BC 2010 08 02 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 2, 2010 (Work Session) Page 72 John Cox, President and CEO, Cabarrus Economic Development Corporation, provided some general background information on the Economic Development Public Investor Agreement between the EDC and the County, since its inception. He advised that issues related to performance, accountability, return on investment, etc., had been raised. Lynne Scott Safrit, EDC Board Chairman, Scott Lampe, EDC Treasurer, and Ryan McDaniels, Vice President of Economic Development were also present and responded to a variety of questions from the Board. The following issues were addressed during discussion: the deletion of "cooperative natured" tasks (workforce development and vendor /supplier database, etc.) from the new Agreement with the County; although these tasks remain in similar agreements with the municipalities, the EDC does not want to be held accountable in a tight budget year for tasks the County believes the EDC is not performing; the difficulties associated with tracking EDC marketing efforts to specific results; using the number of jobs created and amount of capital investment made to judge EDC's performance; asking the EDC to do more with less budgetary support is illogical; due to a smaller number of large companies relocating to the County, perhaps the focus should be on smaller companies; company recruitment is a long -term process and will be difficult to do on reduced funding; the absence of a publically -owned business park; etc. Chairman White advised that metrics are needed to ensure the EDC's marketing efforts are successful; with regard to accountability, he said the contract states that a marketing plan will be done, but it hasn't happened; he expressed concern for the removal of the "return on investment" clause, and noted the relocation of General Mills to the N.C. Research Campus (NCRC) should be attributed to efforts of NCRC, not the EDC; and, advised that when an agency takes taxpayers' money, the Commission has to know how /where these funds are spent. He also pointed out the EDC has submitted the same budget over a number of years without regard for changes in the economy and that things have to be done differently this year; and noted the lack of focus on entrepreneurial development. Discussion continued. Issues addressed included: the value of metrics and the effort required to produce them; whether the EDC's creation of investment and jobs is enough; leadership; funding for a marketing plan was voted down by the EDC Board on several occasions; a consultant was hired to work with the EDC Board in September; everyone at the EDC understands the need for accountability; etc. Chairman White addressed the omission of a provision in the contract related to an annual audit and GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) accounting procedures, and uncommitted funds. Mr. Cox advised that GASB rules do not apply to the EDC, it would be cost prohibitive to perform a BASB audit and the language related to a regular annual audit was inadvertently omitted from the document. Mr. Lampe advised there would be no "uncommitted" funds since fund balance will be used this year and a discussion ensued on county funds vs. private investor funds. At 5:43 p.m., Mr. Cox and Ms. Safrit asked to be excused from the meeting. Discussion continued. Commissioner Carruth advised that the Commission needs to decide which types of businesses to focus on and suggested the contract renewal date be changed so that it does not coincide with adoption of the county budget in June. Board members also addressed the possibility of extending the EDC's existing contract for a four month period, in order to provide time to work out issues between the two entities and to revise the language in the agreement. The absence of quarterly reports as stipulated in the current contract was also addressed. Mr. Lampe reported the EDC Board plans to hold a half day facilitated planning session sometime in September and invited the Commission to attend. He supported the concept of having an interim agreement to get the funding flowing and to work on the final version of the contract after the planning session. Chairman White suggested key members of the EDC Board, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission and the County Manager meet after the EDC retreat to work on the contract. Discussion continued. Issues addressed included the following: the need for improved communication, transparency, obtaining the municipalities input, the importance of economic development, accountability, reporting, etc.