| 2/6/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| 2/27/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | The Commission received and discussed an informational presentation on the working draft of the City's 3-5 Year Strategic Economic Development Implementation Plan. | |
| Notes: |
| 2/27/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Mr. Tom Ticknor discussed his PowerPoint presentation
Frank Staniszewski, President of Madison Development Corp., commented on slide #44 and the minimal cost listed for development and implementation of a customer service plan. He noted this would require training of staff and could be more specific.
Phyllis Wilhelm, Director of Economic Development for MG&E, stressed the important role that the tourism industry plays within the Madison economy.
Deb Archer, President of Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), spoke of her email to Tom Ticknor asking that the GMCVB be included as a team member with the City of Madison in economic development efforts. Also she would like to the room tax added to the toolkit as an investment in economic development. She also noted Monona Terrace’s efforts in customer service as exemplary.
Mr. Ticknor mentioned university cities are attractive places for retirees with high incomes to live in. The way to reach these retirees is often through their tourism and convention contacts.
Mary Carbine, Executive Director of Madison Central Business Improvement District, spoke about the importance of a comprehensive communications strategy and inquired about its cost.
Carole Schaeffer, Executive Director of Smart Growth Greater Madison, commended the City and the EDC for doing this plan and recommending more public/private partnerships. She is concerned that TIF is not used as a recruiting tool in Madison as it is in other communities. She also pointed out that a cost/benefit analysis could show that TIF assistance is not “developer welfare.”
John Rothschild questioned Mr. Ticknor’s comment that the City of Madison does not consider the fiscal impact of any of its projects. Mr. Ticknor and staff will check this statement for accuracy.
Rick Richards, Progressive Dane, asked if the plan could prioritize basic sector development by offering incentives to companies that bring and keep money in the local economy instead of sending it to corporate headquarters located elsewhere and could the plan look at the major areas the City spends money in and attract these companies here. He also asked Mr. Ticknor how the draft plan addresses Madison competing with other areas in Dane County?
Mr. Ticknor explained that TIF and development approval changes could help attract businesses to the City.
Alder Lauren Cnare questioned if the City was moving up from the minor leagues to the major leagues.
Mr. Ticknor noted that he believed the City was, and that it might be necessary to bring in more people and greater public/private partnership to assist with this movement from the minor to major leagues.
Todd Brei, Voltedge-a marketing and branding firm, said Austin Texas is a good example of what a city could do to promote economic development. He would like the plan to call for more collaboration with other peer cities, and not compete with these cities.
Ralph Kauten wondered why the income for Madison residents is down. Is it because the higher income people are moving out of Madison, or are companies outside of Madison paying higher salaries? He thinks the plan might suggest different approaches depending on the cause of Madison’s decreasing income.
Sue Gleason noted the decrease in State jobs that pay higher wages might account for this. Mr. Ticknor will try to get income data by place of employment rather than place of residence.
Ed Clarke had these comments:
· The plan needs to show metrics, especially on Slide 22.
· The TIF policy change recommendations need to be more specific.
· Greater emphasis on job training, slide 20, needs more explanation.
· The emphasis on culture change in the City is appreciated and perhaps the DPCED could go through the Malcolm Baldridge certification process.
Mr. Clarke also would like the plan to show more trends, and suggested that the first priorities of the plan be focused on what the City can do and control, such as TIF.
Vicky Selkowe called for the plan to include more specifics especially on how do we know when the plan goals are achieved? Also what is the vision that this plan creates? And what do we get for our money even if the goals are not met?
Mr. Ticknor commented that economic development should be viewed as an investment, and not just as an expense.
Sandy Torkildson expressed concern on public/ private efforts and the issue of transparency and privacy. She also wants “blue collar” job creation.
Ralph Kauten spoke about the power of written goals to motivate and focus the City’s efforts and the need for showing the fiscal impact of this plan.
Sue Gleason explained that often, despite the best programs and intentions, outside economic factors can cause job creation and business attractions efforts to fall short of achieving their goals. She suggested the plan call for doing everything it can to create an environment that businesses can grow in. She also mentioned tax base sharing as a way to regionally collaborate, not compete.
Mr. Ticknor explained the plan suggests Madison as a leader and maybe tax base sharing is a longer-range goal.
Ed Clarke suggested trend data could help distinguish macro-economic factors from micro-economic factors and goals.
Richard Slone asked how the plan can foster economic development of all the components that make up Madison.
Mr. Ticknor observed that Madison has a comprehensive plan and many neighborhood plans. The economic development plan was adopted in 1983 and needs to be updated as well.
Vicky Selkowe questioned why the plan calls for strong public/private partnerships when the peer cities do not have any. Also, what about workforce development in the plan?
Mr. Ticknor mentioned that the peer cities do not deal with workforce development because it is too expensive. Technical colleges and other educational institutions usually handle it. The City could act as a convener of appropriate workforce development agencies - including non-profits, neighborhoods and the private sector.
Sue Gleason wants the plan to focus on basic sector job creation because why train workers if there are no job opportunities?
Members of the EDC were encouraged to send any additional comments to Mr. Ticknor via email. Mr. Ticknor will be back in Madison on March 3, 2008 to present another draft of the plan that includes these comments to the Common Council Committee of a Whole. He will also be presenting the draft plan on March 25.
|
| 4/2/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Mr. Matthew Mikolajewski, Manager of the Office of Business Resources, mentioned the three public review sessions held by Mr. Ticknor last week. He noted pages 41-65 of the final draft are complete and in the draft plan the Commissioners now have. Mr. Ticknor changed the first three sections based on last week's (March 25) review session comments. He listed possible actions the EDC could take as:
1. Request Mr. Ticknor to make minor changes and clarify sections.
2. The EDC could make changes themselves,
or
3. The EDC could ask staff to complete further research.
Kevin Little, representing the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce, 615 E. Washington Ave., registered as neither supporting or opposing the plan, asked for the plan to clarify the toolkit section, specifically what is meant by “using the CDA and the CDBG for economic development;" further define what the $3.5 million project facilitation fund would be used for; and to be more specific on the leadership aspect of the various parts of the plan.
Rick Richards, 710 Spruce St., registered as neither supporting or opposing the plan, referred the EDC to his 4-page handout (attached to File 09033 as "RichardsCommentsReEDCPlan") . He likes the input from the sessions and wants the City to adopt the plan. Mr. Richards urges the EDC and staff to work on the overall lack of vision in the plan and to define the economic footprint for Madison in the next five years. He thinks the plan should define the type of jobs and career ladders, look at industries, do a “linkage analysis”, and address transportation.
Carole Schaeffer, representing Smart Growth Greater Madison, registered as supporting the plan, agreed with prior speakers and views this plan as a framework with good opportunities for new directions: it needs to drill down into some more detail. She liked the data about what Madison is doing right and is nervous about the 34% higher income outside of the City of Madison.
Susan Schmitz, President of Downtown Madison Incorporated and representing that organization, spoke in support of the plan and agreed with the prior speakers. She approved the plan as a frame for the EDC to use to prioritize economic development. She liked the customer service and toolkit sections.
Gary Peterson, 210 Marinette Trail, spoke in support of the plan. He suggested placing the plan on every EDC agenda as a way to continuously monitor implementation of the plan. He noted that the plan is lacking in detail, especially in suggesting TIF policy be changed but not giving specific points. He also urged the EDC to review the AAA bond rating the City has. He mentioned it is often used as a reason for not borrowing money to fund projects. He stated it saves the City money on interest payments; however, it discourages business growth.
Alder Brenda Konkel, District 2, registered as neither supporting or opposing the plan, noted that she could nitpick each page of the plan. However she thinks we have learned about some more of the big issues from the plan, and started a conversation on economic development in the City. She called for a joint EDC and Common Council meeting to discuss the plan. Alder Konkel wants the City to have economic development goals that everyone knows and agrees with, and she suggested that the EDC have a resolution for Council, separate from the plan, with the top economic goals for the City listed. Alder Konkel also suggested splitting the draft into two documents, one containing the vision and direction, with the other including the charts and working components for staff.
Alder Mark Clear, District 19, spoke in support of the plan and echoes Alder Konkel’s call for a joint Common Council and EDC meeting. He stated we need the “duh” (basic economic development) plan and we ”crawl before walking” approach. He stated his top three issues for the City are economic development, schools, and transportation.
Chairperson Gleason said the EDC were clear they wanted a specific implementation plan, and not just a visionary plan for economic development. She wants the format and appearance of the document to be changed. She sees the plan as a combination of vision and a work plan for staff.
Mr. Clarke thanked the Alders and Rick Richards for their comments. He thinks the plan is positive and asked for the vision part of economic development. He was glad to see the structures and systems recommendations in the plan. He also supports a meeting of the Common Council and the EDC.
Alder Brandon explained that the CDA has a function as a redevelopment agency, such as when it financed the redevelopment of Block 89 and also as a housing development entity. He is on the TIF Policy Committee and feels they are near the end with economic development at the forefront of their work. He sees the City’s AAA bond rating as more than cost savings.
He thinks the plan needs to be fine-tuned. He said Common Council retreats are in vogue and not well attended. He does not support dividing the plan as it disrespects the process we went through to create it. He would like the EDC to do the fine-tuning and then send it on to the Council.
Mr. Slone liked the strong buy-in from the public and supports a joint meeting with the Common Council for more buy in for the plan.
Ms. Selkowe reviewed the RFQ and thinks the plan lacks benchmarks and objectives called for in the RFQ. She asks how we measure success and wants to flesh the plan out with more specifics. What are the specific goals and objectives and how do we make it happen?
Ms. Torkildson noted that peer cities may spend more dollars for economic development and do not get any better results than Madison. She would like for Madison to be doing at least what our neighbors are doing for economic development. She also noted that national economic trends impact Madison and benchmarks might not be reached because of these external forces.
Mr. Clarke questioned the number of jobs created as shown on page 39 and wants to get rid of the job numbers on this page. Ms. Gleason wants to work with staff on deciding how to measure or show progress because of these national economic impacts.
Mr. Kauten would like the EDC to step up and finish this “good working document”.
Alder Zach Brandon asks for Tom Ticknor to fill in areas he did not cover as called for in the RFQ. He does not want the document split into two parts.
Mr. Slone questioned how the Common Council could accept a “working” document, asking if it is frozen once adopted or accepted?
Alder Brandon said it could be amended after adoption. If the changes are major they would need to be accepted again by Council.
Ms. Torkildson noted that there are some rather big numbers included as part of the plan that will need to be reviewed in greater detail.
Mr. Clarke noted that some of the next steps include having each member of the EDC forward their comments to staff, add language about what the plan is laying out, and reaching out to the Council and others.
Ms. Selkowe would like the EDC to do the edits and accept what Mr. Ticknor has done.
Alder Michael Schumacher, District 18, said once the Council has accepted the plan the staff makes it come alive and would come to the Council for money to implement it. |
| 4/2/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | The Draft plan was presented and discussed. A subcommittee was formed to edit the plan, and discussion will continue at the next Commission meeting. | |
| Notes: |
| 5/7/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| 6/4/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes:
Ms. Gleason mentioned a positive article in the June 2008 issue of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce newsletter about the economic development plan.
Mr. Mikolajewski gave a brief recap of additional work requested of Mr. Ticknor by the ED Plan Subcommittee to complete the plan. He mentioned several conference calls were held with Mr. Ticknor, Ms. Gleason, Ms. Yessa, and him. As a follow-up to the calls, Mr. Ticknor provided:
1. The vignettes which summarize his interviews and the examples he mentioned in various presentations.
2. Additional detail and more rationale in the recommendations section. A key change in the recommendations was deleting recommendation Number 1 and working it into the other recommendations.
Mr. Mikolajewski explained that staff is redrafting and reformatting the PowerPoint document to be more reader friendly by rearranging the text, but not adding new text. Charts will be put in the appendices and not in the text to make the plan more readable.
Mr. Slone asked Ms. Gleason if the workforce training and level of poverty issues were discussed with Mr. Ticknor. Ms Gleason said middle-skill job opportunities and the school issue are mentioned in the vignettes. She said the EDC Workforce Development Subcommittee could take up these issues.
Ms Selkowe asked how the vignettes would be used in the final plan. Mr. Mikolajewski said these would be placed in the sidebars of the plan.
Ms. Gleason asked Mr. Mikolajewski if he is comfortable with the additional work Mr. Ticknor provided. Mr. Mikolajewski confirmed he is comfortable with what Mr. Ticknor provided.
Ms. Selkowe said the extra language from Mr. Ticknor is good and fleshes out the recommendations. She also appreciates the work staff has done on the plan.
Mr. Clarke questioned if the language in section 4. Toolkit, Rationale (on page 12) about TIF was detailed enough. Mr. Mikolajewski explained that Mr. Ticknor realized the TIF Policy Group is still working and there is concern about Mr. Ticknor diving into this group’s work. Ms. Torkildson would like the “instead of housing and retail projects” phrase removed. Mr. Clarke noted this language might exclude mixed-use developments from receiving TIF and there is a need to rehab workforce housing. Ms. Gleason is in favor of keeping the language in, as this is the economic development plan and not the TIF policy, however she is OK with its removal if the rest of the EDC concurs on its removal. Mr. Nelson said the tone is still set without this phrase and the details would be set by the TIF Policy reviewers.
Ms. Selkowe asked to combine the two bullets under Recommendation 5-3 into one bullet. Mr. Clarke also noted the text under the implementation steps does not always match the text in the corresponding chart. Mr. Mikolajewski noted that the language in the charts summarized the text language. He explained the two sample page layouts; one with charts and one with the chart information integrated into the text. He asked the EDC for their preference of layouts to use in the final plan. Ms. Selkowe suggested keeping the chart in the appendix for those readers who want to do a quick scan of it. Alder Konkel liked the idea of the charts in the appendix also. Ms. Gleason asked staff to make sure the language in the text matched the chart language and to imbed the chart in the text and have the charts in the appendices.
Ms. Gleason noted the letter from the Northside Planning Council did not suggest changes to the plan, rather how they want to go forward. She would like to invite the NSPC to the next EDC meeting to further discuss their letter. |
| 6/4/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Miscellaneous was Discuss and continue | |
| Notes: |
| 7/2/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | | |
| Notes: Delora Newton, of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce, thanked the EDC, Alders, and Mayor’s Office for their work and support of the plan. She also liked the redesign of the plan. The Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce supports the plan. The Chamber supports the EDC as they set priorities and budgets to implement the plan.
Mr. Mikolajewski gave an overview of changes to the draft by Tom Ticknor. He explained many of the changes are format changes. No new recommendations have been added. Mr. Ticknor does propose the addition of an executive summary.
Mr. Clarke has no problem with adding an executive summary as long as it mirrors what is elsewhere in the document.
Mr. Mikolajewski noted on page 3 of the handout the list of specific changes such as putting the first sentence of each recommendation in a bold typeface. Item # 2 is Mr. Ticknor’s desire to remove the dates and priorities from the text of each recommendation. Mr. Mikolajewski asked if the EDC wanted to change this and they did not want to change it. He further explained the change in wording of recommendation 5-4 and 5-5(a) to clarify and explain these recommendations with more specificity.
Mr. Mikolajewski pointed out item # 17 as a clarification of the cost of a yearly update on the progress of the current plan and the cost of a new plan in the future.
Item # 24 calls for moving the recommendation charts from the Appendices to directly follow each recommendation. The EDC liked this proposed change.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to accept the plan including these changes, and forward the plan with these changes to the Common Council with a recommendation for acceptance. Mr. Slone seconded the motion.
Alder Brandon would like to incorporate these changes as discussed and send the plan to Council.
Mr. Clarke is comfortable with the noted changes to the draft plan.
Ms. Gleason asked if the EDC is willing to accept staff making the changes or does the EDC want to see the final document before sending it to Council?
Mr. Nelson is comfortable with staff making the changes and supports moving forward with submission.
Ms. Selkowe sees no problem with doing this and understands hesitancy to accept changes this way.
Mr. Slone asked if the final document could be sent via email to the EDC?
Alder Brandon noted that errata changes could be submitted on the Council floor.
Ms. Gleason questioned if everyone is comfortable with the Executive Summary? She noted that the summary reflects what is written elsewhere in the document. She asked that the numbers under the numbered headers be changed to letters to appear in outline style.
Ms. Torkildson was concerned that having an executive summary would allow people not to read the entire document and fears the details would be lost. Could it be at the end?
Ms. Gleason said an executive summary is a snapshot of the document.
Alder Brandon mentioned the reality is people may not read the document anyway. He wonders if there are any flashpoints in the executive summary that would trigger unexpected responses from readers.
Mr. Nelson stated it is helpful to have an executive summary.
Alder Brandon questioned the EDC if they would be comfortable submitting the executive summary as a separate document?
Mr. Clarke asked if a sub-group could be empowered to do this?
Alder Schumacher noted another option is for the EDC to meet again, sooner.
Mr. Clarke questioned why we are rushing?
Ms. Gleason stated having the executive summary as a separate document is a new idea.
Mr. Clarke thinks the executive summary is needed in the plan document, so the EDC needs to be OK with it now or wait until the August meeting.
Mr. Boucher said in his experiences a perfect document does not exist. We don’t know what everyone thinks and a summary is needed.
Ms. Torkildson asked if the executive summary is a cut and paste from the rest of the document.
Ms. Selkowe sees wording the same from the rest of the document as she looked through the plan.
Mr. Mikolajewski questioned the EDC if they wished to keep the 15,000 jobs metric in the plan.
Mr. Nelson suggested target numbers of jobs pulled out of the document.
Ms. Gleason noted the two sentences after the Plan Benefit/Cost header might draw unintentional attention to the dollar amounts.
Mr. Clarke reminded the EDC that this is Mr. Ticknor’s executive summary and plan.
Ms. Gleason asked for a motion to recommend to the Common Council to accept the report with the changes from Mr. Ticknor and those discussed by the EDC.
Alder Brandon noted he could do changes from the Council floor.
Mr. Nelson asked if we could take out the job numbers and still have Mr. Ticknor sign-off on the plan.
Mr. Clarke recalled that Mr. Ticknor put those in the plan at the EDC’s request.
Ms. Selkowe noted the report was lacking in outcomes but the numbers seemed to not be based on anything.
Mr. Slone questioned if Mr. Ticknor would take the numbers out?
Alder Brandon said to ask Mr. Ticknor to take them out but leave in if Mr. Ticknor preferred them in.
Also he asked the numbers be taken out of the executive summary, the text and the charts.
There appeared to be concurrence on the part of the ED that the number of jobs be removed from the document.
Mr. Clarke asked what is next for the EDC?
Alder Brandon suggested the EDC work on how to plug into the plan. He would like the EDC to have public hearings to make sure the EDC engages people. He would like the final plan emailed to all the people interviewed, and those who sent in comments as well as the plan’s sponsors.
Mr. Clarke suggested another step is to gather additional items for consideration: those items just above the low hanging fruit. He has already picked up 26 items from the input we received.
Alder Brandon also asked the EDC to be present when the Common Council votes on the ED plan.
Mr. Clarke asked if a delegation from the EDC should have a conversation with the Mayor about the ED plan?
Alder Brandon said they should ask the Mayor his priorities.
Ms. Selkowe said the EDC needs to set their priorities first.
Mr. Clarke asked staff to create a timeline of the recommendations for the next meeting.
|
| 7/2/2008 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | This Miscellaneous was Discuss and Finalize | |
| Notes: |