Below is a notice with my stern recommendations I sent out today regarding a pending workshop at the Lake County Board meeting on the Economic Development program for Lake County. The workshop includes a
60 page powerpoint presentation on the MOEDC (Metro Orlando Economic Development Council) and the volunteer Economic Development Advisory Commission, plus input from the County ED Manager Dottie Keedy.
I will post a follow up by Wednesday on the results of the meeting.vj
===========================================
A workshop will be held at the end of tomorrow’s (Tuesday) Lake County Board meeting.
Although the Board has mentioned such a workshop, the only notice of it was buried in the last few lines of the Agenda in “Section VI. Workshop” for the Lake County Board meeting ( SEE main agenda HERE ). But, there were no linked supporting documents to the “Tab 5” to provide background information.
Then, in today’s late afternoon, links were
ADDED to the main Calendar page (not the online agenda tab) for the January 12 meeting in the same cell with the link to the agenda. So, use the links below or go to the online agenda calendar and click the two new lines for January 12 for EDC to see the presentation agenda, and the 60+ page presentation file.
You can find the presentation agenda HERE, and the 60 plus page presentation file HERE.
At this time, I don’t know if the Chairman, Welton Cadwell, will allow public comment during this workshop. Anyone wishing to make public comments during the workshop should notify the Chairman, Welton Cadwell. In the past, Welton has refused public comment on various agenda items (unlike the School Board, which allows comments on any agenda line items). I recently wrote a blog entry on the lack of consistent public comments.
As a reminder, here are some of the issues related to the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (my own opinions):
Issues Related to the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (MOEDC)
- $300k annual contract full of vague generalities and no specific deliverables – absolutely one of the worst contracts I have ever seen as a professional auditor in 18 years. This would not be acceptable by any normal grant making agency and should not have been accepted by the Lake County Board of Commissioners, Dottie Keedy or the County Attorney.
- No detailed status reports required. I have been told that they were required in the last contract with MOEDC, but were waived. But, if there are no specific deliverables in the new contract, status reports can only be vague and non-specific.
- The Lake County has a working EDAC commission, but they were formed so they did not have to comply with the Sunshine Laws. I have not been able to find a credible report on their activities or specific measurable results (but it may exist somewhere?).
- Research conducted by the Orlando Sentinel and Lauren Ritchie say MOEDC was lying about numbers claimed of jobs added to County per Orlando Sentinel, and they also wrote an article on MOEDC work in another County where the numbers were also mis-represented. Why would Lake County deal with an agency that mis-represents progress reports? In business, that would be a firing offense. (I actually have audited construction and production progress reports that resulted in employee sanctions due to mis-representation of progress statistics.)
- The top two managers of the MOEDC are said to have salaries exceeding a total of $500,000, which is significantly higher than the pay of Lake County’s Manager or the Lake County Superintendant of Schools. Why is Lake County paying such an organization that pays wages that greatly exceed normal wages?
- Why send the $300,000 per year out of the County and the Country for expenditures for vague and non-measurable activities vs. expanding local EDC efforts that focus on Lake County and not Orlando. It is clear that MOEDC is not results oriented and tries to avoid accountability. Lake County leaders should not be dealings with such an organization. Let Orlando pay their wages.
- At the MOEDC presentation given to the Board in late 2009, one supporter based his support on the fact that South Lake County was drawing residents from workers in the Disney area. This doesn’t seem to be developing the economic sector in Lake County except for house building. The focus should be on creating jobs in Lake County.
Review of the 60 Page Presentation File posted late
Monday afternoon
- The presentation contains an overview of the MOEDC and that Lake County’s payments of $300,000 per year are only five percent of the total MOEDC budget. It then tries to make the case that because total expenditures on regional advertising, etc are much higher, that Lake County is getting a “bang for the buck”. However, there are no specific data showing the actual referrals in percentage terms to Lake County. And, if over 50% of the funding comes from private sources, what are their expectations for a return on investment? Were any of them from Lake County?
- The presentation described the EDAC Infrastructure Committee, but no specifics on their achievements. In contrast, at the earlier 2009 BCC presentation by MOEDC, they said that many of their “referrals” were from firms that then could not move to Lake County because there was no Class A space available. There have not been any discussions on how this constraint will be solved.
- “Accomplishments” – the presentation then describes “accomplishments” as having 90 participants, 49 meetings and 19 presentations. Those are activities, not accomplishments. Accomplishments would be a specific number of NEW firms moving to Lake County, or X number of jobs created based upon DIRECT, verifiable evidence they were the result of MOEDC or EDAC activities (the meetings…).
- “Success Benchmarks” - another slide discusses benchmarks, but again, it focuses on activities like meetings and web hits, BUT NO SPECIFIC MEASURABLE GOALS “PER VISIT” OR “PER 100 WEBHITS” is specified. Can you imagine a business that establishes an advertising budget for $300,000 and doesn’t already have research on expected results like: number of literature requests, number of phone call appointments, number of personal visits and presentations, and number of conversions (sales in dollars or units) per advertising unit? Then the business would hold the department head responsible for meeting the goals (and in this case, reduce payments to MOEDC if they do not perform). NONE of the presentations, or contracts specify final measurable objectives like that. Instead, they are all activities without any defined success ration per input. Thus, this is really an institutional advertising campaign without EDC management committing to specific objectives. To be credible, goals should be compared to industry standards vs. peer groups (other counties of similar size) and historic vs. planned results per $100,000 (or other unit like “presentations”).
- The presentation gives an example of the Torrey Pines Institute (Medical Research) in another County, and the resulting jobs. I personally do not think any such group would locate in Lake County because it is too far away from large metro areas and major four year colleges. But, there isn’t any study cited that shows whether a rural area like Lake County will attract such firms or workforces. That is what should be done first before assuming such a firm will locate in Lake County. (I have been at La Jolla and also the Research Triangle in NC – both are near major universities which are a breeding ground for research and venture capital). The Torrey Pines example shows how in 10 years, they will have 189 employees.
- The presentation has a “next steps” slide which is vague and not specific on targeted, specific goals.
- I have worked at several major firms, and this “marketing plan” would not be accepted. As an auditor who has audited many large and small contracts (and grants) I can also say the MOEDC contract is not auditable, which should be an indicator of future results.
- It is possible that some more specific actions, measurable goals, and results have been implemented by the EDAC, but I have not seen them since there are no public status reports.
We need better professional leadership for the economic development of the County, and more specific results criteria for both the County Economic development department and the MOEDC. Would you give $300,000 of your own money to a builder who won’t say in writing how many windows or square feet of space, or type of roof you would get? I think not, but the MOEDC contract assumes you will give them $300,000 per year without being accountable or committing to SPECIFIC, verifiable results.
Economic Development should be treated like a results oriented SALES function, not a generic public relations activity program without specific, measurable objectives. Results need to be measured monthly, quarterly and annually, and compared to prior period results, as well as plan and actual figures. Compensation and payments to contractors (like MOEDC) need to be based upon results, not activities. Thus salaries should be reduced and payments to MOEDC be reduced if specific, targeted goals approved by the Board in public meetings are not met (like the field of sales).
I will post a follow up blog article by Wednesday.
Vance Jochim
Author: www.FiscalRangers.com
Candidate for Lake County Commissioner, District 4
352-638-3578
