The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07-08 Special Called Regular Meeting of the Development Corporation Board of Directors "- 2 - MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 7, 2008 1. Call to order President Pat Muston called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members Present: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Members/Officers Absent: Clausen Staff Present: City Manager Ron Bottoms, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins, Planning Director Tim Tietjens, Economic Development Coordinator Gretchen Larson, Main Street Coordinator Debra Dye and Assistant City Manger John Joerns. Others Present: Mark Follis, Joseph Bertuglia, Mike Shannahan, Cindy Coker, Dorothy Coker, Patricia Clark, Garson Silvers, Bill Manning, Phillip Hoot, Brian Sterling, Jan Lawler, Chad Burke, David Janda and Ronda Lunsford. 2. Consider approval of minutes of Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Development Corporation Board of Directors, held on June 9, 2008. A motion was made by Board Member Love to approve the Minutes of June 9, 2008 of the Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Development Board. The motion was seconded by Board Member Engelken. The motion carried. Ayes: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Clausen 3. Discussion of Main Street Revitalization Programs. City Manager Ron Bottoms discussed in detail the Revitalization Programs of Main Street. (See Exhibit A - Slide Presentation) 4. A Public Hearing was called at 6:35 p.m. to discuss the proposed Gateway Enhancements Project at 912 Main Street. Public Comments: Pat Clark - 3817 Ashwood Circle, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Ms. Clark spoke in favor of the project. Brian Sterling - 208 S. 2nd., La Porte, Texas 77571 - spoke as a resident of the City of La Porte and on behalf of the Sylvan Beach Art League in favor of the project. In addition, he encourages everyone to attend the Ports of Call and Arts Market events. Phillip Hoot - 927 Seabreeze, La Porte, Texas 77571 - spoke neither against nor for the project but raised the following questions: Mr. Hoot had questions regarding the status of the 912 Main building. Noted he would like to see businesses that citizens can utilize on a daily basis rather than trendy shops/restaurants. Page 2 - 4b Minutes - 7/7/08 Noted caution needed to be taken when addressing traffic issues or the City of La Porte would end up like Texas Avenue in Baytown, Texas. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. 5. A Public Hearing was called at 6:51 p.m. To discuss the proposed Town Plaza Project for development at the intersections of South Broadway Street, San Jacinto Street and Main Street. Public Comments: Pat Clark - 3817 Ashwood Circle, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Ms. Clark noted she thought a ten (10) story building may be too tall and inquired as to whether there was a need for a building that tall. She noted she was in favor of the project. Philip Hoot - 927 Seabreeze, La Porte, Texas 77571 - raised the following questions/concerns: Raised traffic concerns and questions. Questioned how many jobs would be lost if the Parks and Wildlife Agency left the City of La Porte. Noted concerns with the closing of San Jacinto Street. Would like to see Five Points stay the same. Questioned if there was no high rise building, would there be a need for San Jacinto Street to close. Joe Bertuglia -101 E. Main Street, La Porte, Texas 77571 - wanted to take the opportunity to thank the City of La Porte. He is pleased to have his business in the City of La Porte and complimented staff. Jan Lawler of Economic Alliance introduced new staff member Chad Burke. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. 6. Consider approval or other action to accept the Gateway Enhancements as a Project of the 4b La Porte Development Corporation. A motion was made by Board Member Engelken to accept the Gateway Enhancements as a Project of the 4B La Porte Development Corporation. The motion was seconded by Board Member Love. The motion carried. Board member Tommy Moser raised questions regarding building uses. Ayes: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Clausen 7. Consider approval or other action to accept the Town Plaza as a Project of the 4B La Porte Development Corporation. A motion was made by Board Member Love to accept the Town Plaza as a Project of the 4B Development Corporation. The motion was seconded by Board Member Engelken. The motion carried. Ayes: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Clausen Page 3 - 4b Minutes - 7/7/08 8. Consider approval or other action regarding a budget adjustment to the La Porte Development Corporation FY 2008 Budget in the amount not to exceed $600,000 for the Sylvan Beach Shoreline Protection and Beach Renourishment Project. Economic Development Coordinator Gretchen Larson made the presentation and recommendation to the Board and answered questions. Ms. Larson noted there had been a change in the amount to $700.000. A motion was made by Board Member Beasley to approve the budget adjustment to the La Porte Development Corporation in the amount not to exceed $700,000 for the Sylvan Beach Shoreline Protection and Beach Renourishment Project. A second motion was made by Board Member Engelken. The motion carried. Ayes: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Clausen 9. Consider approval or other action regarding a budget adjustment to the La Porte Development Corporation FY 2008 Budget in the amount not to exceed $125,000 for the hiring of a firm for the completion of a City- Wide Economic Development Plan, including fees and for any costs associated with necessary meetings, materials and supplies. Economic Development Coordinator Gretchen Larson made the presentation and recommendation to the Board. The board advised they would like to see a presentation from the top firm. When the contract is brought back for approval, the firm will make a presentation. A motion was made by Board Member Matuszak to approve the budget adjustment to the La Porte Development Corporation FY 2008 in the amount not to exceed $125,000 for the hiring of a firm for the completion of a City-Wide Economic Development Plan, including fees and for any costs associated with necessary meetings, materials and supplies. The motion was seconded by Board Member Beasley. The motion carried. Ayes: Love, Muston, Engelken, Matuszak, Beasley and Moser Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Clausen 10. Closed Special Calleri ~- :idl Gwlfed Regular Meeting and opened Workshop Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Discussion of Draft 2008-2009 4B Development Corporation Budget by City Manager Ron Bottoms and Economic Development Coordinator Gretchen Larson. Staff was directed to bring a detailed budget to a future meeting. 11. Closed Workshop Meeting and reconvened to Special Called Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m. 12. Executive Session- pursuant to provision of the Open Meetings Law. Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551-071 through 551.076, 551.087 (consultation with attorney, deliberation regarding real property, deliberation regarding prospective gift or donation, personnel matters, deliberation regarding security devices, or excluding a witness during examination of another witness in an investigation, deliberation regarding economic development negotiations). Council retired to Executive Session at 7:45 p.m. Page 4 - 4b Minutes - 7/7/08 A. Section 551.087 (Economic Development Negotiations) Meet with City Manager and Economic Development Coordinator to discuss Proposed Retail Development in the City of La Porte The Board reconvened the Special Called Regular meeting at 8:10 p.m. There was no action taken in the Executive Session. Chairperson Muston announced the board received a report from the City Manager regarding potential development of a retail center in the City of La Porte. 13 Announcements/Administrative Reports City Manager Ron Bottoms and Economic Development Coordinator Gretchen Larson presented updates on current Projects Listing. 14. Board Comments There were no comments from the Board Members. 15. Adjournment The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~{tL-lh(\Yaft,tLv L{fV Martha Gillett, City Secretary TRMC, CMC ~ port~ev~lo~~orporation Secretary rafJ ftlUl-fh i>I~ ,f)tLJJ1 Passed and approved on thi~ day ofT.,' 20~. Pat Muston, President 3 Economic Alliance Project. Roles & Res ponis ibiliitie,s Project. Liaison bet.ween Aval'anche Consulting and Communil.l{: V' Assist in identifying m,eeting and focus group participants V' Assist in identifyi,ng and securing meeting locations V' Assist in scheduling meeting times V' Effect invitations to meetings V' Provide steering committee member suggestions EconO~lIiance Houston Port Region Economic Aliliiiance Roles & Responsibilities Project liaison between Avalanche Consultinq and Comlmunit'l: ./ Provide insight on information and reports to review and consider pertaining to LaPorte's community, economy, industry, etc. Distribute survey (if necessary) ./ Provide Avalanche feedback I critique on reports prior to final release ./ Assist in maintaining project momentum and schedule EconO~lIiance Houston Port Region s cd on ~ ~ ~ . 'I"""'l ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0 0 u . 'I"""'l ~ cd r.n r.n r.n ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ u ~ ~ < r.n . 'I"""'l ~ 0 . . . . n Experts in the Field La Porte's Core Team: -Econon1ists - Strategists - Marketers - Facilitators -Urban Designers - Public Policy Advisors Amy Holloway Jon Hockenyos Travis James Scott Polikov n We know the Houston area: . Greater Houston Partnership · Bay town · Proj ect Stars . Petrochemical QoL Survey and Hiring Forecasts · Harris County · Bay Area Houston Partnership · Sugar Land · Missouri City n .. . and the rest of Texas · Team Texas · Temple EDC . Research Valley Partnership, Brazos County . Taylor Marketing Team, EDC, and City · Austin · McKinney · San Antonio · Kerrville · Grapevine · And many others n u.s. + International Experience · Charlotte · San Francisco · Charleston · Pittsburgh · Orlando · Coahuila, Mexico · Portugal · Czech Republic 1. Community Quality - Managed Growth - Authenticity - Activity - Education - Access - Innovation 2. Cohesion - Project Team and Client - Community organizations - Client and regional/state groups I n h 3. Creativity - Sparked by trends - Generated as a team - Activated with smart planning c.. ::> C') c c co - a.. ~ . cry . L.() . N eIJ = rIJ .- rIJ = QJ J. = eJ = S e O~~ I n h 1. Set-Up · Steering Committee · Internal PM · Milestones Calendar · Basecamp PM Software · Bi-monthly calls · Monthly status report · Survey 1 n 2. Assessment · Data Request · Economic Analysis · Community Input - Interviews - Focus Groups - Public Survey · EAHPR en Q) t) c Q) en .- Q) "'C .C :::J+-' <( en +-' :::J Q)"'C OlC L..- co I- ~ ~ .. ~ s...: ci> 0 ~ a>~~~:::l en ~ ~ . CI) ~ ........ L.. ..L~ Q) t::: 0 t:: Q)~"""":::JQ..Q) ..c Q) 0 o~--- 5ct:r:j.::~~ . eJ .... e Q = Q eJ ~ ~ ~ . ~ CI) Q) Q) t:: Q) ::::: co -t:: () CI) .Q) ..+:::; .- t:: ::J t Q a.. 8- ~ co @ ~ CI) :S Q) t:: ~ ........ CI) ~ o ~ 00 . ~ I ! I I I I I I \ h 5. Action Plan · Vision / Mission · Goals · Community Development · Internal Marketing · External Marketing · Master Plan Review · Policy Review · Main Street ........ Q) Q) "C ........ C> .- C "C ::J Q) ::J <.9 E o:l c c """'- 0 C> en .- .- Q) ........ en co en u ........ en <( L... C U ::J Q) .- ~ 0 L... E ........ en en Q) CO Q) ~~ l- e::: c.. E . = Q .....- ..... u -< = ~ . ..... l/)~ r I n Deliverables · Strategic Plan - Economic Assessment - Mix Analysis - SWOT Analysis - Public Input Summary - Action Plan - Implementation Guide (J) - 0 0 (J) I- ..., - ::J C) (J) c (]) .- 0:: c ~ CO 0 ~ (]) .- - ..., .c CO c c CO c 0 0 L- .- ::J "'C .- .- (J) ..., (J) L- .- t) 0 t) (]) CO 0 (]) L- (]) () 0 0 ~ . . . . rIJ QJ ,..... ~ ~ .. QJ ~ .... ,..... QJ ~ 4 Agenda Date Requested: 7/15/2008 Bud2et Requested By: Gretchen l.ar"on Source of Funds: EDC Department: City MllugerllWC Account Number: Report: Resolution: Ordinance: Amount Budgeted: - - Exhibits: Amount Requested: REQUEST FOR LPEDC BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION At the meeting of July 7 the Board received a report from staff that the City Manager and staff had completed the review of the RFP submittals for the City-Wide Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Selection Committee consisted of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Economic Development Coordinator, Planning Director, and Finance Director. We had also asked that the Economic Alliance provide us with their thoughts on the firms as they will be in charge of the preliminary meetings as part of their deliverables to the City. During discussions, the Board asked staff to arrange for Avalanche Consulting to make a presentation before the Board. We had intended to do so at the next regular meeting of August 4 however, the firm was unable to make that date. Rather than push the process into September, we have arranged a July 21 presentation for the Board. The Project Director for the Economic Alliance, Chad Burke will also come before the Board that evening to explain their role in the process. Amy Holloway CEO of Avalanche Consulting will be in attendance at the meeting to make their presentation. Amy and her team come highly recommended and they have also worked with the Economic Alliance in the past and the Committee felt that they were the best "fit" for this very important project. In order to keep the process moving along, we have included this as an action item if the Board so chooses to act upon the Committee's recommendation after hearing from the Economic Alliance and Avalanche Consulting. If we are authorized to move forward with Avalanche then we would enter into contract negotiations. Once that process was completed the contract would be returned to the Board for review and consideration at a future meeting. Action Required bv the Board: thor e staff to enter into contract negotiations with Avalanche Consulting for the comple ion of a City-Wide Economic Development Plan. Ron Bottoms, City Manager 'I ~r. )0$ Date 5 No Back-up required for this item f ~h\ b'rt A Main Street Revitalization La Porte Economic Development Corporation Meeting July 7, 2008 Main Street Revitalization Overview · Two public hearings to consider: - Gateway Enhancement Project · Includes renovations to 912 location - Town Plaza Project · Includes land purchases and land swaps for plaza construction · Other Main Street Enhancements - Fa9ade Grants and/or Loans ($200,000 FY 08-09 Budget), business retention and expansion efforts - Empowerment Zone/Tax Increment Financing Zone (TIF) - Other Improvements · Parking needs assessment, traffic calming, street scaping, roadway ownership/control from TxDot ~ Q) . ...... o t.- O- .... C Q) e Q) (.) c ~ s: c U1 ~ t ~ C) -0 Q) (/) o 0.. o t.- O- --~---------~--- First Impressions Count Goal: Enhance first impression for entering Main Street District of La Porte I · (]) (]) l.- I · en c: -- ro ~ I · en (]) S N , 0) - -- U C ::::J a () ~ ~ -- () ~ ..c -cOO 0)0 ~O UN 0) - ... 0) en C/)~ 0) ~ E co <D~ .r=. I- "f- a 0) - c.. E co >< W Funding Sources · As part of economic development services the Economic Alliance is able to offer the City of La Porte $73,000 for the Project with an additional $25,000 potentially available through grant funds · LPEDC to consider providing additional funds to theme both sides of street and renovations for the 912 location ECOnO~lIiance Houston Port Region Location Requirements for Funding from Economic Alliance · Must be used on public property · Must be used near the city's main corridor - Main Street · Must be complimentary and consistent with Economic Alliance Project Stars Master Plan · 912 West Main Street qualifies "Main Street Traditional" Consistent w/Project Stars Showcase area for potential vinyl artwork measured as 8 % tall and about 26 feet long. c o C. ::J +-' - -- ::J ..c (]) ..c -c - ::J o t) en +-' c (]) E (]) - (]) s.... CO +-' C/) Summary - Why this Project? · First Best Impression of the City; · The first "bookend" for Main Street; · LPEDC funding consistent with ED Legislation; · Economic Alliance funds must be used on City owned property; · 912 Main is a city asset; · Secure tenant for "highest and best use" to draw more people to Main Street; and · Both projects have more of an impact through partnership and cooperation Proposed Gateway Enhancement Project "Next Steps" · Consider adopting the Gateway Enhancements as a Project - Due Diligence Period · Authorize staff to continue work with the Economic Alliance to: - Refine the "historic heritage aspects" w/in the parameters of the San Jacinto Historical District Program tenants - Obtain additional renderings for consideration to blend with Town Plaza, obtain "highest and best use" of the location - Assist with completion of grant application .... CJ CI) .~ o I- a.. CO N CO - a.. c: ~ o I- -c CI) fn o C. o I- a.. C) c: .- ... (1) -c c: (1) 0::: - ns ... :::::s ,..., (.) (1) ,..., .- .J: (.) ... <( , , f ... ~i' /, / ',' i' \\., L ./ \, ", .-..i " ~r;t( ""'0~ \~\\\ . .\ --. \ '-. )........... . . ';, \,\ , '. "\ .... '. \\ ...\. . '., ... , \ '\ .~....;.. \~-:: ;::- l- .1 ------tJlI;~;;:!~-< __ ~._-- \' '.0. ~..._.., _____._. J .__---" . . . _. _:-. .;;::. ""'-' 'If -'-~":" .,~~_&... \,i ~_," - - .,~~~\~~~:\~~~~'~c:, ~ ~1' ~ril' r~......l.,~r--.~\: I !', .~ ~' '. I ~,-t.!t: 1",~..(J" f ~ ). 'J~,:,~ P-:'''i f~ ".:1.....,-, 11 I 1, .4 I~t.tl ~\:1:.... ""y~~. ',', : t'.f' Ii' I,~ t.{ !' J't:l..r. ' , ~~ It It ) .~~r I ~ 4~.,.....,. l,:a \ ~" I ........~...i:.\ '. :;'''''' 'lII~f.' II , , I ~"':"" ~rIi'!..! . ~ ; "':"""~'''"" ~~}.~ ..:,J . ~ r. I ./ r ~..-"i~ ,',' ~~,; ~:'~., -1" ~ . :,.,.1.,...., i ~...:s: . ....1 .~ '"""..... -- r "QO ;t ":e >< -. I>> Q:(I) =-c (S'I>> ~ "Co '3 ~ "C CD CD - :10 -<i ""t. (I) " .., o -C CD ::l. '< r- cno o n c: Q) r+ r+ _. ::rO o ::1 ::1 Q) r+ OJ." .., -. o < Q) CD Q." :e 0 Q) -. '< ::1 r+ tA - o o " -. ::1 CC ** -I "'U "'U ~ ~ 0 "'0 0 0 .-+ 00 ~ CD Q) a. a. CD () ~ ;::+ '< 0 "'U CD c < ~ CD 0 ::r 0 Q) "'0 00 CD CD ~ "'U 0 CD ~ < ..Q, CD CD 0 U "'0 OJ CD ~ 0 0 C :J =E a. :J Q) CD ~ a. m' 00 "'U ~ 0 "'0 CD ;:::l. '< Proposed Town Plaza Project LPEDC/City Component · The LPEDC/City would be responsible for: - Construction of the Town Plaza at Triangle Property Location; - Finalizing required land purchases - Signage, streetscaping, etc; and - Share of future parking construction (with Developer participation) Proposed Town Plaza Project Developer Component · The Developer is responsible for: - Construction of office/retail complex; - Renovations to current bldgs.; - Share of future parking construction (with City participation); - Other retail/restaurant facilities; and - Delivery of building to TPW with City support Summary - Why this Project? . Provides gathering place for City events; . The second "bookend" for Main Street; . LPEDC funding consistent with ED Legislation; . 200 to 300 workers gets more "feet on the street"; . Based upon the economic impact analysis completed, regional effect from this type of activity is est. at $17M per year, while the one time construction impact is est. at 244 workers and $7.5M . Developer can build his project wlo City participation, so participation makes sense, if a Town Plaza is desired; and . Both projects have more impact through partnership and cooperation Proposed Town Plaza Project "Next Steps" · Consider adopting the Town Plaza as a Project - Due Diligence Period Begins · Authorize staff to continue work with the TPWD and Developer to: - Refine/solidify the scope of cooperation needed to proceed - Begin work on a Development Agreement for LPEDC Board/City Council review - Authorize the architects to proceed with refinement of the renderings o 5- co ........ ~ 0). ...... :J C!J. ........ co ~ rn S- O) :J () co 3 co ~ (/) Between the "Bookends" · Other Main Street Enhancements - Fagade Grants and/or Loans ($200,000 FY 08-09 Budget), support business retention and expansion efforts - Empowerment Zone/Tax Increment Financing Zone (TI F) - Other Improvements · Parking needs assessment, traffic calming, street scaping, roadway ownership/control from TxDot -0 C c:J -- ...... . C1 ~ co 0) ~ ...... . ~ (0 (f) Proposed Gateway Enhancement and Town Plaza Projects · The Public is invited to make comments regarding the proposed Projects: - The Board is conducting this public hearing for the expenditure of LPEDC funds related to the proposed Gateway Enhancements and Town Plaza Projects - The Public Hearing Notice triggers a 60 day Right to Petition - during this time the public has a right to petition against the proposed use of the funds - Notice was given that a second public hearing would be conducted on July 7, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers lDOpU8H ~U!laaw Introduction The City of La Porte is strategically located south of the Houston Ship Channel with its eastern border on Galveston Bay. The city is at the end of a corridor defined by the Houston Ship Channel, Battleground Industrial District, and the Bayport Industrial District. It is bounded on the west side by the Cities of Deer Park and Pasadena. The City of la Porte has prepared this request for proposal for - a city-wide economic development plan to assist the city in determining the best economic mix for the long- term and outlining a strategy for attracting that mix. The City understands that because of our location between two Port of Houston terminals we could fill all remaining land areas with port related business and be done. However, because we desire to diversify our tax base and to provide our citizens with shopping and leisure activities, in the summer of 2006 we commissioned the Buxton Community ID@ Study. It was determined that from this study we could work to develop a "Retail Attraction Strategy". Additionally in 2005 the City was officially accepted into the Texas Main Street Program and any proposed plan developed must review and incorporate the tenants of this Program. I. Objectives The overall objective will be to define an economic development strategy for the City of La Porte. Specific objectives within this context that must be achieved are as follows: 1. Determine the best economic mix for the City of la Porte in the future; attracting, creating & retaining jobs; improving workforce & education; and capturing emerging opportunities. 2. Develop a strategy to achieve the desired economic mix. 3. Determine the adequacy of the current development policies and regulations of the city. 4. Define the budget and organizational responsibilities for implementation of the strategy. II. Scope of Work While the study approach should be defined by the consultant, there are several factors that must be covered in the scope of the project. These are: 1 1. Identify Stakeholders/Community Input - Input from both the public and private sectors of the City of La Porte is required as part of the building blocks of the economic development plan. It is anticipated that such input will be required from the public sector at the city, county, and school district levels. Input will come from the City Council, Economic Development Corporation, Planning and Zoning Commission, the Redevelopment AuthorityfTax Increment Refinance Zone, Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Main Street Advisory Boards. Input must also include our Citizens, the Chamber of Commerce, the LPISD, the Bay Area Houston Convention and Visitor's Bureau, and Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership and the private sector business leaders from industry, manufacturing, services and the retail sectors. During this phase, the consultant will work closely with the Economic Alliance Houston Port Region (a regional economic development non-profit entity) to ensure this input phase is streamlined and effective. 2. Review of Master/Comprehensive Plan - the City of La Porte has a detailed Master/Comprehensive Plan for the city that was based upon the growth potential for the area when the Plan was developed. In view of the recent changes in the economic situation in the Houston Metropolitan area, this data should be reviewed carefully to determine if the direction of the future growth has changed significantly. If there has been a change, then an analysis of the impact on the Master/Comprehensive Plan should be conducted. 3. Review of the Development Policies - A thorough review of all development policies and regulations of the City of La Porte should be undertaken. The review should contrast La Porte's policies with that of other cities that have been successful in attracting development. Also, input from the Planning and Zoning Commission, developers, and businesses within La Porte should be used to evaluate these policies and regulations. 2 4. Develop a strategy to enhance the City's Main Street Business District and examine the potential for redevelopment of Main Street District to include possibly South Broadway from Main Street along to its intersection with Fairmont Parkway. The consultant shall review external forces, existing strengths and weaknesses and develop objectives and implementation strategies with clearly defined budgetary and organizational responsibilities needed to accomplish the objective. The consultant should also review the current Main Street Program and provide recommendations to strengthen and enhance current program and evaluate effectiveness and community support. The study should also: a. Consider the historical preservation element setting out plans and programs for those structures in the City having historical, architectural, scenic or similar significance. Examine potential for participating in regional heritage tourism programs in the area as well as public art venues. b. Examine the potential for retail shopping, specialty shopping, restaurant and entertainment opportunities. Examine the potential for festival shopping' and promotion of pedestrian traffic in the City. Review of the Park Master Plan is required. c. Examine existing zoning district regulations and policies affecting development/redevelopment of the City. Prepare recommendations for revisions where necessary to provide regulations that are most suited to a targeted area such as Main Street. d. Examine the potential of development of the properties along Galveston Bay as a way to reconnect our community with the Bay. 3 e. Examine the potential of the general aviation airport. f. Examine potential for attracting professional support services for operations at Barbour's Cut and Bayport facilities as well as the New Cruise Terminal. g. Examine potential funding sources, grant opportunities, in kind services, etc. How can & should the city compete to attract & retain firms in the target areas? Examine the potential for promoting assistance through Tax Policies and the preliminary economic development incentives policy which can include: Property and Sales Tax Incentives Tax Abatements and Tax Increment Financing Public Improvement Districts Freeport Exemptions Foreign Trade Zones 380 Agreements Enterprise/Empowerment Zones 5. Assessment of the regional Houston MSA economy - movement in regional Houston economy in the last 5 years, the current situation and future direction of the Houston economy should be included as part of the overall effort. Also, an assessment as to how the changes in the Houston economy are likely to affect the southeast portion of the Gulf Coast and the City of La Porte and its plans should also be undertaken. 6. Identification of Alternative Strategies - The consultant should develop several alternative strategies for achieving the type of economic development that is desired by the City of La Porte. The positives and negatives of each strategy should be outlined carefully and a recommended strategy provided by the consultant to the city. Contents of the Proposal The proposal should contain the following major sections. 4 1. Statement as to the objectives of the study that will demonstrate that the consultant understands the needs of the City of La Porte in regards to this particular project. 2. Study Approach - This section should outline in detail the proposed approach to preparing the economic development plan. Specific steps should be called out in detail along with a schedule for each of the tasks and a proposed set of checkpoint meetings during the course of the study. 3. Project Management - The senior people involved in the development of the plan should be identified and their role spelled out by task. The qualifications of each of the senior consultants should also be spelled out in this section and resumes for those people included in an Appendix. Also, the consultant should define a proposed method for working with the city management and reporting progress. 4. Qualifications - This section should contain a historical overview of the consulting firm described and describe other similar projects that have been undertaken. It should also identify any additional resources within the firm that are available should they be needed during the course of the project. a. Proposed Budgets - The proposed budget should be broken out by each major task within the study approach. The cost should be further broken into professional fees and expenses associated with each task. b. References - The consultant should include at a minimum three (3) references for similar type of work that has been undertaken within the last five (5) years. The name and telephone number of each reference should be provided in proposal. 5 (r' ,.--. RFP # 08510 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN BID TABULATION DESCRIPTION Stedman & TEEX SPPRE Avalanche Urban Assoc. Consulting I Initiatives Fees and Professional Services $85,000.00 $98,728.00 $215,000.00 $119,500.00 $92,300.00 Information reflects pricing which is only 30% of overall evaluation criteria Confidential until Firm Selected ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRA TEGIC PLAN EVALUA TION WORKSHEET SUMMARY E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Stedman & u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Avalanche u u u u u u u u u u Percent TEEX SPPRE Urban Criteria a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Assoc Consulting Initiatives t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E 1) Experience 35% 5.60 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 6.65 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.30 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 7.35 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.25 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2) Qualifications 35% 4.90 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.60 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.95 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 8.40 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.55 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3) Cost of Proposal 30% 7.20 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.10 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.20 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.40 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 Final Scores 100% 17.70 17.35 14.35 19.95 15.20