HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-13 Economic Development Council Minutes, draft with attachment
1 of 8
City of Bozeman
Economic Development Council (EDC)
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2013
10:30 – 12 pm
City Commission room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse
Members Attending: Anders Lewendal (Contractor), Daryl Schliem (Bozeman Chamber of
Commerce), Erik Garberg (Civil Engineer), Tracy Menuez (Human Resource Development
Council), Deputy Mayor Jeff Krauss (liaison), Cheryl Ridgely (Bozeman Deaconess Hospital),
Members Absent: Stuart Leidner (Prospera Business Network), Teresa McKnight, (Montana State University Innovation Campus)
Staff Present: Brit Fontenot (City Director of Economic Development and Community
Relations), Chris Kukulski (City Manager), Aimee Brunckhorst (Deputy City Clerk) Guests / Public Present: Bob Hietala (Dean of Gallatin College), Stephanie Gray (Program
Development Manager of Gallatin College), Jason Bacaj (Bozeman Daily Chronicle), Chris
Mehl, City Commissioner, Earl Matthers (County Administrator)
NOTE: These minutes are not word for word and should be considered in addition to the audio recording of the meeting.
A. Call to Order
Chairperson Daryl Schliem called the meeting to order at 10:31 a.m.
B. Public Comment
Mr. Schliem opened public comment.
Seeing no public comment, he closed public comment.
C. Minutes – April 4, 2013
Motion and Vote to approve the minutes of April 4, 2013 as revised. It was moved by Anders Lewendal, seconded by Erik Garberg to approve the minutes of
April 4, 2013.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
2 of 8
Motion passed unanimously.
D. Action Items
1. FY 2014 Economic Development Budget Priorities (Schliem)
Brit Fontenot began the presentation on this item providing background information. The goal is
to go through the draft memorandum (see attachment) provided by Cheryl Ridgely for the May
13th budget discussion with the Commission.
Brit Fontenot clarified item 2 on the memorandum regarding the sector development item and said it is not a proposal just an illustration of what the budget for sector development might look like.
Cheryl Ridgely spoke regarding her intentions in how she put together the draft memorandum
explaining she felt the priority level listed reflected what she had been hearing the Council
express as well as the original goals in the economic development plan. She meant this document
as a starting point for conversation today.
Brit Fontenot explained his reasoning behind his #1 priority of an additional full time employee.
In order to accomplish the Commission and Council goals well, this additional employee is needed.
Daryl Schliem said he feels the priorities should be placed in the order the Council feels should
be at the top. He would prioritize the Full time employee and Gallatin College funding as top
priorities.
Erik Garberg thanked members and staff for the effort put into this draft memorandum. He
would also place Gallatin College high on the priority list.
Brit Fontenot spoke regarding the marketing collaborative initiative. He also mentioned that the
North Park funding request has been reduced as the project is at a cross roads and does not have a need for a further budget unless the city decides to develop the property themselves.
Tracy Menuez said she would prioritize an economic development specialist as #1 with Gallatin College right behind.
Brit Fontenot said that on the incentive item 4 was significantly reduced from the first budget proposal recognizing a starting point of creating a fund that would build upon itself over time
that would result in meaningful incentives that we could offer.
Daryl Schliem spoke regarding funding the marketing collaborative and said a meeting was held.
There was strong support for one unified marketing campaign. Mr. Schliem said he feels we are
on the right track to create mechanisms to put the funding in place.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
3 of 8
Erik Garberg spoke regarding the importance of a nexus between incentives and returns. He
would hope incentives are not always viewed as a drain.
Chris Kukulski asked whether the council would like to move priority 6 to 1 and move all the
remainder down one position.
Brit Fontenot spoke regarding the fact that full capacity of the city’s economic development
program has been reached without another employee.
Mr. Kukulski said the proposed budget has Gallatin College funding proposed as a mill and a
half acknowledging an increase in taxes to cover it.
Brit Fontenot provided an update on the North Park Project responding to a question from Tracy
Menuez about the impacts of moving North Park to the bottom of the priority list. He explained that after the preliminary engineering report has been completed the project is at a cross roads. After completion, we have a large body of work available on the project. Mr. Fontenot will be
asking the City Commission to allow him to draft and release a request for qualifications for a
real estate broker to sell the city owned portion of the property. The potential buyer could use the
body of work that the city has prepared and encourage them to carry out the plan as we have outlined. The market is on the upswing and there is interest. The city role can be facilitating
partnerships and continue to work with the potential buyer to carry out the city vision for the
property.
Anders Lewendal asked the Council to consider giving these recommendations without
prioritizing with bullet points listed. All of these items are very important.
Cheryl Ridgely said that the high importance of all the items is definitely the challenge, but the
Commission has asked for priorities based on the fact that some of the funding could be cut.
Chris Kukulski said ranking the items is most helpful. When you do not provide ranking, ranking
will be provided for you.
Deputy Mayor Jeff Krauss said he feels the Council should provide the ranking.
Cheryl Ridgely summarized the discussion saying those present seemed to be in consensus about
moving Gallatin College from 6 to 1 or 2 on the ranking.
Brit Fontenot spoke regarding having the North park Project a higher priority than incentives so
he can complete the project.
Jeff Krauss said Mr. Lewendal’s point is well taken regarding some of the categories being high priorities but not needing dedicated specific funding such as ‘business friendly’. You can also say we support the Commission’s goal of business friendly.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
4 of 8
Cheryl Ridgely spoke regarding growing and diversifying and also be responsive when outsiders
come to relocate and all of those fall into the category of being business friendly as an overall
theme.
Cheryl Ridgely said she was hearing the council say they would like an economic development
specialist placed as the first priority with Gallatin College the second, three would be sector development, four is marketing, five is North Park and six would be incentives.
It was moved by Cheryl Ridgely, seconded by Anders Lewendal that this Council given the overarching strategies identified here with the focus of continuing efforts to be a business friendly city and the priority ranking for budget purposes would be economic development
specialist # one, Gallatin College #2, sector development #3, four would be marketing
collaborative, #5 would be North Park and six would be incentives.
Daryl Schliem said that the wish of the economic development council is that all of these items
are priorities and would urge the Commission to keep the budget proposal intact as is.
The motion passed unanimously.
E. FYI/Discussion
1. FYI/Discussion
1. Marketing sub-committee report (Ridgley)
Cheryl Ridgely spoke regarding a recent meeting that was held saying the following people were
in attendance: Daryl Schliem with the Bozeman Chamber, Brit Fontenot with the city of
Bozeman, Robin Hoover from Yellowstone Country, representatives from the Downtown Business Partnership and Flying Horse Communication. Several people from the Tourism
Business Improvement District were invited but were not available that day and the Convention
and Visitors Center Board. Flying Horse Communications had been working with five of the
organizations in attendance separately.
Ms. Ridgley explained that creating a collaborative marketing impact pooling available resources
was the focus of the meeting. They looked at the Big Sky Initiative that is a pooling of twelve
businesses as an example. They looked at shared marketing targets. There was 100% consensus
that everyone was on board regarding working together. Collaborative synergy ideas included
looking at how resources and funds be shared. One of the top priorities identified was to look at marketing gaps and what was the combined ultimate goal. The #1 priority for that group was to
develop a media library such as a drop box. A big marketing gap seems to be the availability of
creative videos and photography for marketing other than high cost licensed photography. This
might include setting up webcams, shared image lists and funding photo shoots and video
development. The #2 priority identified is to develop a budget strategy and plan and marketing initiative. A lot of the other organizations have funds and there may be other funds available
from resources such as the state. The question will be how can we leverage those funds.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
5 of 8
They spoke regarding emulating the economic development team model that City Manager
Kukulski has put into place to expedite the processes businesses go through to set up in the city.
Ms. Ridgely spoke to the need of an Economic Development Team made up of successful
business leaders within the community and Council members that can be called upon when Mr. Fontenot gets a phone call from a business or corporation wanting to set up in Bozeman. Ms. Ridgely asked for input from the Council regarding whether the sub-committee seemed to be on
the right track. If so, the next steps would include circulating an email to receive input as to
who has what resources as well as offer the pictures and videos they have available so an
assessment can be done to see what we have collectively to work with. They have also asked Flying Horse Communication to provide an estimated budget to develop a marketing strategy with the understanding they are already working with these agencies anyway that are part of the
funding.
Daryl Schliem pointed out that all of the marketing companies in town had a chance to bid on the various companies that are using Flying Horse Communications. Flying Horse was the lowest bidder so had won the bids fairly and was not selected randomly. Since they were working with
so many of those interested in the collaborative, they facilitated the meeting. Mr. Schliem said
the Council’s proposed budget of $15,000 would be highly leveraged to a substantial $200,000 to
$250,000 budget down the line.
Brit Fontenot said this collaborative effort is refreshing and there is a lot of potential here and
emphasized that leveraging partnerships and resources has been a major goal of the Council and
City Commission. 2. Incentives sub-committee report (Garberg)
Erik Garberg spoke regarding the Commission valuing the priorities, however while this may be
low on the priority it is still important. The fundamental piece of an incentive package is to ensure a return. Mr. Garberg said that Teresa McKnight has offered to host a webinar on incentives, though he is unsure what was meant by that. He feels the beginning point is to figure
out what we want to incentivize and what we want in return and how to measure that.
Cheryl Ridgely said it became evident that setting up an incentive program will require a lot of
work and time. While it may be at the bottom of the funding priorities, it is still important to
keep developing the framework for an incentive program and the initial funding is important to
have something to build upon.
Tracy Menuez agreed saying incentives is a long term project and will need thoughtful effort.
Daryl Schliem spoke regarding the huge importance of incentives and he personally would have
placed incentives as a number one budget priority. He said incentives do work and used the
additional airline flights that were incentivized as an example. Incentives should be a team effort
with the County, other businesses, etc.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
6 of 8
Erik Garberg spoke regarding the complexity of this and the importance of a matrix to determine
what the returns will be.
Jeff Krauss spoke regarding looking at disincentives that may be keeping vital things from
happening. He would look into issues that may be holding things back, such as university
expansion, cluster development, etc.
Cheryl Ridgely said she would agree with Deputy Mayor Krauss and referred to the Council
continually looking at the barriers and not losing sight of those. She also spoke regarding the role
of private industry stepping up to fund some of those incentives. Additionally, we are talking
about public funds to provide incentives. She would like to see structure and guidelines to
provide calculated risks. When the private industry steps up, the funds could be leveraged
collaboratively with funds the city has set aside for incentives.
Erik Garberg said from what he sees with his engineering background, a major disincentive is
impact fees. While they need infrastructure, that big check up front is a major disincentive.
Jeff Krauss said disincentives definitely include impact fees, as well as the expense of dedicating
parkland. We have a new Parks, Open Space and Trails Bond and wonders whether we still need
the parkland dedication.
Daryl Schliem spoke regarding the misnomer that economic incentives cost cities and counties
up front and are just a hand out. Incentives are provided after the return has happened. Incentives
are not just about giving away money to companies that want to locate here. These companies
make substantial investments in our community. He also spoke about expediting building
permits and other similar hurdles as a huge money saver for companies.
Cheryl Ridgely said that within the policy discussion the Council discussed the incentives that
are already in place that people are not aware of. There are things we can work on that does not
cost anything up front other than time which would be one of the advantages of having another
economic development specialist funded.
Anders Lewendal also spoke in support of looking at disincentives and the possibility of adding
language to the budget proposal reflecting that.
Jeff Krauss said that time for approval of a building permit is worth looking into. He mentioned
an article about Billings’ average time for approval being 11.7 days. Part of the marketing
strategy should be determining what that is for Bozeman.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
7 of 8
Tracy Menuez mentioned the importance of looking at disincentives and incentives in a holistic
way. For example, when a developer will be improving an intersection the city offering an
incentive in return. There are other disincentives such as the lack of affordable housing.
3. North Park RFP subcommittee report (Schliem)
Brit Fontenot summarized North Park in the meeting previously. We are at a cross roads with
this project, with as much work and partnership with the Department of Natural Resources as can
be accomplished at this time. We are at a position to have the Commission direct staff to either
develop or sell. We have created a concept land use plan, marketing brochure, environmental
assessment phase 1, the PER will be accomplished in the next 90 days, we have held developer
meeting, researched what a management structure could be using Great Falls as a model, there
are signs on site marketing the property, and have shown the value. A year ago it was seen as the
Mandeville wheat field; today it is the North Park Concept with a vision, potential, marketability,
and viability. Now we need to determine what the private sector can do to pull off the vision. We
have also put together an economic impact analysis and an income study on what types of jobs
could be created and the impact on the community.
Erik Garberg spoke regarding looking at that data and tying it into incentives.
Daryl Schliem spoke regarding these documents as a huge incentive and a great benefit. Right
now, they are discussing at the Chamber level whether they should raise the money for site
selection and get utilities and infrastructure in place.
Brit Fontenot summarized that in January when the Commission adopted the concept land use
plan there were 12 short term goals that were 3 to 6 months duration. All but two have been
completed. They have not re-platted the property since they do not know what the use will be
and restructuring the Tax Increment Finance District because we need to extend the life of the
TIF.
Daryl Schliem spoke regarding the new state legislation that will affect the TIF’s.
The Council spoke in further detail about the legislation regarding TIF’s and how it would affect
this TIF.
Anders Lewendal spoke regarding the worthy job that Brit Fontenot and the city has done to
encourage businesses to come to North Park. He would caution the city from moving too far
forward and turning efforts towards speculation.
Jeff Krauss spoke regarding the TIF benefitting the schools in the long run and that the schools
are not seeing much taxable value of the land as agriculture anyway.
Chris Kukulski said the base year of the TIF should be the year before all the improvements are
made. If you recreate the TIF prior to that you may lose some of those years.
Minutes of the Economic Development Council for May 2, 2013
8 of 8
4. Broadband Steering Committee
Brit Fontenot spoke regarding the critical importance of broadband infrastructure and that it
should be treated similar to the importance of water and sewer pipes if we truly want to support
high tech industry. The chief information officer of Montana State University and Stuart Leidner
are part of the Committee as well as other experienced team members that in some cases have
actually built the internet, showing the power of our community and caliber of professionals here
that are willing to volunteer to put time into this Committee effort. They are looking for
commission support of this committee on the 6th.
Daryl Schliem asked how the Broadband companies are working together and with the
committee.
Brit Fontenot spoke regarding speaking with the service providers who say that things are just
fine and there is plenty of capacity and plenty of fiber and will sell it to you. The concern is for
the small business owner who cannot afford the high cost of putting in fiber optic networks. The
next steps are to meet with the Public Service Commission and gathering local business
intelligence to learn the hurdles small businesses may be facing.
Cheryl Ridgely asked for clarification regarding the proposal from the Northern Rocky Mountain
Economic Development District to establish the industry sector groups on page 2. 7a- what board
are they referring to?
Mr. Fontenot explained that the board mentioned would represent the sector/industry. For
example, something similar to what the BioScience Alliance has. This would help facilitate a
structure that would have a life beyond the cities facilitation role.
F. Adjournment
Daryl Schliem adjourned the meeting at 12:02 p.m.
* NOTE – Full audio of this EDC meeting is available at www.bozeman.net.
____________________________________
Daryl Schliem, Chairperson PREPARED BY:
____________________________________
Aimee Brunckhorst, Deputy City Clerk
Approved on:
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Economic Development Council (EDC)
Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Economic Development Priorities & Funding Requests as submitted in the
Economic Development FY14 Budget Request
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (as part of the FY14 Budget Presentations)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the recommendations from the Economic Development
Council and the Director of Economic Development on priorities for the City of Bozeman for
funded economic development initiatives as proposed in the FY14 budget request.
(ATTACHMENT 1)
BACKGROUND:
On May 2, 2013 the EDC voted to support the priorities identified and ranked in this memo. The
EDC notes that each item on the list is a high economic development priority and warrants
funding. However, the EDC recognizes that the City Commission must consider many other
competing community priorities in the budget approval process.
Each item addressed below has the opportunity, on its own, to increase the impact of the City’s
economic development program and further the Commissions priorities of job creation and
industry diversification. However, the EDC recognizes that funding for all recommended
increases in programming and activities may not be practical. The Commission is urged to
consider the following prioritization for those areas which the EDC believe will have the
opportunity for the most direct positive impacts to the local economy and on local businesses and
the highest potential return on the investment of the City’s limited economic development
resources.
Overarching Strategies:
1. As clarified in Goal #1 of the City of Bozeman’s 2009 Economic Development Plan
(EDP): Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and economic
2
[sectors] that will continue to strengthen and diversify the economy and create higher
paying jobs in Bozeman;
2. Compete effectively when corporate owners, executives, and site selectors have targeted
Bozeman as a potential location for their business base or expansion site; and
3. Overall commitment to supporting Bozeman businesses, i.e. business friendliness.
Measures of Success:
1. Percent increase & actual job growth measured annually;
2. Salary data on newly created and total overall jobs; and
3. Percent increase & actual employee data for all businesses and targeted industry sectors.
Priorities are presented in their respective rank order:
I. Economic Development Specialist – 1.0 FTE
Rationale:
1. Actively supports Goal # 5 of the City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan:
Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership between the
business community and the City of Bozeman and effectively manage the City of
Bozeman’s regulatory environment to accomplish goals without hindering
business expansion and economic growth;
2. While the City has made tremendous strides in improving its reputation toward
becoming “business friendly”, the efforts need to be continual and broadened to
meet the scope and demand that is required to continue to remove barriers and
improve efficiencies. The primary catalyst for making this happen is dedicated
resources to build effective business relationships and to maintain consistency and
continuity when executing the economic development plan and initiatives; and
3. Timeliness requires resources. We have seen significant improvement in time to
market with new projects introduced to the City; and anecdotal comments are
favorable regarding interactions with the City Manager’s Economic Development
Team (EDT). The EDC believes that adding additional capacity by 1.0 FTE will
render positive results beyond the cost of investment.
Approximate Annual Expenditure: $70,000
II. Provide Continued Funding Support to Gallatin College (ATTACHMENT 2)
Rationale:
1. Supports Goal # 3 of the City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan – to
support education and workforce development initiatives to provide Bozeman
with the qualified workers to meet the needs of business; and
2. Allocation of resources will help encourage Gallatin College to develop and
maintain continuing education and certification programs for high-demand jobs.
3
Approximate Expenditure: $125,000
III. Sector Development (ATTACHMENT 3)
Rationale:
1. Support and enhance economic growth of industry sectors that are experiencing or
generating local and expansion opportunities, i.e. photonics/optics and the outdoor
industry, and leverage the synergistic relationships for collaborative benefit;
2. Supports Goal # 1 of the City’s Economic Development Plan, and specifically
addresses the need to support and promote entrepreneurial efforts linked to
emerging markets, high technology, and research and development; and
3. Supports enhanced relationships with MSU and the collective impact of shared
mission and initiatives.
Approximate Annual Expenditure: $15,000
IV. Create EDC Marketing Collaborative
Rationale:
1. Realize a ‘collective impact’ through leveraged marketing initiatives of local and
regionally sponsored campaigns that share the same target markets of businesses
seeking to come to Bozeman and the surrounding region;
2. Develop a collaborative marketing strategy and branding effort, sharing resources
for leveraged media buys, creative development cost efficiencies, and greater
overall exposure and impact; and
3. Allocate resources to address the marketing content gaps that currently exist,
primarily a shared media library for images, videos, creative content, that can be
shared among collaborative partners including the City, Yellowstone Country,
TBID, Chamber, CVB, Downtown Bozeman Partnership, etc. along with the
development of a plan for joint marketing, communications, and brand strategy.
Approximate Annual Expenditure: $25,000
V. Allocate Resources for North Park Project
Rationale:
1. Supports Goal # 2 of the City’s economic development plan – to maintain and
upgrade infrastructure to support the current and future needs of business; and
2. Allocation of resources will help fill the gap or provide choice for manufacturing
or industrial businesses that identify specific location needs conducive to the
North Park model. Additionally, if completed, the North Park project
complements the MSU Innovation Campus efforts by providing additional
4
alternatives for companies that may not meet the criteria for the Innovation
Campus, but should be enticed to locate or expand in Bozeman; and
3. Completion of the North Park preliminary engineering report (PER) accomplishes
the work necessary to position the City-owned portion of the North Park property
for sale or development.
Approximate Expenditure: $20,000
VI. Establish an Economic Development Incentive Fund
April 15, 2013 City Commission Policy Meeting, RE: Economic Development
Incentives (video link)
Rationale:
1. Generates a level of commitment to economic development by dedicating
resources specifically for economic development purposes;
2. While the EDC recognizes the importance of establishing an economic
development incentive program, general consensus is that there are numerous
federal, state, and local programs already in existence that can provide incentive
opportunities for businesses. The EDC recommends that a good starting point for
Bozeman would be to allocate a finite amount to be set aside on an annual basis to
develop a fund that can build into a more fully defined and robust incentive
program with specific parameters and performance indicators; and
3. In support of Goal # 4 of the City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan – to
leverage local, state, and federal economic development resources to enhance
economic growth in Bozeman – the EDC recommends that education about the
existing programs would be most beneficial at this time, and that through funding
the additional FTE position as noted in Priority I. above, this would help
Bozeman expand those educational opportunities to help businesses take full
advantage of the incentives that already exist.
Approximate Annual Expenditure: $25,000
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Unresolved issues include the Commissions desire to increase
economic development resources, programs and activities. If the Commission is desirous of
increasing economic development resources, programs and activities: To what level and
what are the desired sources of funding to support proposed increases?
ALTERNATIVES: As directed by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of increased funding to support increased economic
development resources, programs and activities on the City’s budget are undetermined at this
time. Should the Commission allocate additional financial resources to fund proposed increases
to economic development resources, programs and activities, this increase will likely have
effects on either the General Fund or local tax rates.
5
Report compiled on: May 2, 2013
Attachments:
1. FY 14 Budget Proposal;
2. FY 14 Gallatin College funding request; and
3. NRMEDD sector development proposal (photonics/optics and the outdoor industry).
I.FY 14 Proposed Budget for Economic
Development Operations; and
II.FY 14 Proposed Budget for Expansion
of Economic Development
Resources, Programs and Activities
Economic Development
FY 2014 Proposed Budget
Economic Development
FY 14 Proposed Budget for Economic
Development Operations
FY 13 Operational
Budget
$48,135 Operations
$125,000 (approximate
value of one and one half
mills) – Gallatin College
FY 14 Proposed
Operational Budget
$52,000 Operations
($3,865 increase from
FY 13)
$125,000 – Gallatin
College (will the
Commission approve
additional funding in
FY14? Where will it
come from? GF or
Millage Increase?)
In FY13 we….
Continued implementation of the adopted ED plan;
Conducted some community outreach;
Hosted an ED Summit;
Assisted with implementation of “business friendly processes”;
Completed the North Park concept land use plan;
Supported cluster development;
Created the South Bozeman Technology District;
Facilitated the development of a downtown hotel;
Assisted with the restructuring of the Community Development Dept.;
Raised the issue of impact fees and economic development;
Explored an EDIFM Program;
Lead the EDT;
Served as EDC liaison; and
Assisted with hiring a Community Development Director and implementation of the
structural changes proposed for the Community Development Dept;
In FY 14 we want to …..
Expand and increase ED outreach, activities and programs;
Continue to improve town/gown relationships, especially with the business college;
Actively participate in the BEAR program;
Expand and improve outreach to local, state and national business communities;
Attend and collaborate with local businesses on industry specific trade shows and events to promote Bozeman as a
place to do business, i.e. OIA Show;
Take advantage of professional development opportunities;
Participate in local industry conferences, i.e. Optec;
Assume responsibility of proactively managing at least two of the City’s TIF districts (Industrial and Technology);
Explore creation of a development authority/entity;
Facilitate development at the MSU Innovation Campus;
Facilitate the sale or development of the city-owned North Park proprty;
Facilitate development of a downtown hotel;
Foreign Trade Zone;
North Park TIF;
Improve broadband connectivity (broadband steering committee);
Improve and expand cluster development, especially optics and the outdoor industry;
Hire an ED specialist to assist with implementation the ED plan;
Work more deliberately with the EDC; and
Explore the implementation of an ED incentive program.
FY 13 Costs - Where did the $48,135
go?
BUDGETED AND SPENT
$17,200 North Park Concept Land Use Plan and components (EA Ph 1,
Signage, Economic Impact Analysis, LMI Report, etc);
$1, 000 on Montana Site Selector fees and promotional materials and
GBRN promotional materials;
$1,000 on office furniture;
$700 on iPad and accessories; and
$500 on travel/training and misc. operational expenses.
BUDGETED AND UNSPENT
$15,000 identified for intern, outreach and events;
$8,200 travel and training; and
$4,500 contracted services.
Economic Development
FY 14 Proposed Budget for Economic
Development Operations
Increases in the 2014 Economic Development operating budget are due
to a stated desire by the City Commission to increase resources,
activities and programs.
A $3,865 increase in the FY 14 operational budget accounts for slight
improvement and expansion of ongoing projects, i.e. Montana Site
Selector, Gallatin Business Resource Network, as well as increased
presence at industry specific trade shows, i.e. OIA and OpticsWest,
increased participation in local industry shows and conferences, and
increased education and outreach and hosting and/or sponsoring more
ED events. Additionally, the proposed increases include general
resources and professional training and development for staff working in
the area of Economic Development.
These proposed increases assume a new FTE to administer and expand
existing projects and programs and take advantage of increased training
opportunities.
Economic Development
FY 14 Proposed Budget for Expansion
of Economic Development Resources,
Programs and Activities
The proposed expansion of the 2014 Economic Development resources, activities and programs are
is in response to a stated desire by the City Commission to increase overall economic development
activities at the City of Bozeman. Expansion or increase in activities is predicated on approval for
adding an FTE to the ED Department.
There are five areas of proposed expansion:
Additional FTE (Economic Development Specialist) for a cost of approximately $70,000;
An additional $15,000 to expand sector development activities (esp. in photonics/optics and
the outdoor industry but also includes bioscience, manufacturing, high-tech and healthcare;
An Additional $25,000 to participate in a marketing collaborative to leverage partnerships
for the development of a collaborative marketing strategy and branding effort;
An additional $25,000 to create an ED incentive fund;
An additional $20,000 to continue or complete the North Park project; and
FY 14 Funding for Gallatin College at $125,000 (allocated in FY 13).
The costs for the proposed expansions, not including operational costs, totals $280,000.
Economic Development
FY 14 Proposed Budget for Expansion
of Economic Development Resources,
Programs and Activities
Proposed FY14 Budget
Proposed Operational Costs (General Fund): $52,000
Proposed expanded ED resources, activities and programs (GF or raise millage rate?):
FTE (ED Specialist) $70,000
Sector Development $15,000
Marketing Collaborative $25,000
Incentive Fund $25,000
North Park Project $20,000
Gallatin College (?) $125,000
Total FY14 Budget Request $332,000
FY 14 budget proposal less the GF request for operations $280,000
FY 14 budget proposal less the GF request for operations
and Gallatin College Funding $155,000
1 Mill = $ 86,226 or $3.71 per property owner/yr
2 Mills = $172, 452 or $7.42 per property owner/yr
3 Mills = $258,678 or $11.13 per property owner/yr
4 Mills = $344,904 or $14.84 per property owner/yr
Economic Development
FY 14 Proposed Budget for Expansion
of Economic Development Resources,
Programs and Activities
Proposed FY14 Budget w/o funding for Gallatin College
Proposed Operational Costs (GF?): $52,000
Proposed expanded ED resources activities and programs(GF or raise millage rate?):
FTE (ED Specialist) $70,000
Sector Development $15,000
Marketing Collaborative $25,000
Incentive Fund $25,000
North Park Project $20,000
Total FY14 Budget Request w/o GC funding $207,000
FY 14 Budget less the GF request for operations $155,000
1 Mill = $ 86,226 or $3.71 per property owner/yr
2 Mills = $172, 452 or $7.42 per property owner/yr
3 Mills = $258,678 or $11.13 per property owner/yr
4 Mills = $344,904 or $14.84 per property owner/yr
FY 14 Economic Development Budget
Proposed Funding Sources
•Continue to fund ongoing ED operations in the proposed amount of $52,000
from the General Fund;
AND
•For the purposes of increasing economic development resources, programs
and activities, increase the number of mills currently levied by a
commensurate number to fund the desired activities described above.
Currently the City levies 166.75 mills . An increase in the number of mills
levied (anywhere from one to four) for economic development, would result
in the total number of mills remaining below the statutory limit of 196.62
mills.
•The value of one mill is $86,226;
•In 2012, City residents living in the median residential home paid
approximately $3.71 for each mill levied. The same home would
expect the following yearly increase if additional revenue was raised
through mills to fund economic development:
•1 Mill = $ 86,226 or $3.71 per property owner/yr
•2 Mills = $172, 452 or $7.42 per property owner/yr
•3 Mills = $258,678 or $11.13 per property owner/yr
•4 Mills = $344,904 or $14.84 per property owner/yr
City Commission’s Economic
Development Objectives
Facilitate job creation and
encourage economic diversity;
AND
Strive to position Bozeman as the
“Most business friendly community
in the state of Montana”.
Economic development goals from the
2009 Economic Development Plan
Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and economic
clusters that will continue to strengthen and diversify the economy and create
higher paying jobs in Bozeman;
Maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support current and future needs of
business;
Support education and workforce development initiatives to provide Bozeman
with the qualified workers to meet the needs of business;
Leverage local, state and federal economic development resources to enhance
economic growth in Bozeman;
Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership between the
business community and the City of Bozeman and effectively manage the City
of Bozeman’s regulatory environment to accomplish goals without hindering
business expansion and economic growth; and
Maintain the high quality of life that is considered an important asset to the
business community.
Economic Development Council’s
Priorities and Recommendations
Ongoing financial commitment to Economic Development;
Commitment to a business-friendly process with a focus on
retention and expansion of existing local businesses;
Stabilize existing local incubators and create a full service
business incubator program to achieve a healthy business
ecosystem;
Core Services and Infrastructure;
Identification and Establishment of Business Incentives; and
Workforce Development.
Why should we continue to invest in
economic development in the City of
Bozeman?
in·vest - /inˈvest/ To devote one's time, effort, energy and/or money to a
particular undertaking while creating expectations of worthwhile
results.
Local economic development activities build, and rebuild, strong community relationships and create
trusting, long-term community partnerships;
Economic development is intrinsic to long term sustainable development;
A strong economy benefits the entire community;
By investing public dollars in economic development, we invest in the future of our community. We must
develop and share a long term vision, commitment and promise in building a prosperous and diverse local
and regional economy;
Local economic development strategies, while no panacea, are a valid complement to traditional top-down
[Federal] strategies in order to deliver sustainable development and in many cases may deliver greater
economic efficiency by mobilizing local and regional resources that otherwise may have remained
untapped;
Local economic development offers a benefit that is quite valuable to local residents: more and better job
opportunities in their home community;
The cost and quality of life for every household is directly dependent on local economic conditions;
Business investment has many locational alternatives: We must play to our local strengths and leverage
partnerships;
Business activity creates the revenues to fund local services; and
Economic development is everyone's business.
“Serving Gallatin and Park Counties of Southwest Montana”
March 26, 2013
TO: Brit Fontenot, Director, City of Bozeman Economic Development
FM: Rob Gilmore, Executive Director, NRMEDD
Subject: Proposal to Establish Industry Sector Groups
Proposal:
This proposal amends by expanding the terms of the current agreement between the City of Bozeman
and the NRMEDD dated December 12, 2012. It is offered to assist the City in its efforts to establish
industry groups for both the Outdoor and Photonics sectors.
Project Owner: The City of Bozeman is the project Owner for deliverables and for managing compliance
of this agreement and its terms. It is agreed that other economic development organizations that are
acceptable to the City, including but not limited to, Prospera and the Bozeman Chamber (project
Partners) shall be integrated into the work process and solutions.
Industry Definition: The NRMEDD will work with the City and its Partner organizations to establish a
definition for each industry association. The definition will describe the specific types of business that
comprise the industry sector and that shall be targeted for the services outlined in this program.
Project Area: The project area is defined as the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County, however; it is
agreed that invitations will be extended to all known companies within Park County that meet the
industry definition.
Deliverables: The NRMEDD agrees to provide the following in conjunction with the City of Bozeman and
its Partners:
1. Define the industry sector.
2. Identify companies within in each industry sector within Gallatin and Park Counties.
3. Create database of industry including company names, key personnel, addresses, products,
contact data.
4. Develop and conduct an industry-specific survey. The specific questions shall be designed
cooperatively but shall:
“Serving Gallatin and Park Counties of Southwest Montana”
a. Identify business needs and, where possible, deliver solutions to mitigate problems.
b. Identify the willingness of local companies to participate in their respective industry
group.
5. Develop and conduct a survey to identify the industry supply chain. The survey shall be
designed to assist in identifying potential supplier-gaps in the supply chain and to promote
business recruitment activities.
6. Conduct a high-level impact analysis of each industry sector. The report will estimate the
economic impact of each industry within the local market.
7. Assist the City facilitate industry meetings with the Photonics and Outdoor Industries. The
purpose of the meetings shall be to:
a. Encourage elections of representative board members,
b. Encourage cooperation for marketing, supplier contracts, local industry image and
cooperative branding.
Time Schedule: This project and its deliverables are to be completed by an end date of Dec 31, 2013.
Fees: The NRMEDD agrees to the above deliverables for a $13,500. Fees and expenses above this
amount shall be borne by the NRMEDD.
Responsible Parties and Contacts: The NRMEDD contact shall be Rob Gilmore, Executive Director,
NRMEDD.
Termination: This agreement may be terminated on written notice at any time by either party. In the
event the agreement is terminated prior to the end date then a reconciliation shall be made to satisfy
outstanding obligations.
Respectfully submitted,
Rob Gilmore