March 29, 2004

Members Present: Sue Hack, Mike Rundle, David Schauner, Dave Loch, Frank Male, Larry Kipp, Don Steeples, Lance Johnson, Erv Hodges, Dave Kingsley, George Paley

Members Absent: Peggy Johnson, Keith Folkmann

Audience Members: Mike Wildgen, Lynn Parman, Tawnya Johnson, Gwen Klingenberg, Sheila Stogsdill

Sue Hack started the meeting with a review of the 2002 Image Survey that was presented and discussed at the February 23, 2004 meeting.

Sue Hack asked task force members what groups of people the survey should be sent to. After discussion, it was agreed upon that the following would be sent a survey: 1) applicants who pulled a building permit in the last two years; 2) applicants who filed site plans; 3) applicants who went before the Historic Resources Commission; 4) applicants who went before the Board of Zoning Appeals; 5) applicants who had use permitted reviews; 6) applicants who submitted subdivision plans; 7) those who applied for tax abatements; and 8) applicants who dealt with zoning issues in their development.

Sue Hack asked members for ideas on how the survey can acquire demographic information, while making sure that the information remains confidential with respect to not identifying specific businesses.

Dave Kingsley responded by saying that it will be hard for the information to remain confidential, but noted that he does not think that the task force has to get too detailed of information on specific businesses in the demographics data.

Larry Kipp asked what type of data the survey would be looking to gather.

Sue Hack thought that the survey should try to gather data on themes relating to customer service, efficiency and consistency during the process.

David Schauner stated that whom the task force surveys is not as important as what the task force asks. He added that he wanted to know what information is going to be learned from the survey.

Dave Kingsley responded by saying that he thought the survey should be able to give the task force an idea of whether the rules are clear are consistent and whether there were any changes in the process along the way.

David Schauner added that he wanted to find out through the survey what Lawrence could do to make itself more attractive.

Don Steeples stated that he thought another group to survey would be those businesses that have left the City of Lawrence.

Dave Loch thought that it would be beneficial to have a question on the survey asking whom the applicant talks to first when thinking about locating to Lawrence. He stated that bankers and realtors in Lawrence have valuable information that could be obtained since these are one of the first people that a prospective company will talk to when deciding whether or not to come to Lawrence.

Lance Johnson submitted a list of questions that could be included on the survey.

After a few minutes of reviewing the questions, discussion was focused on what questions should be changed.

Larry Kipp stated that he has concerns that some of the questions are leading. He cited question #7.

Dave Kingsley recommended that the questions when applicable, should have a 1-5 score ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree on the scale to make it more objective.

Larry Kipp asked if question #3 was necessary.

Mike Rundle asked that a better way to ask question #3 was to have ranges.

Sheila Stogsdill wanted to make sure that the questions would generate results that would show what specific parts of the process are ok and what parts of the process are not ok.

Don Steeples stated that there should be a more neutral way to ask question #15. He added that there should be questions on the survey relating to labor force availability and transportation infrastructure needs and whether they were met or not.

Frank Male added that there were a few additional questions that needed to be asked. For example, questions about the City’s staff attitude during the process. In addition, Mr. Male thought businesses that applied for tax abatements should be asked how the City departments were coordinated with one another during the process; if the living wage affected their decision to look at Lawrence; and who lead them through the process. Also, Mr. Male thought the survey should include questions relating to why Lawrence was considered; whose counsel was sought first when looking at Lawrence and why; and who contacted the applicant(s) about Lawrence and possible plans to locate there.

David Schauner asked how many questions would be on the survey.

Dave Kingsley responded by saying that there might be two different sections of the survey with 15 in each section for a total of 30.

The next meeting of the Business Retention Task Force will take place on Monday, April 19^th at 4 pm in the City Commission Room.