economic development model for charles county · • computed fy 2012 per capita ed spending...
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1
Economic Development
Model for Charles CountyOrganization, Structure, Resources
REPORT OVERVIEW
• Report addresses type of organizations, suggested annual
resource commitment and functional/staff structure
• Report’s recommendations rely substantially on results of:
- MEDA Roundtable
- Personal review of the structures of 28 AEDOs
- Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute’s Study of
best practices of 17 high performing EDOs
- Benchmarking against 12 MD and VA “peer” or high
household income counties
- Discussions with EDEB, IEDC instructors, colleagues
Personal experience over last 10 months and with prior
EDC
Slide 3
Organization• Report examines establishment as:
- A County department
- Non-profit Economic Development Commission (EDC)
- Authority
- Division or bureau within a County Department
- Entirely contracted out function
• Some 10,000 economic development organizations in U.S. in many forms
• No one form emerges as a “silver bullet”.
• Quality of director and staff, confidence in the ED entity by the elected governing body and
adequacy of resources are likely more critical than the organizational form embraced.
• Recommendation: Establish as County Department reporting to the County Commissioners
effective July 1, 2012.
Slide 4
Rationale for County Department• Support infrastructure already in place; low
overhead
• Internal relationships already established
• Best access to governing body for decision-
making
• Viewed by other County departments as very high
priority
• Commissioners already set economic development
goals and objectives
Slide 5
Rationale for County Department
(con’t)
• No time lost in addressing organizational start-up
and internal matters
• Best positioned to utilize cutting edge technology
in the economic development function
• Media and communications support group already
established and easily accessible
• 16 of 23 Maryland counties have established within
County government
Not-For-Profit Economic Development
Commission (Pro’s)
•Popular, next most common form
•Governing Board largely of business people responsible
for strategic planning and decision-making
•May decrease reliance on government funding
•Less hamstrung by bureaucratic procedure and more
flexible
•Easier to conduct affairs out of public spotlight
•Less turnover, as compared to public officials, and more
consistent economic development policies
•Businesses may place more trust in dealing with a non-
governmental agency
Not-For-Profit Economic Development
Commission (Con’s)
• Too much board and leadership time devoted to
organizational and internal process, especially in first
year or two
• Difficulty in getting right mix on Board of Directors due
to time demands
• More apt to be viewed as an outside agency and
business advocacy made more difficult
• Few examples of substantial outside fundraising
• Overhead is likely to be very substantial
• Ample flexibility already exists in county process and
procedure in hands of an experienced practitioner
Not-For-Profit Economic Development
Commission (Con’s) (con’t)
• A county commissioned and appointed EDC will be
subject to Maryland Open Meetings Laws in any event
• Flow of communication to elected board may not be
timely enough
• No evidence that business is less likely to seek the
help of a county economic development department
than a county commissioned EDC
Other Forms
• Authorities
– Normally created pursuant to specific state legislation defining
power
– May have eminent domain and bonding authority
– Seem better tailored to one target area or mission
– Howard County has a General Economic Development
Authority but no eminent domain or bonding authority
– Calvert County established authority to manage 2 industrial
parks. Also manages its revolving loan fund
Other Forms (con’t)
• Placement as a division or bureau within County
government department
– Not common in county-sized entities
– Would be viewed as 2nd or 3rd tier priority
– Recruitment difficulties
_ ED and regulatory agencies have fundamentally different
missions and perspectives
– Creates yet another layer of management between ED function
and Commissioners
– Important ED communications are likely to be lost in translation
– Span of control for any one department head may be too great
and ED skill sets lacking
Other Forms (con’t)
• ED entity contracted out to private firm
– No examples found
– Not a practical approach
– Knowledgeable contract administration staff would still be
required
– Potential conflicts with other clients
– Relationships with state or regional partners might prove
problematic
– Stability of and control over key persons are issues
– Community knowledge base deficiency
– Overhead/profit multipliers could make cost-prohibitive
– EDEB considered but rejected
TOURISM• Tourism
– No one answer as to where to best place function
– Retain as separate entity for foreseeable future
– CVB under study by consultant
– ED and Tourism marketing messages and audiences are often
different
– Re-invigorated Tourism program seems to be working well as
is
– TAB & EDEB both recommended it remain separate and
distinct
– EDD should be involved in business formation/expansion side
of tourism industry
– ED Director should sit on board of any CVB or TAB
– 7 of 23 counties in Maryland incorporate Tourism in their EDD’s
ED Advisory Board
• Advisory board to new department would be established
• EDEB as such is renamed and restructured, and some
existing core members invited to remain and form a nucleus
• A larger, but more informal board – quorums not req’d
• No formal voting
• Meet with Director and staff 2-3 x annually
• More diversity by employer size, industry sector, and
geography
• Director uses feedback in roundtable discussions. May
appoint committees for particular tasks and ambassadors
• EDEB recommended continuation as Advisory Board
ED Budget
• Benchmarked against the budgets of 12 Maryland and
No. Virginia counties of like household income
• Many also considered “peer” counties in other studies
• At least one from each MD region except Eastern Shore
• Computed FY 2012 per capita ED spending amounts for
each
• Average spending is $6.88 per capita on ED operations
• Based on per capita average, Charles County’s annual
budget for ED operations should be slightly in excess of
$1 million
• FY13 Charles County ED budget request done
independently of this computation but also $1 million
range
Staff Structure and Organization Chart
Economic
Research
Specialist
Business Development
Mgr. – Attraction &
Recruitment
Business Development
Mgr. – Retention &
Expansion
Office Associate
Director, Economic Development
County Commissioners
Client Services
Representative (PT)
Outsourcing
• Supplementary to core staff but staff maintains control
• Special services with particular expertise and/or
proprietary databases
• Examples include competitive intelligence, prospect
lead & qualification, economic gardening program
implementation, strategic marketing, web content,
project feasibility studies, economic impact analysis,
enterprise/BRAC zone applications, niche consulting
services to local business, targeted industry studies,
etc.
• Most ED organizations use in some fashion
• Maintain about 20-25% of budget in contracted
services a good benchmark
Lead Generation Methodology
Suggested Commissioner Actions
1. Approve report’s major recommendations:
– County department effective July 1, 2012
– Professional staff structure
– Tourism remains separate
– Restructured Advisory Board (July 2012)
– Commit adequate resources for FY 13 (benchmark level)
2. Act quickly on space recommendation (next 3
weeks)
3. Approve proceeding with lead generation firm
procurement
4. Commence recruitment of permanent ED Director
Slide 19
Presented by:
Charles County Government
Office of Economic
Development
Eugene T. Lauer, Interim Director
www.charlescounty.org
Mission Statement
The mission of Charles County Government is
to provide our citizens the highest quality
service possible in a timely, efficient, and
courteous manner. To achieve this goal, our
government must be operated in an open and
accessible atmosphere, be based on
comprehensive long- and short-term planning,
and have an appropriate managerial
organization tempered by fiscal responsibility.
Vision Statement
Charles County is a place where all people
thrive and businesses grow and prosper;
where the preservation of our heritage and
environment is paramount, where government
services to its citizens are provided at the
highest level of excellence; and where the
quality of life is the best in the nation.