquired what impact that would have on the schools. Mr. Reiner inquired what authority does this body have to downzone? The minimum is the Community Plan. Ms. Salay inquired if two units/acre was residential? Mr. Reiner stated that when they were doing the traffic study, that was the lowest use of that land, so they adjusted the roads to comply with that land use. Ms. Salay noted that it takes several thousand dollars for the schools to service those households. City Council Study Session March 8, 2004 page 8 Mr. Reiner stated that he totally agrees. If the Community Plan has a fault, it is not restrictive enough. Mrs. Boring expressed interest in Ms. Brautigam's suggestion with the understanding that the burden of proof would be placed on the applicant. The City has a Community Plan that tried to visualize the total buildout of the community. A developer would look only at the present conditions. Her concern is that the long-range vision of the total build-out would not be maintained with such suggested amendments. She can recall one example of this. At one time, the City intended, and now has purchased some property in a particular area. What if that land had been across from an industrial use? It would have made sense to an applicant that the land would also be developed industrial. It is critical that the long-range vision of the Community Plan and of the City be maintained. Developers and new commissioners cannot have the vision that the Community Plan embodies. Mr. McCash stated that the southwest area was categorized as "yellov~!' in the Community Plan simply because no one could agree what the land use in that area was; that happened in more than one case. It was not related to a traffic issue. Mr. Reiner stated that it was categorized that way because that was the lowest density which would meet the traffic models. Mr. McCash stated that he was on the working committee and attended the public hearings. For example, that was the only reason Tuttle Crossing is categorized as single-family residential. Mr. Reiner stated that may be true in that particular case, but not in the southwest area. For the southwest, it was the only density that would make the traffic model work. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher directed discussion back to the economic development related to the Community Plan. The following items have been noted: (1) the Community Plan will be updated; {2) a suggestion has been made for ongoing amendments to the Community Plan; {3) a suggestion for a meeting with the Planning Commission and BZA. She and Mr. Gerber, Planning Commission chair, have also discussed this and agree that quarterly meetings would be worthwhile. However, the Planning Commission had already targeted some areas of needed education/training, which the Commission is presently focusing on. When that has been achieved, they would be interested in pursuing quarterly meetings with Council. (4} customer service education is needed. After the City implements that education, is there also an evaluation tool, to ensure that an improvement has occurred? Ms. Brautigam responded that the process is not that far along. An evaluation tool has not been formed. Although FISH training has begun for front-line employees, it is not appropriate for planning staff. The work and contact with the public is not similar. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would seem more appropriate to make planning staff aware of the fact that City planning has many facets, one of which is economic development. The planning staff should be educated in how their role should be played to assist in reaching the ultimate goal, a goal which would include a strong economic base for tax revenue purposes, job security for all, addressing the needs of the citizens, and job satisfaction. Perhaps, planning staff needs to be included in meetings where economic development reports are made and where future goals are discussed. City Council Study Session page 9 March 8, 2004 Ms. Grigsby stated that an effort has been initiated that when a commercial development project begins, either new or a retrofit, the initial contact is with the economic development director. Mr. Stevens would then coordinate the process. This occurred last year with the Cardinal Health project, and it worked well on a large-scale project. Now, the objective is to implement that coordination effort into all commercial development. Mr. Stevens and Ms. Gilger have begun to attend planning and engineering staff meetings concerning commercial rezoning/development projects. The goal is to educate the commercial community on the fact that the City's economic development team's job is to help them through the process, not around the process. If the client is having difficulty communicating with planning or engineering staff, they can contact Mr. Stevens and Ms. Gilger to serve as liaisons. Mr. Keenan stated that the last page of the report asks residents, if City financial resources were reduced, what amenity would they be willing to sacrifice. Interestingly, no one was willing to contemplate the loss of even one amenity. Because the corporate citizens largely finance the amenities all the community enjoys, for the City to continue to have the resources to provide those amenities, it will be necessary to adopt a more friendly strategy, Mr. Lecklider stated that, unfortunately, Mr. Keenan had a bad experience. Ms. Grigsby also gave a good example -Cardinal Health, which was a team effort. Much comes down to perspective. This report focused on a particular community group. If another group of residents were to be polled, their responses probably would be that enough attention is not being paid to them. Mr. Stevens stated that he has received many complaints about the planning process, but he rarely receives a complaint about specific individual(s). The level of professionalism in the Planning Department is very high. Businesses are, however, frustrated with the additional costs inevitably involved in going through Dublin's process -- some applicants have even brought in calculations of what their additional costs were to do business in Dublin. Part of that is due to the quality required, and they accept that. The other cause is that the process is so difficult, often requiring re-designs, for instance. This cost does impact businesses when they decide to locate here or expand. When this summary was first issued, however, the consultant pointed out that the complaints are, primarily, process issues. There are bigger strategy issues that will be addressed in the next round(s) -local economy, job growth, job retention. Mr. Reiner stated that since the 1980'x, Council has been asking for a streamlined process for developers/businesses. They want to know what is expected of them, and how to quickly achieve it. They already have a vested interest -money, land and time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the fourth issue is the planning process. The Development Code update already contains some of the answers regarding the process. Mrs. Boring stated that it is also the issue of how to make older buildings competitive with new buildings. That is partly achieved by beginning with high quality buildings, as good quality ages well. It is contradictory to fast track a project, yet try to ensure that it has the quality to remain attractive . Mr. Stevens stated that is largely the outside aesthetics and the Dore of the inside. However, there will always be the need to upgrade technologically. A good example of that is Wendy's. The building is several years old and not wired or equipped for today's technology. They had a City Council Study Session page 10 March 8, 2004 great need to update the building, which is the reason the City entered into the recent incentive agreement with them. The City now needs to look at the properties in Metro Center, Class B space. Haw can those facilities be made competitive with the new buildings in other areas of the community? How can the City work with the property owners to incentivize them to upgrade the buildings to make them more competitive in the market? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the fifth issue is incentives. What kind of incentives are necessary today to retain, expand and recruit businesses. Dublin does not use tax abatements, but has used TIF's frequently. Mr. Stevens stated that Dublin has become innovative with its incentives. Recently, Council approved a TIF agreement with CC Technologies that offered money up front to retain the local business. The consultant is attempting to benchmark Dublin with other communities, but has found that to be difficult -Dublin is very unique. Dublin is ahead of other suburbs in economic development achievements, specifically, in the amount of revenue that is generated. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that is what enables Dublin to offer upfront incentives. That is a major consideration of this study - how to maintain the current level of growth. Dublin has many more miles of roadways and landscaping to maintain than many communities. Mr. Stevens stated that there are many entrepreneurs who live in Dublin who do not have their businesses here. How can Dublin induce those entrepreneurs to move their businesses to Dublin? For some, a relocation expenses grant may be all that it takes to encourage them to move to Dublin. These are the types of strategies that will be included in the rest of the report. Mr. Keenan stated that smaller businesses should also have the opportunity to participate in incentives. This diversifies the risk for the city. If one large business moves out, it really impacts the city. If one of several smaller businesses leaves, it does not negatively impact the economy. Columbus recently offered incentives to bring small businesses into a particular area. He noted that Arlington recently had its first TIF. Ms. Salay stated that the current trend for office developers is small office buildings, either for one professional who wants to own his awn office building, or a small building to house a small number of professionals. She added that she would be available to accompany staff on any visits to business entrepreneurs, to add the encouragement of City Council to locate their business in Dublin. Perhaps Council members could act as ambassadors of goodwill in the economic development program. If Council has a negative perception within the business or development community, perhaps that is something that could improve it. Ms. Stevens stated that input such as this sends a positive message to the community. The State of the City event last week also gave the business community an opportunity to interact with Council members. Events, such as the Memorial Tournament, are great opportunities for Council to connect with the business community. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the sixth issue is the marketing issue. Many important people live in Dublin, who have very unique businesses. Dublin should focus on a marketing package that sells the assets of this community in a corporate way. Much promotion of Dublin occurs, such as at the Irish Festival, but that is not a primary feature a corporation is attracted to when looking for a community. Most of the businesses are small business owners. They cannot identify with the CEO of Cardinal Health, but they would identify with other small City Council Study Session page 11 March 8, 2004 business owners. Dublin could begin to highlight the existing businesses within the community, perhaps in the newspapers or Dublin Life. That, in conjunction with a more corporate approach to the marketing materials, could be helpful. She stated that Ms. Salay's suggestion regarding Council participation in economic development outreach is a good idea. However, Council would first have to agree upon an economic development philosophy. If that does not occur, it would be best to leave those overtures to the economic development director. Council members are politicians, and the business community's view of an approach from Council would be that they then have Council's sanction on whatever they might want. But, encouragement from Council to develop a business in Dublin would not necessarily mean that they could have whatever zoning approval they want. Consequently, it would be necessary for Council members to agree an a behavioral strategy before becoming involved in that outreach. Mr. Stevens stated that it would depend upon the culture of the business. Occasionally, it would be a benefit to be approached by the Mayor or another City Council member; other times, it would not. Mr. Keenan stated that at the State of the City address, Mr. Ciarochi introduced two Council members to a business entrepreneur. It was very appropriate, and probably beneficial, to have Council express their appreciation of their interest in Dublin. Mr. Lecklider stated that the suggestion has been in reference to attracting businesses, however, it would be just as important for Council to extend the same efforts toward retention of businesses. He is puzzled by the negative perception of Council. Certainly, Council's efforts this past year dispute the notion that Council is unfriendly to business. Mr. Keenan stated that Dublin has a huge prospect pool of srrrall business owners. The reason he located his business here is that he wanted to work where he lived, to be only a few minutes from his home. In doing so, he brought 20 others with him. There are many entrepreneurs who would be interested in doing the same. Dublin could develop this marketing outreach - "Let us help you move to Dublin." Perhaps it is as simple as paying the moving expenses. For a small business, such as his, it would only be $3,000 - $4,000. There is such a proliferation of attractive, yet vacant, office facilities in Dublin. This would be a goad opportunity to fill some of it. Mr. Stevens stated that Dublin has the most office space and the most vacant office space of any city in the Columbus suburbs. That is a competitive advantage. When the jobless economy begins to recover, there will be businesses that want immediate office space. Mr. Keenan noted that small businesses are less inclined to outsource their employees to other locations. They are also steadier and longer term. Ms. Grigsby stated that four of the last six tax incentives of the City have been with smaller companies, for instance, CC Technologies, which has 50 employees. Also, the primary reason that many of Dublin's small businesses are here is that their CEO lives in Dublin. Mr. Reiner noted that it is important to create housing that draws the executive-level interest. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that was another issue noted in the report -that there was not a sufficient continuum of executive-level housinr~. City Council Study Session March 8, 2004 page 12 Ms. Salay inquired if the Community Plan suggests a space for this level of housing. Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin has the land, but there is no developer of such housing in Dublin. Ms. Salay inquired if that is because there is a "climate" in place that is conducive to certain tract builders. Has Council tailored the City's planning and zoning process to exclude the executive hamebuilder? Mr. Reiner stated that much of the surrounding land is being optioned by middle-range, tract builders. They are huge and have the money for tract subdivisions. Mr. McCash inquired about the definition of executive housing. Does the term "executive" refer to the homebuyer or the value of the house? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that one realtor's perspective was that Dublin is lacking homes in the $500,000 to $800,000 range. Dublin has The Reserve, Wedgewood, Campden Lakes, and some parts of Muirfield. Tartan Fields would qualify, but it is not in Dublin. There is also Ballantrae, but parts of it are not in Dublin Schools. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the dialogue tonight has been good. She inquired if staff has any other comments. Mr. Stevens provided an update on continuing efforts on the strategy update. The steering committee will meet April 6th to review a draft, and again an May 4th to review the final draft. That final draft will be presented to Council in May, followed by a resolution to adopt the strategy update. At the last meeting, the steering committee worked on goals and objectives, and presently they are receiving information on trends of the local economy. The committee is composed of an excellent group of volunteers, committed to the project. To date, they have had three very productive meetings and anticipate wrapping up the project by June 1. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mrs. Boring is Council's representative on that committee. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher referred to a draft for Dublin Life regarding Council's new goals. However, Council has not yet formally adopted its new goals. She asked that Council members review the final draft of those goals and a-mail any desired changes to the Clerk of Council within the next few days. Adoption of those goals will be scheduled on the next Council agenda. She added that she was not comfortable with some of the language in the Dublin Life article. Ms. Brautigam stated that the article would run in the April issue, so she needs to receive any concerns immediately. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one goal regarding the U.S. 33 corridor states that Dublin should "take a leadership role working with other jurisdictions to ensure controlled growth..." It is important to be more careful with the wording and not to appear arrogant in any manner. Ms. Salay agreed. Mr. Keenan also agreed, but added that Council will need to move soon on that issue. Timing is critical. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff have been working on this project since its initial presentation at an earlier Council work session. They have a plan, which will be presented to the Community City Council Study Session page 13 March 8, 2004 Development Committee on Monday, March 15th. That packet of materials will be included in this Friday's packet of meeting materials. Ms. Brautigam indicated that she would ensure that the language in the Dublin Life article regarding Council's goals is revised immediately. Mr. Keenan suggested that the draft article be emailed to all Council members to allow them the opportunity to make changes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has several meetings in the next couple of weeks: • 3110104, 6:30 pm -Tax Incentive Review meeting • 3110/04, 7:00 pm -Finance Committee meeting -discussion of fee waivers. All members of Council are invited to this meeting. • 3/11104, 6:30 am-Board and Commission interviews. • 3/12/04, 8:00 am- St. Patrick's Day Employee Breakfast. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, although this is an employee event, it would be nice if Council members who were able to attend, could do so. This would give staff the opportunity to interact with Council, as there are very few opportunities to do so. She asked that an email providing information regarding the breakfast be forwarded to Council members. • 3113104, 11:00 am - St. Patrick's Day Parade, followed by the Blarney Bash. • 3115/04, 6:30 pm-Community Development Committee 7:00 pm -Council meeting Adjournment to Executive Session Mr. Keenan moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:40 p.m. for discussion of land acquisition, legal and personnel matters, noting the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Baring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p. m. and formally adjourned. Clerk of Council