HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08041998 - C60 C.60
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adapted this Order on August 4, 1998 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Lilkerna, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canciamilla, and Rogers
NOES: None
ABSENT. None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.56 LETTER, dated July 22, 1.998, from Dr. Kristine Chase, Chair, Contra Costa.Economic
Development Committee, and Chair of the Economics Department of St. Mary's College,
P.O. 4230, Moraga, CA 94575-4230, requesting a response from the Board of
Supervisors regarding the Committee's concerns about its role in economic development
and direction for the future.
**REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted. (*****) are
APPROVED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Phil Batchelor, rk of the Board of
Supervisors an County Administrator
BV � Deputy
c.c.Correspondents (I)
County Administrator
Community Development Director
AIN
' AY'
COLLEGE
.C�. Fox 4230 b Viorag a,�afiior_ ;i< 94575-4230
OF CALIFORNIA PHONE 5 0-63'.-4604 � FAX 1-510-376-5625
Sciaoo?of Economics and _..
Business Adm.:nstration
July 22, 1998n3w , . {
Mr. Jim Rogers, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Rogers,
The Economic Development Committee held a retreat this past
Spring to review our role in economic development, and discuss
the Committee' s direction for the future. The reasons for the
retreat included concerns that committee members had about
several issues . These concerns can be summarized as follows ;
(1) under the current Board charge, the Committee is almost
solely passive: we receive and review CDBG
applications, and approve/disapprove based on staff' s
recommendation. Committee members are concerned that
we lack a proactive strategic direction for the use of
this large poo' of funds, resulting in less job
creation.
(2) The Committee finds the geographic limits set on our
CDBG activities to within the "Urban County" are
artificial in the context of County-wide economic
development, and limit the benefits potentially
available from job creation. The lack of collaboration
with other County and regional entities, such as the
Workforce Development Advisory Panel, and other city
economic development agencies, compounds these limits.
(3) The Committee, though charged as the advisory group for
economic development to the Board, has received no
requests for advice, and little or no cornm�unication
from the Board. Several other groups in the County are
pursuing economic development initiatives parallel to
ours . Committee members are concerned about the best
use of both theirs and staff' s time if this committee
does not have a significant role to play in economic
development in the County.
Based on the above concerns, the Committee recommends to the
Board that the Committee focus on the CDBG charge within the
existing mission, meeting only as needed to receive and review
applications and the progress of existing CDBG projects . If the
Board would like the Committee also to act in an advisory role,
as directed in the second part of our mission, we would be
available to explore that direction with you.
Liven the s+----ength of the Committee' s concerns, we would
appreciate a res'p6nse from the Board in the near future, so that
we can consider �this issue at our meeting in the first week of
August or September. Thank you for your attention to our
concerns .
Sincerely,
Dr? Kristine Chase
Chair, Contra Costa Economic Development Committee, and
Chair, Economics Department, Saint Mary' s College
Cc: Board of Supervisors