Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 06/21/20171 | Page MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave. Time: 11:00am–1:00pm For Reference Wade Troxell, Mayor & Council Liaison Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 221-6324 Rebecca Hicklin, Minutes 416-4349 Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent Sam Solt, Chair Alan Curtis Denny Otsuga Linda Stanley Ted Settle Connor Barry John Parks Ann Hutchison Craig Mueller Staff Present Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Rebecca Hicklin, Admin/Board Support Guests None Present Meeting called to order at 11:04 am Ted—Maybe we should do something for Dianne for helping out, maybe a gift card and a thank you card? Yes, all agreed. Public Comment—Name: No one present Agenda items added: Sam and Josh met with Wade; they will provide feedback later in the meeting. Agenda Item 1--Review Board Response to Periodic Review • Josh: City Plan. Sales tax has been lagging behind projections. City staff and Finance Committee have been talking about contingency plan. 2017 should be fine, 2018 will be the issue. One item identified to be slimmed up is City Plan. Council does not think we need to spend 1.4 million dollars on it. First plan adopted back in 1997. There will be another update coming up. Slimming up budget and therefor slimming up the scope. This has created a delay as staff has to figure out what in their budgets could be decreased. They still want EAC to participate. Sam and Ted had an update from Ryan. Ryan is leading public engagement process. • Ted: was troubled by the fact that the City Plan might be part of the cuts. Issues facing City around growth are dominant. • Josh: Some Council members don’t feel the need for the update. Others feel that we need to evaluate a number of things in detail. Staff is fighting to keep the core scope in project. Staff in Planning has stressed the importance of going through these items in detail. Last update was adopted by Council in 2011. Impressions were that it focused on guiding principles, strategies and less on fundamental underlying issues, i.e. land use distribution, infrastructure, etc. Utilities 2 | Page master plan and transportation plan were coordinated. It may not have addressed some fundamental questions. This is the first time that fundamental and structural events were coordinated, but didn’t go into enough detail. • Ted: That was not a good time (2011) to do the update given the economic status. We missed what we are experiencing now, and what will continue for a reasonable amount of time. • Josh: Maybe readdress every 5 years would be a good way to go? It was designed to address next 20-25 years. Maybe now is a good time for a conversation with Council. • Craig: How long were the sales tax dips? • Josh: Real dip was in 1st quarter, we are now making up the ground. We have made a comeback since 1st quarter. There is also a dip in use tax. Shortfall is 600K behind budget which is half the City Plan Budget. Maybe leaning towards simplicity in the future? Council had a conversation at work session last week if anyone wants to hear it. Can we trim up one thing and get where we want to get, as compared to multiple micro-cuts? Council had conversation in work session last week, as well as in Council Finance. • Sam: Who were Council members who were “luke-warm”? • Josh: Council Member Summers, Mayor Pro-tem Horak are lukewarm on City Plan- he would like us to do more things in-house and less on a contractual basis. • Sam: Heard Summers’ comments at retreat—he was not overly enthusiastic about City Plan • Josh: Mayor Pro-tem Horak’s issues have to do with how much we spend on contract employees, he would like for us to do more in-house. • Denny: How might Amazon Distribution Center impact sales tax revenue? • Josh: Amazon has been voluntarily remitting sales tax for several months. Amazon will be required to remit sales tax. We are not the only place to experience a first quarter dip. Factors: It could have to do with election? Maybe the tax returns being turned in later? First quarter has never been a good indication of the year as a whole. April transactions collected in May should show the numbers will be better soon. Another month or two should have a better idea of the year. • Denny: will that make any difference in regards to City Plan? • Josh: Sounds like City Plan will be slimmed regardless of sales tax revenue changes. The concern now is that if we are behind in 2017, it will make 2018 even more challenging because 2018 projections are based off of 2017 numbers, so it will have a cumulative impact. • Craig: Frustration: With notable dip in revenue is the only option a City Plan cut, or are there other options? • Josh: Every City department was asked to provide what they would do if they had to make a 10% cut from budget: 1) Fuel Savings; 2) Vacancy (Employee) savings, 3) discretionary spending (consulting, sponsorship dollars). There will still need to be some other changes. Council Finance suggested modifying City Plan. • Denny: For the long term, if we are short this year, every day we delay the cuts it will affect the long term status of economy. • Josh: Fair point and certainly one that staff is trying to articulate. The council members and the Mayor who are opposed can affect the long term. Some of the Council members still don’t see it that way. • Ted: John has joined us so we now have a Quorum. Review and Approval of Minutes: May minutes approved as presented. Commission Member/Staff Update • Meeting with Wade—Sam and Josh met regarding the EAC “losing its way” as well as EHO and City Council. We want to get back on track. Josh walked away with a sense that we were more or less on track, but the Mayor recommended some tweaks. Specifics: EAC should have a clear understanding of Council’s priorities. Staff is in the process of fleshing those out and will present in July. There are several priorities that EHO will be working on over next several months and 3 | Page ongoing. Economic Health will have 4 or 5 of the priorities. There are gaps in resources that may affect the ability to achieve them. • Denny—Does EHO have the budget for it? • Josh: the Priorities are already some of the things that we’ve been doing, but there are strategic gaps in resources. Opportunity to put the spotlight of many of the things EHO has already been doing. • More concerns-- 1. EAC to become more focused on metrics and industry shifts and intelligence gathering. Economic health hasn’t been in the forefront for council. Citizen engagement has driven the direction of Council as of late---CAP, homelessness and the Social and Environmental issues have been more top of mind for Council. 3. Make Economic Health a priority for Council. 4. Doesn’t feel like FC has an economic message or brand in region, didn’t offer one either. He thinks there is national buzz about FC in the region. 5. Maybe Fort Collins is ready to attract and retain more corporate headquarters. No offer of what the message will be. He thinks of Harmony as the next Sand Hill Road (in Silicon Valley). FC may be seen as “Place of Invention” or Smithsonian. 6. Many locations have major university, Univercities.org—maybe that is an answer to lack of message and brand. 6 Cities that are similar in size to us and have a major university and diversified economy: Lexington, Lincoln, Madison, Raleigh, Ann Arbor and us. He felt that the group is a new species of city and we may work with them on branding. The conversation was all over the place. • Sam: He is in Madison right now, and impressed with it and the integration between the community, the City and the University. There are parallels between Madison and Fort Collins. Some metrics are in order if we want to pursue these concepts. Spent time with Mayor Pro Tem Horak and others, we should have a packet of metrics. All of the people he has spoken withsay that we should have a packet of metrics. Maybe we should publish something on a quarterly basis? Council member from District 1—periodic publishing of a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) based analysis? • Josh: There is a Community Dashboard now. We may have picked the wrong metrics: many are trailing indicators, not leading indicators. There are a number of activities that relate to metrics. They are very high level and maybe we picked the wrong ones? We are trying to refine the dashboard metrics. We are trying to evaluate the performance of the strategic plan. We look out 3-5 years, but update every 2 years. By the 7 outcome areas over the next 5 years, maybe we evaluate every 2 years. Better use of EAC’s time is maybe fine tune the ones already in existence instead of creating new ones? There are status updates for each of them. When you go to the dashboard, you will see red, yellow, green status of each of them. There is a good degree of sophistication in the reporting. Are they the right metrics? • Josh: Reacting to Wade: o Updates quarterly for EAC members—is it too much to ask of volunteers? o Staff is already engaged and preparing metrics at several different levels. o Maybe group should provide concise and well thought out constructive criticism on those? o EAC can contribute to the thought around the metrics. • Sam: We can reflect on dashboard, but use info already there. He agrees with Josh. Whether we are using the right metrics is always an ongoing dialogue. Maybe the SWOT format being published under EAC’s direction? • Ted: Ann just joined us. • Denny: What is Wade’s objective? What and why are we trying to measure? Data is a trailing indicator not a leading indicator. Are we trying to use it for some purpose? We can measure all kinds of things, but why are we doing it? • Josh: Objective was to be able to change course if needed. There are metrics that are outside your control that are good to know, but other info is absolutely needed. Info is useful, but we may not use to make decisions. EAC could review metrics and provide feedback to Wade? 4 | Page • Denny: Unemployment, etc. related to macroeconomics. We are not regulating borders @ the City limit, people are moving here because they want to. • Josh: Analogy of flying an airplane to metrics. Dashboard is focused on metrics that are useful, but we may not make a course correction. Maybe EAC spends time with Dashboard metrics, and provide feedback. • Connor: Maybe do a questionnaire for EAC as “homework”? Yes, and line up for a future meeting. • Denny: Maybe other types of metrics that will impact where you are going and what you do. Council needs to understand differences. • Ted: Grab Lunch. AGENDA ITEM 1— Review Board Response to Periodic Review—Board Discussion Presentation • Josh will make changes to document on the fly. Feel free to make comments. Please share reservations and as a group we will figure out how to solve/address/change. We will then present comments to Wade in August. • Josh: More time on agenda, less time on people who come before us. #1 already complete, start with #2. Comments or thoughts—contextual changes. Question #2: How do the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, align with Key Outcome Areas? What duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted? • Ann: Look at bolded answer and share thoughts? • Ted: 2nd bullet on #2- • Josh: Bullet is about prioritization, more time on our own agenda, less time on those that came before us. • Ann: #3-Doesn’t feel we need budget authority. Ok with overall statement. • Denny: Other committees have budgets assigned to them, wanted clarification. • Josh: Nothing has been assigned to us as specific. EAC operates on a more amorphous scope. Josh recommends we stay out of cluster funding. Keep away from having funds with which we should do something with. Most boards are advisory, don’t have funds associated with them. • Denny: Grants that Craig did, how do we categorize? • Josh: EAC group has context as well as expertise and using it strategically. Already enough going on to take on, don’t need any more. • Craig: We should take a position if something is brought to our attention. • Denny: He feels we actually achieve something when we express our opinion. EAC would often make recommendations again and share it with others in the past. Some groups are coming to EAC earlier in the process. • Josh: EAC’s time previously was dominated by expressing opinions. Made a simple statement, now we are providing rationale for decision. Focus on growth dialogue, business assistance packages, etc. now making fewer recommendations. • Ann: Some things that are coming through early in the process, or so late that we completely miss it. Some issues have a direct impact on the citizens. Are we too early in process, or do we miss it completely. Example—Capital expansion fees, changes were made after EAC submitted support. • Josh: Maybe we should be more strategic in the process? • Ted: EAC will have more of a sustained involvement rather than episodic. • Josh: Maybe we try to be more strategic in bringing these cross, interrelated groups together? • Ted: Last bullet—TBL? • Josh: Maybe more experts in the room when something is being addressed. Bring cross- interrelated groups together. • Ted: Maybe we have a panel instead of individuals invited? • Sam: Work plans have evolved to the point of a new model. Only recently have we gotten to the point of specifics by month. Are we ready to roll into a new model? What’s the definition of sustainability and livability? Social, environmental, economics? How do we integrate across social and environmental? He wants to firm up model on how active we become in TBL. How do 5 | Page we integrate across multiple boards and commissions as well as TBL? Metrics, sustainability and assessment tool? • Ann: We need to make sure that we are doing the role of Economic Advisory Commission. • Sam: TBL, in agreement and we haven’t spent too much time on the social and environmental side. How do we play a role in the sustainability side of it? We need to find a position that we are in balance. • Ann: I want to make sure that we don’t lose sight that we are the Economic Advisory Commission. • Sam: Understands and agrees with it. We still need a balance of economic, social and environmental. There is a way to bring it all together. Question #3: #3a: How is the Work Plan Aligned with Key outcomes” All ok with it. • Ted: Part of my dilemma is that TBL predates Economic Health. • Ann: We don’t say economic development in this town. Economic lens and economic health. We need economic lens in statement. #3b: How is the Work Plan aligned with the City’s Strategic Plan? Ted: The original inception of EAC was prior to TBL. Do we need to look @TBL also? Ann & Connor want the economic lens as part of it. Connor: We need to make sure we understand our role, but focus on what we are doing overall. • Josh: How do you speak from the perspective of Economics, but still look at all 3 legs of stool? It is a tough balance to be able to articulate? • Ted: How much do we believe in the definition of Economic Health that we put together. Ted thinks it needs to be more than that. • Josh: Issue: how do you speak from the perspective from an economic perspective, but also be concerned with other legs of pillar (social, environmental). How do we stay true to the fact that somebody has to have an eye on economics while keeping an eye on the other legs of the stool? • Ted: If we keep “b” as it’s written, I think it would be wrong. • John: 3 pillars are interconnected. 3c: How is the Work Plan aligned with the Agenda Planning Calendar) No concerns. • Josh: We want Wade to attend quarterly. Wade has taken meetings with Ted and Sam, periodic review states that we want him attending 1 time per quarter. #3d: Does the board effectively accomplish its annual Work Plan? No issues #4: Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? Are discussions focused around agenda topic? What could be done to improve board meetings? • John: likes having homework to do. Ok if it springboards to something else. • Ann: Some sections of agenda can be more concise. #5: Is current size of Commission appropriate? Maybe we need a better representation from business community on Commission? Connor: Outside presentations, or membership. #6: Please describe the effectiveness of the communications between the board and Council. What can be done to improve these communications: Generally, board felt that the Council has little or no interest in our responses. • Sam: He doesn’t feel comfortable going to Wade to get feedback, should be done with the entire Commission. We need to own part of the visibility “thing.” Maybe we don’t have much of value to get them involved. He has heard this from several other boards. Maybe the Council is a bit arrogant, and they don’t look to get much feedback. • Ann: They are holding staff accountable even though they haven’t acknowledged us. She doesn’t think EAC did a very good job of following up. They have voted based on our recommendation on several items. • Josh: There is room for improvement on both sides. Comments from Sam are well-taken. • Ann: Letters don’t necessarily get responses, emails do. Unless we stand at microphone, may not get feedback. • Sam: If appropriate, Sam will “approach” the microphone. Chamber is different than commission. • Josh: We need to become more educated on process. There may be roles and procedures that need to be followed as representatives as majority support of commission and where the boundaries are. We need to focus in on a more limited number of issues. 6 | Page • Sam: Went back over work plan and looked at how model was changed over time. We are evolving to the point that the next model takes a stronger position on credibility and how we move forward. #7: Other Comments? • Craig: We have taken the initiative to write up an answer, he doesn’t think we are rubber stamping. • Ted: Maybe less “rubberstamping” than in past. Not sure if with some of the limited information and time spent on topics that it feels like “rubber stamping.” How much value is added when items are only looked at for a few minutes? Past—EAC looked at too much stuff. • Josh: Evolution from cursory review to in-depth. Maybe we revamp the board and eliminate some of the 26 boards and commissions? Some might be ok with it, others would not be. • Josh: Will make changes and send out an updated draft. He expects that people would revolt against eliminating some of the boards and commissions. Some may be ok with it, others would not. Some have more politically engaged members. • Ann: Everyone feels like they are making zero impact. Chances are slim that Council will agree with this. • Sam: We need to provide input on evaluation criteria. • Ted: Does this questionnaire go to Council? • Josh: Yes, as documentation of our periodic review. They are looking at all of the boards, about 5 per year. AGENDA ITEM 2—What Makes for Good Evaluation Criteria?—Josh Birks Presentation Objective: Good Criteria, selecting criteria, get a rubric to define process. Structured Decision Making: often values come into play when handing money to private sector. Useful for integrating technical evaluations with values included. Make sure everyone is clear, and use an evaluating rubric for business assistance. The Four Villains of Decision Making, Decisive: book by Chip Heath and Dan Heath, 2013—Mistakes made due to: 1. Narrow framing or spotlighting 2. Fall prey to confirmation bias 3. Emotions can influence short term thinking 4. Over-confident about predicting future. Mission: Promote a Healthy, sustainable economy reflecting community values. Steps 1: Brainstorm 2: Objectives: separate into means and ends-process equitable, parameters, benefits (Josh’s PPT) 3: Create objective hierarchy –useful criteria: accurate & unambiguous, comprehensive but concise, direct and ends-oriented, measurable and consistently applied, understandable, practical Evaluation Development Process: 1) Brainstorm, 2) Reduce list, 3) check final list, 4) state final criteria Next steps: means vs ends, different objectives and different decisions will lead us down a specific path. What are objectives in this policy? EH mission: To promote a healthy, sustainable economy that reflects our key values. Josh: Policy’s intent—Josh did a means vs ends analysis. As we build objectives, what are the criteria we are trying to achieve? Not about what is right or wrong, but some criteria are better than others. Criteria should be based on 6 characteristics: 1. Accurate, unambiguous 2. Comprehensive, concise 3. Direct, ends-oriented 4. Measurable, consistently applied 5. Understandable 6. Practical 7 | Page Concise, limited 1. Brainstorming criteria, reduce list using 2 methods: a. Multi-vote, influence diagramming process b. Influence diagramming process c. Take final list and check against list—understandability, practicality Josh: We have a business assistance policy and we need to have evaluation criteria. July: Economic Impact Criteria August: Quality of Place Criteria September: Alignment with City Objectives Criteria October: Natural Resource Stewardship Criteria November: Community Well-being Criteria December: Finalize Criteria Josh: We will write this up with a statement on the process, recommend to Council and hope that they will include it as part of the policy. Ann: TBL—social perspective is split out between quality of life and place of being? Josh: Are these still the right questions. We may need separate criteria. The sustainability assistance tool—Katie is in charge and is leaving—we need to evaluate projects from that perspective. Ann: Alignment with City objectives- is that last thing we do? Sam: Interesting to see if there are any past experiences with this model. Used in past, results etc. Josh: We do have a sustainability assessment tool—Katie is leaving City of Fort Collins in next week and a half. Discussion/Q & A: None today • Question o Answer ACTION ITEMS: None. • Ted: Speakers from other commissions that our commission would sponsor—invite to our meetings? Meeting Adjourned: 1:00pm Next Meeting: July 19, 2017