MO 1997-026 to 1997-030 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

of establishing this vision was to provide overall police direction for the development of specific economic development programs and actions that will address the various challenges and opportunities identified in the Baseline Study. The unifying vision elements that emerged from the EDAC's visioning process included: a. A Sustainable Community b. A Diversified Economy c. Vibrant Local Serving Commercial Areas d. A Strong and Respected Educational System The four key conclusions and corresponding program areas that followed from the Baseline Study coincide well with the EDAC vision for San Leandro's economy. The high degree of correspondence between the program areas and the EDAC vision elements indicate that there is a clear direction for San Leandro to take in its ongoing efforts to strengthen its economy and improve the quality of life for all residents. Economic Development Strategy Framework and Prioritization Strategy, Framework. The four economic development program areas identified above. Sustaining Economic Growth. Reinvesting in San Leandro. Enhancing the Local Tax Base. and Improving Communin- Life. serve as the stratesy framework for the San Leandro Economic Development Strategy and Work Program Within each broad program area. specific actions have been developed to build on the City's existing strengths and address its weaknesses. It is these actions that define the core of the economic development work program. Prioritization. After reviewing the various actions summarized in the matrix contained on the following two pages. the EDAC dedicated several of its meetings in late 1996 to discussing the prioritization of the recommended actions. The croup decided that each of the four program areas was equally important to the Citv's overall economic well-being and that it was not desirable to establish rankings of priority among the four program areas: however. to assist staff in determining ho,.� to best allocate resources available for economic development implementation activities. the EDAC did assign priority rankings to specific actions within each program area. The ordering of actions within individual program areas thus reflects the EDAC's priority rankings. expressed as high. medium. or lo« . As shown in the matrix. the EDAC did not assign a lo% priority ranking to anv of the recommended actions. The EDAC felt that all of the recommended actions were valuable and should be pursued given sufficient resources for implementation. Because the individual actions are ranked only with respect to the other actions in the same program area. an action with a "high" priority_ ranking in one program area does not necessarily take precedence over an action with a "medium" priority ranking in a different vll