HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-07 Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Development Corporation Board of Directors
----
MINUTES 01<' THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE LA PORTE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June 11,2007
1. Call to Order
President Pat Muston called the meeting to order at 5:00 p. m.
Members Present: 4B Development Board - Bill Love, Chuck Engelken, Mike Clausen
Tommy Moser, Trent Wise, Ed Matuszak and Pat Muston.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Interim City Manager John Joerns, Mayor Porter, City Secretary Martha
Gillett, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins, Economic Development Coordinator Gretchlb
Black.
Others Present: None
2. Motion was made bv Board Member Engelken to approve the Minutes of the Special Called
Meeting of the La Porte Development Corporation Board of Directors on May 7. 2007.
Second by Board Member Love. Motion carried unanimously.
Ayes: Bill Love, Mike Clausen, Trent Wise, Ed Matuszak, Pat Muston, Chuck Engelken and
Tommy Moser.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Items 5 and 6 were taken out of order prior to Executive Session.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS
LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076,551-087, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
(CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL
PROPERTY, DELIBERATION REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION,
PERSONNEL MATTERS, DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES, OR
EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER
WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATION, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS)
A. SECTION 551.071- (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
MEET WITH CITY MANAGER AND CITY
ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS PROJECT
AUSTIN POWERS
B. SECTION 551-072 - (PROPERTY SALE, LEASE OR EXCHANGE)
MEET WITH CITY MANAGER AND
CITY ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS PROJECT
MUSTANG
The 4b Development Corporation retired to Executive Session at 5:07 p.m. and returned to the table
with no action taken at 5 :41 p.m.
Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Development Corporation - 6/11/2007
4. Considerations and Possible Action on items considered in Executive Session
There was no action taken on Executive Session Items.
5. Administrative Reports.
Interim City Manager John Joerns provided administrative reports as follows:
La Porte Economic Development Corporation Portion of Series 2007 Certificates of
Obligation.
6. Board Comments
There were no board comments.
7. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was duly adjourned at 5 :41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Passed and approved on this
,2007.
A_
2
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
All LPEDC Board Members
From:
Gretchen Black, EDC
\
John Joems, ICM~
August 21, 2007
Through:
Date:
Subject:
FY 2008 Proposed Budget
Attached is the proposed FY 2008 Budget for your consideration. The estimated LPEDC
fund balance at the end of this fiscal year is projected to be $4.2M.
The proposed FY 2008 Budget is balanced with expenditures of $134,317 for
operations and $837,248 for debt service for a total of $971,565. Revenues are
estimated at $1.8M.
Items of note for 2008 budget:
$15,000 has been budgeted for the development of the ED website.
$10,000 for the initial payment for Project Austin Powers.
The estimated fund balance at the end of 2008 is projected to be $5.1 M. With a healthy
fund balance, the good news is that, as key development projects are identified and
approved by the Board there will be sufficient funds to move the projects forward.
We think that in order to spend the funds as wisely as possible while generating the
most for our money, we should consider the development of a Strategic Plan for
Economic Development. There are many very good strategic planning companies in the
market place and we have begun to gather information on various companies for the
Board to consider if this is an idea you would like to pursue.
The plan would mostly likely include developing our niche, marketing strategies,
targeted developments and perhaps community branding. We feel that this is a critical
first step in understanding how we "fit" into the greater Houston region. The City
Managers Office is considering expanding the scope of the strategic plan to include the
City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Main Street Committee as
we all have a role to play in influencing the "look" of our City.
Please note that the budget does not at this time include funds for the hiring of a
consultant for development of a strategic plan or other items such as travel and/or
training for the Board Members. However, we will be available to discuss any changes
that you may desire at the meeting on the 2th or if you have any questions prior to the
meeting please let us know.
City of La Porte
La Porte Development Corporation (038) Fund Summary
(Section 4B Sales Tax)
Beginning Fund Balance 9/30/06
3,853,616
Plus Estimated 06-07 Revenues
1,536,469
Less 06-07 Expenditures and Commitments
Debt Payments
Economic Development
Loan to Street Maintenance Fund
Total Expenditures
732,180
120,849
250,000
1,103,029
Estimated Fund Balance 9/30/07
4,287,056
Plus 07-08 Revenues:
1/2 Cent Sales Tax
Repayment of Loan to Street Maintenance Fund
Interest Income
Total Revenues
1,441,269
254,178
176,400
1,871,847
Equals Total Resources
6,158,903
Less 07-08 Expenditures:
Operations
Debt Service Transfer *
134,317
837,248
T~tal Expenditures
971,565
Ending Fund Balance 9/30/08
5,187,338
Revenues
Expenditures & Commitments
Revenues over Expenditures
Estimated
2006-07
1,536,469
1,103,029
433,440
Projected
2007-08
1,871,847
971,565
900,282
*Debt Service Payments for Library, Bay Area Boulevard & Canada Road and Ballfields.
7-39
City of La Porte
La Porte Development Corporation Fund (038)
Statement of Revenues
Actual Budget Revised Projected
Object Description 2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 2007 -08
Charges for Services:
403.02-00 1/2 Cent Sales Tax 1,245,774 1,2]7,386 ],350,269 1,441,269
Charges for Services Subtotal 1,245,774 1,217,386 1,350,269 1,441,269
Administrative Transfers:
480.01-33 Transfer from Street Maintenance 254,178
Administrative Transfers Subtotal 254,178
Interest:
483.0]-00 Interest Income 121,396 123,500 186,200 176,400
Interest Subtotal 121,396 123,500 186,200 176,400
Total La Porte Development Corp Fund Revenues 1,367,170 1,340,886 1,536,469 1,871,847
7-40
Section 48 1/2 Cent Sales Tax
FY 07-08
Expenditure Summary
Actual Budget Estimated Requested Percent
2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 2007-08 Change
Personal Services 72,466 38,349 78,275 8.02%
Supplies 5,500 2,300 5,500 0.00%
Services & Charges 740,060 754,2]4 ],062,380 887,790 ]7.7]%
Division Tota] 740,060 832,180 ],103,029 971,565 16.75%
Scope of Services Summary
Personnel Position Roster
Approved
2005-06
Approved
2006-07
Requested
2007-08
Economic Development Coordinator
1
Tota]
1
7-41
City of La Porte, Texas
Section 4B 1/2 Cent Sales Tax 038-6030-565
Detail of Expenditures
Actual Budget Estimated Requested
2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 2007-08
Personal Services:
1010 Regular Earnings 55,000 26,769 58,001
1060 FICA 4,208 2,048 4,437
1065 Retirement 7,200 3,504 7,986
1080 Insurance - Medical 6,000 6,000 7,793
1081 Insurance - Life 58 28 58
Persoual Services Subtotal 72,466 38,349 78).75
Supplies:
2001 Office Supplies 1,000 800 1,000
2002 Postage 3,000 1,000 3,000
2015 Other Supplies 1,500 500 1,500
Supplies Subtotal 5,500 2,300 5,500
Services & Charges:
3001 Memberships & Subscriptions 1,500 1,200 1,500
3020 Training/Seminars 5,500 2,000 5,500
4060 Computer Lease Fees 770
4065 Computer Maintenance Fees 3,168
5003 Legal 5,000
5007 Other Professional Services 75,000 15,000
6005 Advertising 3,500 2,000 3,500
9050 Contingency 11,534 4,000
9997 Special Programs 12,104
9004 Adm Transfer to Fund 004 740,060 732,180 732,180 837,248
9033 Tranfer to St Maint Fund 250,000
Services & Charges Subtotal 740,060 754,214 1,062,380 887,790
Division Total 740,060 832,180 1,103,029 971,565
7-42
4
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
All LPEDC Board Members
Date:
Gretchen Black, EDC
John Joems, IC~
August 14, 2007 TV
From:
Through:
Subject:
Website RFP
Attached is the draft RFP for the economic development website for your review and
comments.
The RFP was completed with the assistance of the Purchasing, MIS and GIS
Departments. The Purchasing Department has been given a comprehensive listing from
staff of specific vendors we would like it distributed to in addition to the general
advertising. If approved by the Board at the meeting, the following time frame will be
followed:
Advertising 09/02/07 & 09/09/07
Opening 09/17/07
Evaluation Period 09/18/07 - 09/21/07
Meetings 09/24/07 - 09/28/07
Agenda Deadline 10/01/07
LPEDC Consideration/Approval 10/08/07
Council Award 10/08/07
Award Notification 10/09/07
Funds of $15,000 are included in the proposed FY 2008 LPEDC Budget for this project.
Staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions you may have. As always,
if you have any questions prior to the meeting please feel free to let us know.
SEALED RFP #07514 - WEBSITE DESIGN
CITY OF LA PORTE
NOTICE TO OFFERORS
All sealed proposals shall be submitted including one (1) marked unbound original, three (3)
bound duplicates on the original forms, and a pdf version on disk; all clearly marked with
RFP number and description. Proposals will be received at the Purchasing Office, 2963 N.
23rd Street, La Porte, TX 77571 until 2:00 p.m. Mondav. September 17.2007.
Proposals will be opened and names publicly read in the Public Works upstairs training room
immediately after the closing hour for the proposals on said date. An elevator is not available.
Please contact Purchasing at 281-470-5126 if accommodations are needed.
NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED
Forms furnished by the City of La Porte may be obtained without deposit from:
City of La Porte
Purchasing Division
2963 N 23rd Street
La Porte, TX 77571
(281) 470-5126
Proposals will be opened so as to avoid disclosure of contents to competing responders and kept
secret during the process of negotiation. All proposals shall be open for public inspection after
contract award. Trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information, so noted in proposal, shall
not be open for public inspection.
A pre-proposal meetinq will be held September 10, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber of
City Hall, 604 W. Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, TX 77571. All potential respondents are
encouraqed to attend this meetinq.
The City of La Porte hereby notifies all responders that in regard to any agreement entered into
pursuant to this advertisement, minority business enterprises will be afforded equal opportunities to
submit proposals in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of
race, color, sex, age, religion or national origin in consideration for an award.
The City reserves the right to reject any and/or all proposals, to waive any and all technicalities and
to accept any proposal or part thereof, which in the opinion of the City Council, is most advantageous
to the City. In case of ambiguity or lack of clearness in stating the prices in the proposal, the City
reserves the right to consider the most advantageous proposal thereof or to reject the proposal.
Published: September 2, 2007
September 9, 2()07
CITY OF LA PORTE PURCHASING OFFICE
2963 N. 23RD STREET
LA PORTE, TX 77571
To drop off bids and/or attend bid opening, follow these directions:
~ From Spencer Hwy., turn North on N. 23rd Street
~ The Public Works facility is on the right, past the mini-storage buildings
~ Turn right into parking lot and drive through the entrance gate, turn left immediately and
park in the last aisle on the right.
~ The Purchasing Office is located on the southwest side of the parking area. Look for the
signage.
2
CITY OF LA PORTE
The foregoing prices shall include all labor, materials, equipment, removal, overhead, profit, freight,
insurance, etc., to cover the finished work specified in this proposal.
All items proposed and installed under this procurement must be new and unused and In
undamaged condition.
The City of La Porte is tax exempt and no taxes shall be included in the pricing of this bid.
Offeror understands that the Owner reserves the right to reject any or all offers and to waive any
informalities in the proposal.
The offeror agrees that this proposal shall be good and may not be withdrawn for a period of ninety
(90) calendar days after the scheduled closing time for receiving proposals.
The undersigned affirms they are duly authorized to represent this firm, that this proposal has not
been prepared in collusion with any other firm, and that the contents contained herein have not
been communicated to any other firm prior to the official opening.
Respectfully submitted:
Business
Name (please print)
Signature
Address
City, State, Zip Code
E-mail
Office Phone
Fax Number
3
CITY OF LA PORTE
CERTIFICATION BY BIDDER
City of La Porte Ordinance #98-2217 prohibits any expenditure for goods or services by the City
of La Porte from any person, firm, or corporation owing any delinquent indebtedness to the City.
The undersigned bidder further certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of said
ordinance. A copy of the ordinance may be obtained by contacting the City of La Porte
Purchasing Division at 281-470-5126.
If undersigned bidder is not in compliance with Ordinance 98-2217, it hereby assigns to the City
of La Porte, the amount of its delinquent indebtedness to the City of La Porte, to be deducted by
the City of La Porte from the amounts due the undersigned.
Failure to remit this certification with the bid, or non-compliance with said ordinance shall be just
cause for rejection or disqualification of bid.
_ The undersigned hereby certifies that it is in compliance with Ordinance 98-2217.
or
The undersigned assigns to the City of La Porte, the amount of its delinquent
indebtedness, to be deducted by the City of La Porte from the amounts due the
undersigned.
OnmaJoneoffueabov~
Business Name:
Address:
Printed Name:
Authorized Signature:
4
CITY OF LA PORTE
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
1. RECEIPT AND OPENING OF PROPOSALS
The City of La Porte, (hereinafter called the "Owner"), invites proposals on the form
attached hereto. Sealed proposals shall be submitted including one marked unbound original,
three (3) bound duplicates on the original forms and pdf version on disk; all clearly marked
with RFP number and description. Owner will receive proposals at the Purchasing Office,
2963 N. 23rd Street, La Porte, TX 77571. Proposals will be publicly opened immediately
after the closing hour of said date. Vendor name only will be read aloud so as to avoid
disclosure of contents.
Any proposal received after the time and date specified shall not be considered.
The Owner may not consider any proposal not prepared and submitted in accordance with
the provisions hereof and may waive any informalities or reject any and all proposals. Any
proposal may be withdrawn prior to the scheduled time for the opening of proposals or
authorized postponement thereof.
2. PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS
Any offeror may modify their proposal by written communication at any time prior to the
scheduled receipt of proposals, provided such communication is received by the Owner
prior to c10sinq time. The communication should not reveal the proposal price, but should
provide the addition or subtraction or other modification so that the Owner will not know the
final prices or terms until the sealed proposal is opened.
Owner shall not provide interpretation of the meaning of the plans, specifications or other
pre-proposal documents to any bidder orally. Such communication must be in writing.
Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Purchasing
Manager, 2963 23rd Street, La Porte, TX 77571 or e-mailed to purchasinq@laportetx.qov.
All requests shall be received at least five (5) days prior to the scheduled time for receipt of
proposals. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions, will be in the
form of written addenda to the specifications which, if issued, will be submitted to all
prospective offerors not later than three (3) working days prior to the scheduled time for
receipt of proposals. Failure of any bidder to receive any such addendum or interpretation
shall not relieve offeror from any obligation of submitted proposal. All addenda issued shall
become part of the contract documents and must be acknowledged as received on
submitted document.
5
General Terms & Conditions
Continued
Page 2 of 4
3. METHOD OF AWARD
Evaluation will be based on the criteria stated in the RFP. The best proposal submitted
by a responsible offeror will be negotiated with the City of La Porte. If proposal amounts
exceed the available funds to finance the contract, the Owner may reject all proposals or
may award the contract on a negotiated proposal with deductible alternates applied in
numerical order in which they are listed on the Form of Proposal, as produces a net
amount, which is within the available funds.
The City of La Porte reserves the right to waive any informalities or technical errors, that
in its judgment will best serve the interests of the City.
4. FUNDING OUT CLAUSE
The City of La Porte warrants that funds are available to pay for this contract until the end
of its current fiscal year and warrants funds will be requested to make payment in each
appropriation period from now until the end of the last renewable option year. However, if
funds are not made available after such request, then the City of La Porte may terminate
this agreement with thirty (30) days written notice.
5. QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFEROR
At the time of the opening of proposals, each offeror will be presumed to be thoroughly
familiar with the plans and contract documents (including all addenda). The failure or
omission of any offeror to examine any form, instrument, or document shall in no way
relieve any offeror from any obligation in respect of his proposal.
The Owner may make such investigations as he deems necessary to determine the ability
of the offeror to perform the work, and the offeror shall furnish to the Owner all such
information and data for this purpose as the Owner may request. The Owner reserves the
right to reject any proposal if the evidence submitted by, or investigation of, such offeror fails
to satisfy the Owner that such offeror is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the
contract and to complete the work contemplated therein. Conditional proposals will not be
accepted.
6. CONDITIONS OF WORK
Each offeror must inform himself fully of the conditions relating to the construction of the
project and the employment of labor thereon. Failure to do so will not relieve a successful
offeror of his obligation to furnish all material and labor necessary to carry out the provisions
of his contract. Insofar, as possible contractor, in carrying out his work, must employ such
methods or means as will not cause any interruptions of or interference with the work of any
other contractor.
6
General Terms & Conditions
Continued
Page 3 of 4
7. LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The offeror's attention is directed to the fact that all applicable state laws, municipal
ordinances, and the rules and regulations of all authorities having jurisdiction over
construction of the project shall apply to the contract throughout, and they will be deemed to
be included in the contract the same as though herein written out in full.
8. SUBCONTRACTS
The offeror is specifically advised that any person, firm, or other party to whom it is
proposed to award a subcontract under this contract must be acceptable to the Owner.
9. SAFETY STANDARDS AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION
With respect to all work performed under this contract, the Contractor shall:
(1) Comply with the safety standards provisions of applicable laws,
building and construction codes and the "Manual of Accident
Prevention in Construction" published by the Associated General
Contractors of America, and the requirements of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596).
(2) Exercise every precaution at all times for the prevention of
accidents and the protection of persons (including employees) and
property.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Effective January 1, 2006, Chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government Code (House Bill
914) requires that any person, who seeks to contract for the sale or purchase of property,
goods or services with a local government entity, shall file a completed conflict of interest
questionnaire with the City Secretary within 7 business days after initial contact. The
Conflict of Interest Questionnaire (Form CIQ) is available from the City of La Porte
website at www.laportetx.Qov or from the Texas Ethics Commission at
www.ethics.state.us. Completed conflict of interest forms may be mailed or delivered to
the office of City Secretary, 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy., La Porte, TX 77571. Please consult
your own legal advisor if you have questions regarding the statute of this form.
7
General Terms & Conditions
Continued
Page 4 of 4
11. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
A. All prices to be F.O.B., Destination, City of La Porte, La Porte, TX 77571.
B. The City of La Porte is exempt from all taxes in the State of Texas, including sales
tax. A tax-exempt form will be provided upon request.
C. Use of brand names in specifications is descriptive and not restrictive, and any
product of equal quality will be considered, unless noted.
D. All exceptions to the specifications and/or brand names must be so stated on the
proposal.
E. It is requested that vendors electing not to offer a proposal, submit a "NO BID"
response in order to remain on the bidder's list.
8
CITY OF LA PORTE
INDEMNITY HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor, its successors, assigns and guarantors, shall
pay, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Porte, its agents, representatives,
officers, directors, officials and employees from and against all allegations, demands,
proceedings, suits, actions, claims, including claims of patent or copyright infringement,
damages, losses, expenses, including but not limited to, attorney's fees, court costs, and the
cost of appellate proceedings, and all claim adjusting and handling expenses, related to, arising
from or out of or resulting from any actions, acts, errors, mistakes or omissions caused in whole
or part by Contractor relating to work, services and/or products provided in the performance of
this Contract, including but not limited to, any Subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly
employed by or working as an independent contractor for Contractor or said Subcontractors or
anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable and any injury or damages claimed by any of
Contractor's and Subcontractor's employees or independent contractors.
The Contractor expressly understands and agrees that any insurance policies required by this
contract, or otherwise provided by the Contractor, shall in no way limit the responsibility to
indemnify, keep and save harmless and defend the City of La Porte, its Council members,
officers, agents and employees and herein provided.
Contractor
Date
Printed Name
Signature
9
CITY OF LA PORTE
SPECIFICATIONS
RFP #07514 - WEBSITE DESIGN
I. INTRODUCTION: The City of La Porte, Texas (the "City") is seeking a qualified
professional website designer, developer, and hosting company (the "Firm") to design
and deploy a website for the City's Office of Economic Development.
A. City Overview: La Porte is located 35 miles from Houston bordering Galveston
Bay and the Houston Ship Channel. The City is committed to providing the highest
level of municipal services with integrity and efficiency. The City's Office of
Economic Development is committed to supporting the enhancement and
maintenance of a vibrant, diversified, and sustainable economy through the
attraction and support of businesses that will help achieve this mission.
B. Deadline: All proposals are due September 17, 2007 by 2:00 p.m. No late
submittals will be accepted.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Website Development
1. Website Architecture: Provide a complete description of the tools and
techniques intended to construct the website, including:
a. Descriptions of proprietary in-house modules or systems
b. Commercial development toolsets and servers (such as Cold Fusion)
c. Development platforms (such as .Net)
d. Development languages
e. Methods for generating web pages
f. Any other backend systems
2. City Interaction: Describe Firm's intent for interacting with City Staff and
development process as it evolves
3. Desiqn Phase: During the design phase, the Firm will provide to the City at
least (2) prototype home pages and (2) interior page designs, demonstrating
the overall look and style of the website. The Firm will provide revisions to the
design of both the home and interior pages until accepted by the City.
4. Third Party Vendors: The City has existing agreements/contracts with various
third-party vendors that will need to be maintained through the transition to the
new website.
Software: The City currently holds licenses for and utilizes (AI and Brian to
comment here) for website editing. Firm shall specify any alternative software
and estimated license costs.
10
5. Trouble Shootinq/Beta Testinq: The Firm shall provide for a period of time
where all aspects of the website design and deployment may be "tested" as if
on-line to identify any trouble spots.
6. ADA Compliance: The Firm shall develop the website in accordance with all
current ADA standards.
7. Development Schedule: The Firm shall provide a schedule of all development
milestones and associated delivery timing.
B. Website Maintenance
1. Content Manaqement: The site must include a content management system
that will allow City personnel to quickly add, edit, and remove web page text,
graphics (such as photos, illustrations, audio clips and video clips), documents,
sidebars, navigation elements, links section, etc.
a. Traininq: The Firm must provide training for City personnel in the
operation of the content management system. Provide a comprehensive
description of the training program covering methods and durations of
training in the RFP response, and ongoing maintenance.
b. Access/Editinq Levels: Provide details on various authorization levels
available for access/editing purposes. The City will work with the Firm to
establish appropriate levels for each involved City staff member.
c. Form-Based Access to Databases: The Firm should provide form-based
access to the most commonly used databases (calendar, agenda list,
etc.) so that City employees can add, edit, and delete database entries
without needing to access the database directly.
2. Site Statistics and Reportinq: Provide information on the site statistic reporting
capabilities including frequency, types of statistics included, access, format,
etc. Provide an example report from other client of similar scope.
3. Customer Support:
a. On-call Staffinq: Provide information on the following customer
support/on-call staffing issues:
1.) Primary point of contact
2.) Number of staff typically available
3.) Availability (Hours and Days)
b. Special projects: The City may need technical assistance on a larger-
scale special project, such as a major update or formatting revision, etc.
Provide information on the related issues:
1.) Availability of support staff for such projects
2.) Typical response rate and prioritization for special project
requests
3.) Explain fees for special projects (i.e. included in annual
maintenance or monthly retainer fees, hourly rate, per-job basis,
etc.)
c. Website HostinQ I Technical Issues
1. Server Characteristics:
11
a. Type of Server: Describe the type of server intended for hosting and
describe the intended operating system.
b. Capacity: Describe the capacity at initialization and capabilities for
growth and expansion over time.
c. Location: Describe location of server intended to host the site.
d. Power Outaqes: Describe the impact of power outages and methods
used to maintain continuous operation of the website.
2. Downtime Standards: Describe company practices as it relates to the following
downtime issues or others not identified.
a. Communications: Describe methods of communicating downtime issues
to City representatives.
b. Up-Time Standards: Describe the up-time commitment level for each of
the following as they might impact continuous operation of the website in
the public domain.
1.) Connectivity
2.) Server
3.) Server Maintenance
c. Recovery: Describe mechanisms intended to recover from downtime
issues.
3. Data Transfer Speeds / Capacities:
a. Internet Backbone Connection Suppliers: How many Internet backbone
connections are there and who are they with? Provide a name for each
Internet connection provider.
b. Type of Backbone Connections: Provide types of backbone connections
(T-1, T-3, etc.)
c. Base Bandwidth Allowance: Identify any base bandwidth allowances
and how they are measured (monthly, etc.).
1.) Overages Issues: Identify processes, costs, etc.
for overages
4. Multi-media Support:
a. Streaminq Capabilities: Describe the current and future capabilities for
providing streaming Audio / Video for marketing tours, etc. Include
issues/price differentials for:
1.) 1-10 simultaneous users
2.) 11-20 simultaneous users
3.) 20+ simultaneous users
5. Data Backup and Recovery: Describe company practices as it relates to the
following data backup and recovery issues or others not identified.
a. Frequency of Backups: RFP requires at a minimum back up of daily
changes.
b. Methods: Describe methods of back up (mirrored servers, tape, etc.)
c. Extent: Describe scope of data backed up.
d. Back up Location: Describe data recovery mechanisms across various
types of downtime scenarios.
12
6. Security:
a. Physical Security: Describe locational aspects.
b. Software Based: Describe software based security measures (fi rewa lis ,
virus scanners, anti-intrusion software, etc.).
7. Cost: Describe costs associated with hosting services on the following
contract bases:
a. 1 Year
b. 2 Years
c. 3 Years
d. 4 Years
e. 5 + Years
III. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Submittal Format: The RFP must be submitted in a vertical 8.5" x 11" format. A
total of three (3) bound copies, one (1) unbound copy, and a pdf version on disk
shall be provided. Responses must be summarized in the submittal formal
provided in Appendix 'C'.
B. Firm Qualifications
1. Firm History: Provide an overview of the company history, including length of
time in professional web design, deployment, hosting, and maintenance.
Provide additional overview of work with municipal websites, especially
economic development websites.
2. Key Personnel: Provide the names and contact information (name, title,
company, work phone, cell phone, mailing address, e-mail, etc.) for the
managers, supervisors, contract team members (including primary designers,
technicians for hosting and server maintenance, trainer, various payment
application vendors, etc.), and primary contact person(s) responsible for
response to this RFP. Additionally, provide resumes of all design and
programming or otherwise hands-on personnel involved in the design of the
website.
3. Proiect Examples of Related Scope
a. Municipal websites: Provide (2) or more URLs of municipal
websites, especially economic development if available, your company has
designed, maintained and/or hosted along with a narrative of the scope
of services provided for each project.
b. Other websites: Provide three (3) URLs of private company websites
your company has designed, maintained and/or hosted along with a
narrative of the scope of services provided for each projects.
4, References of Related Scope: Provide (3) professional references of recent
work similar in scope to the proposal presented herein.
C. Website DeveloDment: Each submittal must address the website development
components as outlined in Section II.A. herein.
11
D. Maintenance: each submittal must address the webslte maintenance components
as outlined in Section II.B. herein.
E. Hostina: Each submittal must address the website hosting components as
outlined in Section II.C. herein.
F. Statement of Intent to Enter Contract: The proposal shall include a statement of
authority and intent to enter into a Professional Services Contract for services
identified herein.
G. Fee for Services
1. Fees: Itemize all fees associated with each component of the scope of
services, addressed in Section II herein (Le. annual cost, monthly retainer, per-
job costs, and/or hourly costs). Fees should include items detailed, but not
limited to:
a. Website Development (See 9 II. A.)
b. Maintenance (See 9 II.B.)
c. Hosting (See 9 II. C.)
2. Reimbursables: Describe the intent for any fees related to any anticipated
reimbursables.
IV. FIRM EVALUATION AND SELECTION
A. Evaluation Criteria: A variety of factors will be utilized in the evaluation of the
submitted RFP's for this project. The evaluation factors are as listed below:
1. Website Development (9 II.A.) (20%)
2, Maintenance (9 II.B.) (20%)
3. Hostinq (9 II. C.) (20%)
4. Firm Qualifications (9 III. B.): History, personnel, project examples,
references (20%)
5. Fee for Services (9 III.G.) (20%)
B. Selection Process
1. Evaluation: A committee comprised of web-support staff members from the
various City departments (the "Website Committee") will evaluate the
proposals. The evaluation that follows the initial examination may result in
more than one finalist. Selected finalists may be given the opportunity to make
presentations to the Website Committee, or selected members, for further
consideration. The City reserves the right to interview qualified firms prior to
contract award.
2. Neqotiation: The City reserves the right to negotiate specifications, terms and
conditions, which may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purpose
of this RFP. The City may negotiate separation of primary duties included in
the RFP (design, hosting, and maintenance) among various submitting firms.
3. Reiection of Submittal: The City reserves the right to reject any submittal.
14
4. Award: Award will be granted in accordance with this RFP and the City's
Purchasing Policy.
C. Professional Services Contract: The selected Firm will be required to enter into
a professional services contract (the "Contract") with the City. Major elements of
the Contract will include:
1. Scope of Services: The City may require that this RFP and the Firm's entire
proposal be made an integral part of the resulting contract. This implies that all
responses, supplemental information, and other submissions provided by the
Firm during discussions or negotiations will be held by the City as contractually
binding by the successful Firm.
2. Insurance: Insurance as required by the Director of Finance shall be identified
in the Contract.
3. Riqhts of Use I Copvriqht Release: All the creative elements contracted with
this project shall become the sole property of the City. This includes (not
exclusively) any graphics, source and object code(s), scripts or other
programming incorporated in the development of the site. Any graphic files,
in both individual form and composite form, will also become property of the
City.
4. Termination: If, for any reason, the Firm fails to fulfill in a timely and proper
manner his or her obligations under the resulting Contract, or if the Firm
violates any of the provisions in the resulting Contract, the City may terminate
the contract by giving written notice to Firm of such termination and specify the
effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In such event, all finished or unfinished work prepared by the Firm
under the Contract may, at the option of the City, become the City's property
and Firm may be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work. Termination of the Contract pursuant to this paragraph may
not relieve the Firm of any liability to City for damage sustained by City
because of any breach of Contract by Firm, and City may without any
payments to Firm for the purposes of set-off until such as the exact amount of
damages due City from Firm is determined.
v. QUESTIONS I CLARIFICATIONS
A. Question Submittal: All questions must be submitted in writing. No telephone
questions will be accepted. All questions must be received no later than
Wednesday, September 12th. Feel free to submit questions via the following
methods:
1. E-mail to: BlackG@laportetx.qov
2. Fax to: 281-842-1259
B. Question and Answer Summary: Questions will be answered in a timely
manner directly to the inquirer. Question and answers of a general nature may
be provided in summary format to other RFP potential responders.
15
APPENDIX B
ANTICIPATED WEBSITE CONTENT
The following is representative of the content anticipated with this RFP; however, this outline
should not be viewed as an exact representation nor as all-inclusive in content of what will be
agreed upon between the Firm and City. The final content and arrangement of the site is to be
amended and revised with further review, and in dealing with the successful Firm further
clarification will be made.
Home Page-
-A Perfect Place to do Business-
Community Profile-
-About La Porte-
-Quality of Life-
-Population Demographics-includes workforce demographics; projections, etc.
-Major Employers-
-Workforce Development-
-Economic Profile-
-GIS Mapping and Properties Database-
-Current Development Projects
-Online Database of available buildings/sites - (Brokers/agents to enter data, password
access required)
-Economic Development Strategic Plan-
-Incentives-Home page has short narrative
- TI RZ summary with link or pdf
-Tax abatement summary with link or pdf
-Industrial District summary with link or pdf
-La Porte Development Board Grant Assistance
-Freeport Tax Exemption
16
-Harris County Tax abatement
-Municipal Grants/ Section 380 grants
-Texas Enterprise Zone Program
-Foreign Trade Zones
-Contact Us
-Personal assistance
-Pre-development meetings/meet with an official
-Partnerships
-Economic Alliance
-BAHP
- San Jacinto College
-Others
-The development process
-Permits and inspections/zoning/subdivision
-Links to relevant sites associated with economic development, such as financiers, etc.
17
CITY OF LA PORTE
TARGET DATES:
SEALED RFP # 07514 - WEBSITE DESIGN
To Dept for Review 08/27/07
Dept Return 08/29/07
Mail-Out RFP 08/31/07
Advertising 09/02/07 & 09/09/07
Opening 09/17/07
Evaluation Period 09/18/07 - 09/21/07
Meetings 09/24/07 - 09/28/07
Agenda Deadline 10/01/07
Council Award 10/08/07
Award Notification 10/09/07
18
RESPONDENT OBLIGATION
CHECK LIST
D Authorized Signature
D Duplicate Copies
D Pre-Proposal Meeting Noted, if Applicable
D Bonds, Cashier's Checks Enclosed, if Applicable
D Amendment Acknowledged and Enclosed, if Applicable
D Returned in Marked, Sealed Envelope by Due Date
Failure to meet these obligations may cause your
proposal to be considered non-responsive
19
5
BACK UP NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS
ITEM
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
From:
All LPEDC Board Members
f(J'('\
John Joerns, ICM \'j' .:l
\ I
August 21, 2007
To:
Date:
Subject:
Consultant Agreement - RFP Proposed Sylvan Beach Hotel Development
The agreement between the City of La Porte (City) and Consultivo LLP (Consultant) to
authorize the Consultant to facilitate a solicitation (RFP/RFQ) for developer interest in a
hotel development for the City is almost finalized. The agreement will be provided at the
meeting on the 2ih.
The fees for service are based upon a flat fee of $9,875 for the scope of services that
will be listed in the Exhibit "A" to the agreement. Funds to proceed with the project are
available in the FY 2007 LPEDC Budget.
Staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions you may have however,
as always if you have any questions prior to the meeting please feel free to let us know.
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
From:
Through:
Date:
Subject:
All LPEDC Board Members
Gretchen Black, E~
John Joerns, ICM TI
August 14,2007
2008 Community Economic Development Awards
Attached is an application for the Community Economic Development Award which is
sponsored by the Texas Economic Development Council. It is too late for us to submit a
project for 2007 however, I wanted to provide you the information to review for possible
projects in 2008. We are members of TEDC and therefore, we can nominate a project
in our city.
We plan on sending the application to community business leaders as well for their
thoughts and suggestions on possible projects as well. Also, if you have anyone in
particular that you would like us to send it to please let us know.
TEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
1300 GUADALUPE, SUITE 107
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
512-480-8432; FAX 512-472-7907
http://www.texasedc.org
2007 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AWARDS
NOMINATIONS DUE AUGUST 10th, 2007
PURPOSE
The TEDC Awards Committee, through its Community Economic Development Awards Program,
recognizes exceptional contributions of Texas communities in the following efforts:
* Business Retention
* Business Expansion
* Business Recruitment
* Community Involvement
Nominees are grouped according to population and evaluated among other similarly-sized communities.
ELIGIBILITY
Awards are presented annually to Texas communities whose projects or programs have been completed
during the past 12 months ending May 31st of the award year. For a project to be considered for the
2007 awards competition, ground-breaking must occur between June 1, 2006 and May 31, 2007. A
nominating Community must have at least one TEDC member. If not a current member of TEDC, a
membership application is available at www.texasedc.org. Your TEDC membership application may be
submitted with your CEDA application.
NOMINATION
TEDC member regional utility allies nominate communities based on the criteria provided on the
following page. Nominations must be submitted through a regional utility, which is a member of the
TEDC. If no regional utility serves the community, then the local utility or local TEDC member may
submit a nomination. NOMINATIONS MUST BE LIMITED TO FOUR (4) CONVENTIONALLY
FORMATTED 8.5" x 11" PAGES. Please also submit up to five (5) digital photographs of the project
along with the nomination form to amy@texasedc.org. The photographs will be used at the luncheon
ceremony. The award recipient in each category will be invited to make a brief presentation in a breakout
session following the luncheon at the Annual Conference, September 27,2007, in Dallas, Texas.
JUDGING
The TEDC's CEDA Committee, representing economic development leaders from around the
State, will determine and recommend finalists for the CEDA Awards.
AWARDS CRITERIA
The awards will be judged on the following criteria:
I. INNOVATIVENESS
The program or project demonstrates innovative approaches to institutional, financial, technical or legal
aspects of economic development.
II. TRANSFERABILITY
The program or project shows potential use by other economic development agencies or practitioners for
similar opportunities or solutions.
The program or project should be readily transferable to comparable situations in other
communities.
III. COMMUNITY COMMITMENT AND LEVERAGE
The program or project makes it possible for others to achieve a greater impact by joining
public/private participation or by intergovernmental or state/local involvement to leverage
resources.
Examples of this participation may include:
* tax abatements
* creative financing
* enterprise zones
* tax increment financing
* freeport exemptions
* public improvement districts and the economic
development sales tax
IV. MEASURED OBJECTIVES
Results demonstrate a specific objective that the program or project was able to achieve.
Measures of the program's value can include:
* jobs created * additional monetary investment in the community
* jobs retained or improved * additions to the tax base created by the program
or project
V. SECONDARY BENEFITS
Produces ancillary benefits to other economic activities in the area.
CEDA NOMINATION FORM
INTRODUCTION
The 2007 TEDC Community Economic Development Awards (CEDA) will be presented during TEDC's
Annual Conference Luncheon on September 27,2007, in Dallas. The recipients will be judged in each of
the 5 categories that have made the most significant contribution to economic development in their
community and the State of Texas.
AWARD CATEGORIES
The CEDA will be given to one community from each of the following five population categories:
(as currently marketed).
I. Population less than 5,000
III. Population of 15,001 to 40,000
V. Population of over 100,000
II. Population of 5,001 to 15,000
IV. Population of 40,001 to 100,000
NOMINATION
Name of Community:
TEDC Member: Yes D No D Members Name:
Chief Operating Officer (City Manager or Mayor):
Address: City: State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Website: Email:
Community Population:
Economic Development Sales Tax:
Local Media Contact Name:
Application Submitted By:
Phone: Email:
SUBMITTED FOR: (CHECK BELOW ALL THAT APPLY)
D Business Retention D Business Attraction
D Business Expansion D Community Improvement
Yes D No D
Phone:
Title:
SUMMARY REVIEW
Please attach a brief description of the economic development efforts and accomplishments (projects
and programs). Within this description, address the awards criteria of innovativeness, transferability,
community commitment, measured objectives and secondary benefits. The nomination can be no longer
than four (4) conventionally formatted 8.5" x 11" pages. Please also submit up to five (5) digital
photographs to e-mail address amy@texasedc.org. The photos must be submitted with the nomination
form. The photographs will be presented during the CEDA luncheon at the Annual Conference in Dallas,
TX. The award recipient in each category will be invited to make a brief presentation in a breakout
session, following the luncheon on September 27th.
NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY TEDC UTILITY MEMBER, TEDC MEMBER OR REGIONAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMBER
Name: Utility:
Address: City: State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Questions regarding the awards program or procedures should be directed to:
Heather Richardson, Pedernales Electric Cooperative
CEDA Committee Chair
512-219-2602 Ext. 5543; heather.richardson@pecLcom
Other Regional Allies
Ken Courville, CenterPoint Energy
713-207-3412; kenneth.courville@centerpointenergy.com
Ray Covey, AEP Texas
361-881-5867; ercovey@aep.com
Mike McKinney, TXU Electric Delivery
214-486-2099; mike.mckinney@txued.com
Carolyn Motl, Entergy
409-981-3883; cmotl@entergy.com
Bob Springer, LCRA
512-397-6731; bob.springer@lcra.org
Lorie Vincent, The High Ground of Texas
806-366-7510; lorie. vincent@highground.org
Please return nomination forms and support documents to:
TEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
ATTN: AMY SWANK
1300 GUADALUPE, SUITE 107
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
Fax: 512-472-7907
Email: amy@texasedc.org
All Nominations Must Be Received By August 10, 2007
2007 TEDC CEDA COMMITTEE
Heather Richardson, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Chair
Ken Courville, CenterPoint Energy
Ray Covey, AEP Texas
Ramiro Garza, Edinburg EDC
Phyllis Gogue, Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce
Mike McKinney, TXU Electric
Carolyn Motl, Entergy
Amanda Nobles, Kilgore EDC
Pat Nowotny, Waco Chamber of Commerce
Laurin Prather, Lubbock BCD
Bob Springer, LCRA
Lorie Vincent, The High Ground of Texas
Gwen Wagner, CenterPoint Energy
Pam Welch. Midland Chamber of CommArcA
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
To: All LPEDC Board Members
From: Gretchen Black, EDC
Through: John Joems, IC~
Date: August 14, 2007
Subject: Miscellaneous Information
Attached are a number of articles that we thought may be of interest to you regarding
the economic development process. And although we know you have more than
enough to read already, these were interesting enough and short as well that we
thought you might enjoy reading them.
Good Jobs,5anari GnMNth
I
This article serves as an introduction to the Texas tvlunicipal League Institute
(TtvlL1) session entitled l'Ensuring Good jobs and Smart Growth in Economic
Oevelopmenc /1 'vvhich 'vI/ill be presented by Greg LeRoy, executive director
of Good jobs First at the upcoming Ti\IL Annual Conference. The program is
scheduled for 2 :00 - 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6.
,\
.-
.
,
/
r -
10 TEXAS TOWN & CITY. ,...'ULY20Q7
By Greg LeRoy
.
,
It's undeniable: Cities are
leading rhe way in rein-
venting economic develop-
ment in America today. They are
striking smarter deals. They are
becoming more intentional about
coordinating jobs with public
transportation and land use plan-
ning. They are flexing the power
of their economic development
programs and figuring out ways
to spend less and get more.
Cities are breaking this new
ground against all the odds, for
local governments are at the bot-
tom of the food chain in America's
devolved system. The "econom-
ic war among the states" that
Business week declared decades
ago is more often actually a
war among the subutbs, and
most states do little to deter com-
panies from pitting ciries against
each other.
The result has been an eco-
nomic development arms race
that now finds the average state
with more than 30 economic
development incentive programs,
many of which are in turn locally
,
granted. Total state and local spend-
ing for all these subsidies is estimated
at more than $50 billion a year,
with many deals costing more than
$100,000 per job.
'XThy are cities changing their
ways? They appear to have many
motives. Some have learned the hard
way that the old philosophy of "shoot
everything that flies, and claim every-
thing that drops" means you bag a
lot of turkeys and other low-flying
birds. Others are fatigued with sprawl
or concerned about global warming.
Some have been burned by deals that
went sour. Others are responding to
. ..
grass roots commumty organlZatlOnS
demanding a better shake for their
neighborhoods.
Whatever the reasons, the big pic-
ture is undeniable: There is a territIc
amount of creative innovation occur-
ring in local governments today when
it comes to economic development.
Consider these examples:
Job Quality Standards
Dozens of cities now attach
wage and/or health care con-
ditions to their development
incentive programs. They want
to ensure that employees at
tIrms receiving the subsidies
are paid well enough that they
do not qualifY for social safety-
net programs, creating hidden
taxpayer cOSts. Some of these
conditions have been adopted
in response to "living wage"
campaigns, but most have been
initiated by public officials who
want to be more strategic with
their limited resources.
Transit-Oriented
Development
Cities, far ahead of the states,
are using their economic
development toolkits to pro-
mote job creation and mixed-
use density within walking
distance of transit stops. Again
driven by varied motives-
such as the "back-to-the-city"
trend and fatigue with traffic
. . . .
congeStlOn-CltleS are starnng
to offer more commUters a
choice about how to get to
work, while also creating more
access to jobs for low-income
workers. To do this, cities are
starting to break down the tra-
ditional policy "silos" berween
economic development and
land use planning.
Clawbacks
Also known as recapture provi-
SlOns, these money-back guar-
antee provisions in develop-
ment agreements are mcreas-
ingly common, so that ta.,x-
payers can recoup funds if a
deal fails to deliver. Especially
common in high-profile deals,
clawbacks have evolved from
exotic European import to a
best practice.
Community Benefits
Agreements
Often in partnership with
grassroors coalitions, cities are
holding developers of major
projects to higher standards,
requiring city benetIts such as
local hiring, job quality, pref-
erences for local merchants,
affordable housing, and envi-
ronmental improvements. The
net effect is to increase the
projects' benetIts to residenrs
of the surrounding commu-
nity and thereby ma.,ximize the
economic ripple effects and
ta.,x-base growth.
Taken together, these and other
local innovations are enabling cities to
leverage more and better development
with their incentive programs. But
change does not come easily; leaders
who want to do the right thing face
serious challenges as they question the
conventional wisdom. They grapple
with issues such as:
1. "Business Climate" Fears - Those
seeking to be stingier and more
strategic with incentives are some-
times criticized as hostile to a good
"business climate." It's a powerful
label that causes some to hesitate.
But this notoriously ambiguous
term begs exploration: How do
companies actually decide where
to expand or relocate? (By focusing
on business basics.) How much do
ta.,x breaks matter? (Rarely much.)
And what happens when newly
arriving companies pay less towards
schools and orher public services
than do long-standing corporate
citizens? And what happens to
quality of life and its recruitment
value if funding for public services
is undermined?
2.Local vs. Regional Development
Local governments often have
fiscal incentives-such as local
sales ta.,x increments and property
ta.,xes, not to mention bragging
tights-to bid against each other
for specitIc companies. And pre-
vailing etiquette in most metro
areas prevents cities from cooper-
ating or even communicating with
each other when a company makes
them compete. But in today's high-
mileage world in which people
live, work, shop, study, and rec-
reate allover their metro areas,
how much sense does it make for
cities to tIght each other? Besides,
the meaningful unit of competi-
tion for the big deals from Out of
town is the region--and all of its
assets-not anyone Clty.
3. Overemphasis on Retail- America
is demonstrably overbuilt with
retail space, but some cities-otten
JULY20Q7. TEXP..S TOWN &. CITY 11
r
driven by myopic state policies
Ot inflated cost-benefit claims
of developers-continue to sub-
sidize more big boxes. Retailing
in general rates poorly on many
counts, including job quality and
economic ripple effects. Bur big
box dev~lopment raises a whole
host of additional issues, includ-
ing harm to local entrepreneurial
capacity, abandonment of "main
street" and civic fabric, and the
loss of natural spaces. Two national
networks of plucky local business
people have cropped up to fight
back, tenaciously banding together
to promote "Local First" programs
that promote indigenous entre-
preneurs, create bener jobs, and
generate stronger ripple effects.
Smart Growth:
At a Tipping Point?
or condominiums). Frustration with
traffic congestion means that neigh-
borhoods with good transit service are
in greater demand.
Combined with the physical reali-
ties facing some metro areas-where
the supply of newly available land is
limited due to natural barriers-these
demographic and market forces are
likely to change development patterns,
favoring compact footprints, in-fill
development, mLxed use, and transit-
oriented development.
Are cities ready m manage such big
changes? Are their incentive programs
sharpened and remoled to reflect these
new realities? Or will they continue to
shoot everything that flies and settle for
turkeys? *
Knowledgeable observers argue that
several factors are coming together in
ways that are putting smart growth ar
a ripping point. Most Americans want
energy independence from imported
oil, seeing it as a national securi-
ty issue. Baby boomers who have
become "empty-nesters" are increas-
ingly interested in moving back into
cities, closer to work and urban ame-
nities. Generations X and Y are far
more likely to consider urban liv-
ing hip and desirable than previous
post-War generations. Overall, market
research finds that fullv one-third of
new home buyers want something
besides a detached single-family home
on a large lot (such as town homes
I
Welcome to the
Suite Life
Make your work life easier with a comprehensive suite
of e-Gov tools that lets you set-up a variety of systems
online - from online pemritting, parks end recreation
reservations and other citizen requests, to complete
community development planning Including building safety
and code compliance, to Geographical Information Systems
strategy and implementation to asset management. Designed
for cities by cities, these powerful, Web-based solutions
will maximize efficiency for you, and your citizens.
To find out more about these powerful e-Government
tools, call 888-256-5777 or visit www.govpartner.com
,
learn more about GovPartner solutions,
visit Booth 1013 at the 2007 TMl show.
Empowering Your Process
www.govpartner.com
IIITech::~: ~~:::
12 T E X A S TOW N & C I T Y . JULY 2007
IN ORDER TO GROW
....
IDr,.'
t~,:,'.'.i..
.
AS CHAINS STRIVE TO BOOST THEIR PERFORMANCE, SMALLER
STORES CAN MEAN MORE PROFIT PER SQUARE FOOT AND MOR
CENTERS INTO WHICH THEY CAN FIT
By Steve Mclinden
F BIGGER STOPS BEING BETTER FOR BIG BOXES, THEY MAY
have to start calling themselves "not-so-big boxes." For years large retailers have
been downsizing a store here and there when necessary to fit inside a small urban
site. Now, though, they are shrinking their footprints across the board, to control
costs and cope with Wall Street's relentless demand for growth and efficiency.
The trend is especially evident On the consumer electronics scene, with Best Buy
and Circuit City shoehorning into spaces that are, in some cases, half the size of
their usual superstore format.
As late as 2004, Best Buy stores generally occupied 45,OOO-square-foot boxes.
This year, however, two-thirds of the 90 stores the chain is opening will measure
30,000 square feet or smaller. In fact, 10 of these will cover just 20,000 square feet,
says Justin Barber, a Best Buy spokesman. Similarly, about half of the roughly 65
domestic stores Circuit City plans to roll out by March will measure just 20,000
square feet, less than two-thirds the size of its 34,OOO-square-foot floor plate.
Tests of the smaller format "indicate reduced capital expenditures and operating expenses, re-
sulting in higher returns," the company noted in its June 20 earnings statement. Circuit City
plans to open 100 more stores next year, with roughly a third of those replacing outmoded units.
How does all this shake out for shopping centers? Well, on the plus side, smaller stores give
developers more opportunity to incorporate the popular consumer electronics category into
lifestyle centers that could previously not contain them, says Scott Rehom, managing partner
of leasing at Scottsdale, Ariz.-based RED Development, which has 13 retail projects in the
works. One of RED Development's ne\}' middle-market power centers contains several newly
downsized retailers, including a small-prototype Bed Bath & Beyond. 'This just adds more ten-
A U GUS T 2 007 I SCT 61
ants for us, and the consumet gets more
variety in the process. Sometimes the eco-
nomics work better with smaller stores."
On the negative side, smaller stores can
hurt developers in deals where tax incre-
ment financing and similar incentives are
based on the total sales a project is antici-
pated to generate, says Rehorn. Dimen-
sional reductions could also have a nega-
tive impact on a center that was banking
on the bigger prototypes, says Brad Huten-
sky, principal of the Hartford, Conn.-based
Hutensky Group, a property development
and management firm that oversees 1.85
million square feet of retail space. Many
downsizing tenants are going back to land-
PANATTONI
PERFORMANCE. NOT PROMISES.
In the ultracompetitive world of retail there is just no
room for failure, especially in real estate development.
Nationally, retailers know they can rely completely on
Panatroni projections: on costs.. .on time. ..on quality.
In addition to the obvious
advantages of dealing with a
major international organiza-
tion, clients enjoy the benefits
of working with thoroughly
experienced retail experts.
Performance is our most
important product.
lO]PANATTONf'
INTERNATIONAL- VISION. LOCAL pocus.
PANATIONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC
NATIONAL RETAIL HEADQUARTERS
PH 949/474-7830
www.panattoni.com
62 SCT I A U GUS T 200 7
',.".....,."".,.,..,.-=:_,~,.,-,';-;-...,'~;'''"'.~~~.~,,.,...-r--:.~=,~~'''. ,.~.-,."i,...-.'~":':~h.,.'l'~' _~'''~.,'"'''_~_
lords to renegotiate long-term leases, and
some will simply opt to move out, he says.
"We all recall when the major drugstore
chains suddenly decided they needed
drive-through lanes and then started mov-
ing out of centers wholesale."
Though some departures are in-
evitable, it is unlikely that reduced-size re-
quirements will cause a mass exodus from
top-flight centers, says Robin Walker-Gib-
bons, executive vice president ofleasing at
Developers Diversified Realty Corp. "If it's
good real estate, they won't want to aban-
don it," she said. "But with that said, land-
lords must always stay creative in adjusting
to these changes."
Retailers generally pay less per square
foot for larger anchor spaces than for
smaller ones, so some centers will benefit
from reductions if they are nimble enough
to fill the abandoned space quickly and
gainfully, sources say.
Best Buy and Circuit City are not the
only retailers reducing a footprint. In 2004
Office Depot started rolling-out its 17,500-
square-foot M2 (Millennium2) prototype,
which is down a third in size from its 26,000-
square-foot standard. Since the spring,
roughly half of Office Depot's approximately
1,200 North American stores were operat-
ing under the M2 format, lowering by about
$1 million the yearly sales volume per store
needed to break even. Rival OfficeMax now
has three store prototypes, the largest of
which is only 18,000 square feet.
A few years ago Home Depot began
building "neighborhood format" units
that are about a fourth the size of the stan-
dard 105 ,OOO-square-foot store and carty
fewer lower-margin commodity products,
such as lumber. DSW Shoe Warehouse
recently unveiled a 19,000-square-foot
prototype that is one-fourth smaller than
its standard design. About a quarter of
grocer Supervalu's new stores are the
smaller Limited Assortment units, and
T esco and Publix are rolling out their own
reduced-size formats.
Wal-Mart Stores says it will cut the
number ofSupercenters it plans to open in
2008 by a third. "It used to be Wall Stteet
was more concerned with more sales per
square foot," said Rehorn. "Now they're
more concerned with cannibalization, es-
pecially in Wal-Mart's case." Because Wal-
Mart is constantly seeking ways to in-
crease efficiency, a smaller Supercenter
footprint may be in the offing, Rehorn
speculates. "If you can cut down 200,000
square feet to 170,000 square feet, well,
.~cl'.Jj ,~~ ~....~ .
that represents a huge savings at the vol-
ume they build," he said.
The smaller-store strategy was in-
evitable, according to retail consultant
George Whalin, president of Retail Man-
agement Consultants, San Marcos, Calif.
"Once retailers get to a certain size, they
have to go to places where they can't build
big stores, in order to achieve growth ob-
jectives," he said. Reductions in staffing
costs, while a side benefit, are not the
biggest force driving the issue for retailers,
he says. "It's just that big metto store space
is so hard to come by."
Sometimes product evolution spurs
store-size change. Consumer electronics
devices, with the exception of home- en-
tertainment systems, have been getting
smaller and thus require less shelf space.
Reduced demand for CDs, the result of in-
creased purchases of music online and
through mass merchandisers, is spurring
Best Buy and Circuit City to constrict
their store formats. Merchandise varies
slightly from format to format, with the
20,OOO-square-foot stores displaying fewer
large-screen TVs, major appliances and
similarly bulky goods. "Obviously, you
can't have a full selection at smaller
stores," said Barber. A few years ago Cir-
cuit City ditched washing machines and
the like when it winnowed its store sizes to
30,000 square feet from 45,000 square feet,
says Walker-Gibbons. Rising construction
and real estate costs added impetus to the
chain's latest round of reductions, she says.
"Clearly, we've found that retailers are
still looking to expand, and one of the best
places they've found are 'C' and 'D' mar-
kets," said Richard Hollander, president of
the customer ID division of Fort Worth,
Texas-based Buxton Corp. But most of
those retailers are not opting for smaller
markets and footprints simply for the sake
of uniformity, he says. Customer analytics,
not instinct, are dictating these decisions
in many cases, he says. 'The smart retailers
are asking themselves, 'How do I best
serve these markets while still meeting
brand demand and customer-service de-
mand and still getting return on invest-
ment for our shareholders?'''
Marc Pearl, executive director of the
Consumer Electronics Retailers Coali-
tion, says retailers must be careful not to
cut back on customer service and prod-
uct education in their drive to shrink in
size. "Products change immensely in
this area, and you always want to lower
customer confusion while increasing
customer choice," said Pearl. "And
that's a difficult balance to reach. Re-
ta ilers have to become educators. The
last thing a consumer electronics re-
tailer wants to do is push a product that
consumers don't want."
Retailers have learned to adapt to indus-
try changes through creatively fitting their
concepts into unconventional sites in rede-
veloped areas in New York City, Chicago
and comparable cities, says Dave Brennan,
co..c\irector of the Institute for Retailing Ex-
cellence at the University of St. Thomas, in
Minneapolis. "They've become accus-
tomed to doing build-ins instead of build-
outs," Brennan said. Best Buy's original
store prototype was just 15,OCXJ square feet,
he says. "It went to 30,OCXJ and then 45,OCXJ.
They even tried a 58,OOO-squllTe-foot store
but found it to be too unwieldy."
Sometimes smaller-store formats stem
from anti-sprawl ordinances. Though
many U.S. municipalities have adopted
caps limiting superstores to 100,000 square
6t eCT I A U GUS T 2007
feet or less, others are restricting big-box
sizes to far more modest footprints; among
these are Boxborough, Mass. (25,000
square feet), and Damariscotta, Maine
(35,000 square feet).
For the most part, smaller stores are just
another way for retailers to shore up the bot-
tom line as the industry continues its evolu-
tion, says Walker-Gibbons. "Retailers are
simply figuring ways to be more profitable,"
Walker-Gibbons said. ''In the case of Circuit
City, they have addressed what they needed
to address, and that has been painful for
them. But they had to make some tough de-
cisions and are moving forward."
Hutensky, who has Circuit City and
Best Buy in several of his centers, agrees.
"In the big picture, it's always good for re-
tailers and developers and the whole in-
dustry when retailers right-size," he said.
"For us the~e is always an opportunity to
accommodate a retailer's changtng needs
and to capitalize on those changing
needs." eCT
One size doesn't fit all cities
Smaller stores are starting to make more sense for many retailers. But downsizing isn't
always the retailer's idea. So far Maine is the only state to put restrictions on
retailers' store sizes. But municipalities and counties across the country have been
capping store sizes for years. Here are some notable examples from the state of
Massachussetts.
Andover Residents of this community of 31,000 north of Boston voted in April to prohibit
stores measuring over 55,000 square feet.
13oxborough In March 2000 residents of Boxborough voted to limit the size of new retail
development to 25,000 square feet.
Northhampton In May 2002 the Northampton City Council prohibited stores larger
than 90,000 square feet and required developers proposing stores larger than
20,000 square feet to build pedestrian-friendly, two-story buildings contiguous
to the street or to pay a $5 per square foot mitigation fee, The fee will be used to
fund economic development designed to offset the impact of retail sprawl on
downtown businesses.
Weslfond Westford beat back a Wal-Mart in 1994,and then moved to prohibit the building
of large retail developments (over 50,000 square feet) and to require permits for
projects between 30,000 and 50,000 square feet. This was to allow time for citizen
Input and board re,view.
Source: Newrules.org
Six Truths They Don't Teach
in Economic Development Classes
By Lloyd Matthes
Reprinted with permission from the Kansas Government Journal
....... .......... ................................................ ....................
During the past 30 years of "doing deals, J) 1 have seen lots of good economic develop-
ment projects go south for reasons rangingfrom the business being undercapitalized to
a company presidents wife believing that Wisconsin had polar bears. (Jes, thats a true
story). In almost every case where 1 have had a major success, and there have been a
few, it was because 1 was able to bring into play one or more of six basic truths that
they didn't teach me when 1 trained for my certification as an Economic Development
Finance Professional. While knowing the following six truths won't guarantee success
in landing any specific business, failure to recognize them will make it much harder
to land any business.
. .............. ...... ..................... .... ................... ....................
Truth Number One: Businesses Don't Locate for
What You Give Them TOday, They Locate for the
Profits They Will Make Tomorrow!
'When I was a naYve young man working as a planner/com-
munity development director in a city in central Wisconsin,
I once made a passionate presentation for a park, basing
the entire presentation on the upgrade to the city's quality
of life and how that would attract business to the city. One
of the Park and Recreation Commission's members for life
was Stanton Mead, at the time the world's 33rd richest man
and the power behind the Consolidated Papers Empire.
As Stanton voted, so voted the commission, and my park
project died. After the meeting, Stanton stopped me in the
parking lot and gave me the first truth of economic devel-
opment. As we stood by his pickup watching his dogs eat
the steering wheel, Stanton said, "Young man, you made a
good proposal, but you have to remember that businesses
don't locate for what you give them today, they locate for
the profits they will make tomorrow."
Stanton's one piece of advice to me was probably the
most important piece of economic development training
I ever received. It was emphasized a few years later when
a state agency and a city gave major incentive dollars to a
medical computer company. Because it was the first major
project of a newly formed branch of a state agency, and
because the promised returns were stated in hundreds of
millions of dollars, several red flags were ignored, and the
state poured several million dollars in incentive funds into
the company account. About two years later, the state
was able to extradite the company president from a South
American country.
Incentive packages can be useful tools. They can also be
a waste of money. Incentive loans should always have collat-
eral, be it in the form of a building, equipment, or utilities
in the ground. Even so, without a strong profit motive, a
company can easily leave at the least provocation.
JULY 2007 . T E X A S TOW N & C IT Y 15
~
Truth Number Two: The Real Marketing Agents for
Any City Are the Clerks in the Stores and the Drunk
on the Street!
I
I learned the second truth when my office received word
that business scouts for a major insutance company wanted
to meet with city officials and the economic development
organization. During a hastily called banquet, sponsored by
the owner of a local hotel, it was mentioned that the scout-
ing team had been in the city for a full week. Being a "gra-
cious host," I commented that had they let us know they
were in town, we would have been happy to show them
around and saved them a lot of effort. The business scouts
politely eXplained that their method of analyzing a city was
to separate, lodge in different hotels, eat in different restau-
rants, shop in different stores, and to discuss a scripted set
of questions with virtually everyone they met. They pointed
out, correctly, that the economic development corporation
and the city officials would have shown them what would
showcase the city and not what was important to their cli-
ent. The leader of the team of business scouts stated that
they could learn more from the clerks in the stores and the
drunk on the street than they could from a scripted tour
hosted by local economic development officials.
Later, while doing some consulting for various cities, I
used the same techniques and learned that I really could
learn more about a city, in less time, by discussing a scripted
set of questions with waitresses, clerks, and hotel staff than I
could from the official agenda. The best and the worst rep-
resentatives of any city are its residents. The more positive
residents are about a city, rhe easier it is to market that city
to prospective businesses.
Truth Number Three: Attitude Counts!
This is a spin-off of truth number two. In small towns
especially, a common theme is, "We are just a little town; no
business wants to come here!" If that is the prevailing atti-
tude of the town, then the statement is absolutely correct.
Given a chance to make a profit, business can be attracted
or expanded regardless of the size of the city. The corollary
is that if new businesses are viewed as competition for labor
or market, it is very easy to prevent new business.
Any city that has a positive, can-do attitude toward
attracting business and is prepared to act positively can
eventually attract new businesses. There are numerous suc-
cessful businesses located in cities or even in the middle of
rural farmland that owe their location and success strictly
to the positive attitude of the founder or the city. A city's
attitude plays a significant role in whether or not the city
remains economically viable.
16 T E X A S TOW N & C \ T Y .. J U L Y 2007
Truth Number Four: There Is No Status Quo!
No city can freeze a moment in time and remain there. A
city, by its actions, either moves forward or backward. The
world and technology keep moving forward. Move with
the times, and you may keep up. Anticipate the future, and
you may get ahead. Try to stand still, and the world will
pass you by.
Truth Number Five: Economic Development Must
Be Planned!
There are any number of stories of cities that failed to plan
for growth and ended up with huge debt loads or major
deficits in services. Everything must be paid for. From the
time a major employer decides to locate in a given area, to
the time the city gets a return, is a minimum of two years.
For every 100 jobs created, there is roughly a need for 100
employees, 100 houses, 3/5 of a police officer, 2Yz class-
rooms, and approximately 3/5 of a mile of sewer, streets,
warer mains, telephone lines, gas lines, and electric lines. If
these services and amenities do not exist, they must be cre-
ated. A knee-jerk reaction, without looking at the ability to
provide for the optimum method of meeting these needs,
can be disastrous.
Truth Number Six: Keep Your Existing Businesses!
Attracting a business that employs five people at a reason-
able wage, while losing an existing business that employs
six people at the same wage, is a net loss. Both business
attraction and business retention are important. Attraction
is more exciting, but, in my experience, roughly 70 per-
cent of the rime spent on economic development is spent
behind the scenes on business retention. Businesses with
elderly owners, or those that start laying off employees, or
those that cut wages are all raising red flags that need to be
investigated.
As I said in the beginning, knowing the six truths won't
necessarily land you a given business. You never know what
polar bears lurk in peoples' minds. However, if you look
at the profit potential, maintain a positive attitude toward
the city as a whole by the majority of residents, be positive
toward the future of the city, keep looking forward, plan
for development and growth, and keep your existing busi-
nesses healthy, then you are well on your way to having an
economically viable city. *
Lloyd Matthes is an independent economic development
consultant. He can be reached at Imatthes47@hotmaiLcom.
Report of The La Porte
Economic Development
Corporation - June 2007
www.loportetx.gov
Inquiries .
Buxton Community ID 2
Updates and ED Efforts
Continued
Meetings ..,
.)
.
Development Site Plans 4
Meeting Dates 4
.
Prepared by:
Gretchen Black, Economic
Development Coordinator
(281) 470-5013
blackg@laportetx.gov
Economic Development
Report
Around Town
Two deals totaling 204,000 sf of office/warehouse space have taken occu-
pancy to 72% in the first phase of the one-year-old Bayport North Distribution Cen-
ter located at 4330 Underwood Road at Fainnont Parkway. A pending 87,500-sf
expansion by an existing tenant will up that figure to 87% shortly. In the completed
deals, Catalytic Distillation Technologies, a Houston-based developer and licenser
of refining and petrochemical processes, took 60,000 sf, while Memphis-based Mal-
lory Alexander International Logistics LLC claimed 144,000 sf. Walter Menuet,
vice president of marketing for the Vantage Coso in Houston, represented the owner,
the Carson Coso of Newport Beach, CA, in the transactions. According to Menuet,
Carson just broke ground on the project's second phase. Scheduled for completion
early next year, the second phase will have two cross-dock buildings, one with
600,000 sf and the other with 172,000 sf.
Developer/Broker/Leasing Agent/Other Inquiries and Updates
BAHEP sent information on Project .
Clear a company seeking 30 to 100
acres of land to build a new business
park. The information was shared
with our broker/agent listing and we
also sent some information on the
City owned property located on Bay
Area Blvd.
BAHEP also sent information on
Project Wash, a company seeking 8
acres for a global manufacturer of
machinery. The information was
shared with our broker/agent listing.
.
Developer of Canada Road sent draft
preliminary site plan for review.
Staff and City Manager comments
were returned to him and he was en-
couraged to submit a detailed site
plan to begin the review process by
the Planning Department. Staff re-
minded him that until a detailed site
plan was submitted that talks with
the City regarding incentives were
premature.
.
Staff met with developer who continues
to express an interest in a small devel-
opment in the Main Street area at five
points. Strategies and issues were dis-
cussed as to how the City may be able
to assist on a project depending upon
what is to be built.
Staff was contacted by a broker who has
a client interested in building a large
apartment complex in our area. Infor-
mation on the city was provided along
with the specific zoning regulations.
The developer of the Canada Road pro-
ject requested a letter for his leasing
agent so that work could begin to attract
retail establishments to the proposed
center. Staff provided a general letter
informing perspective tenants that the
City supported the proposed develop-
ment and was committed to doing what
we could to insure the endeavor was a
success.
Page 2
,
"Economic Development
Eflorts Continue "
Economic Development Report
Buxton Community ID@ Efforts Exponded ond on "Excerpt on Incetives"
The second tier retailer letters are
ready for review and approval by the City
Manager.
In our continued efforts on this front
a letter was sent to Bailey's American Grille
who has opened a location in Seabrook in-
viting them to come to La Porte and meet
with us about a location here.
Contact was made with Trader
Joe's, a specialty grocery store chain similar
to Whole Foods, as yet we have not re-
ceived a reply to our inquiry.
Jared Jewelry was sent a follow up
email in response to earlier emails received
by staff. Unfortunately they are not looking
to expand into La Porte at this time. How-
ever, their leasing manager was appreciative
of the information and stated that he would
certainly keep us in mind.
Information on a popular Austin
Restaurant looking to expand their opera-
tions was provided to the leasing agent for
the Canada Road development. He also has
plans to meet with representatives of Olive
Garden.
And while we are on the subject of
attracting retail businesses, the following is
offered from an article by M. Ray Perryman
of the Perryman Group who is an active real
estate broker and site selection coordinator.
What About Incentives?
In order to go from "close" to
"win", in the site selection process is nor-
mally going to require the use of incentives.
On a physiological level, the value and mer-
its of such financial inducements may be
legitimately debated. Moreover, there is lit-
tle doubt that economic development re-
sources have been misdirected or used inef-
ficiently at times, leading some to advocate
their elimination. As a practical matter,
however, incentives are absolutely essential
to an effective growth strategy. They should
certainly be used in a prudent and rational
manner, but they must be available.
The role of incentives can be readily
viewed by again considering the economic
development process in a market context. It
is rare that a facility can only locate in one
area. There are typically several suitable
sites for which long-term costs are more or
less equivalent. As a result, businesses typi-
cally develop a "short list" of potential com-
munities that meet their workforce, trans-
portation, and other fundamental needs. As
the final site selection process unfolds, the
management of the firm seeking a new loca-
tion has a fiduciary responsibility to provide
optimal value to its owners. Similarly, if site
selection consultants are involved, there is
an expectation that they will bring substan-
tial "value-added" to the process.
Seven Advantages of Improved Information and Data Strategy
While confidentiality still plays a role in expanding/moving business operations, we must be
realistic that information is everywhere. ED Coordinators can create a competitive advantage
for their EDOs by improving data delivery strategies as follows:
1. Out-service the competition through easy-to-use data communication programs.
2. Provide more and/or better data and information to create higher value.
3. Create a "visibility" advantage over those who are less visible because of poor communica-
tion strategies.
4. Provide tools, such as GIS, that help businesses understand and visualize a community's data
and show "what's in it for them:'
5. Use optimal information distribution systems, such as the Internet, to maximize marketing.
6. Automate standard data analysis requests from external customers and internal staff that frees
up valuable staff time for expert-level work.
7. Centralize data information, and decentralize data access, on a Web site.
There are many examples of how economic developers use the Internet to communicate data to
businesses, persuading them to invest and grow in their communities.
Economic Development Report
STAFF MEETINGS
, Met with the owner ofthe Sylvan
Beach Grocery Store to discuss various
development related opportunities in the
City. He also requested clarification of
use issues associated with his current
location because he is interested in sell-
ing tacos and sandwiches which will be
made in-house. The requirements were
explained and he was encouraged to
make his request in writing and when
ready, visit with the Planning Director.
As of the end of the month he had ap-
plied with Planning Department for a
zoning permit for the requested activity.
Met with Mr. Alton Ogden who
was seeking information related to any
type of City assistance with a project he
was proposing in the light industrial area
between 14th and 16th Streets. Mr. Ogden
was informed that unless there was a sig-
nificant capital investment and job crea-
tion, incentives were not available from
the City. However, he was encouraged to
place his proposaVrequest in writing and
it would be passed along to the City
Manager for consideration.
Later in the month staff met
again with Mr. Ogden regarding proper-
ties he is developing in Sector 23. He
inquired about the city commitment to
complete necessary road paving in the
area if he can consolidate the properties
including the Colvin Trust. We informed
him the City Manager has said that he
supports the needed road construction.
However, he wants to see a completed
consolidation plan in order to proceed.
Staff attended an International
Business Development meeting at BA-
HEP. The topic was conducting business
with overseas companies and the differ-
ent protocols necessary to be successful.
A meeting with the City Man-
ager and staff for follow up items for the
Lakes of Fairmont Green, Retreat at Bay
Forest and Port Crossing was completed.
The Planning Department has sent an-
other letter to each of the two subdivision
managers as a reminder of tasks yet to be
completed. There were no outstanding items
with Port Crossing.
The City Manager met with staff
for follow up items from the TIRZ meeting
on July 18. It appears that the TIRZ Board
may not provide funding for the 13th Street
hotel project. Therefore, per the City Man-
agers request, staff completed a summary
report for the Planning Department to check
on other means of funding for some of the
items in the project.
Staff finalized enough information
regarding truck route safety issues for the
City Council Workshop on 7/23. The pres-
entation was given by Intern Mike Stokes
who reviewed the original concerns and
issues for the Council and the proposed
changes to the City Code.
Staff attended an Economic Work-
force Development meeting at BAHEP.
The discussions centered on what cities are
doing to assist in encouraging and maintain-
ing a viable workforce. A personal goal was
to attend each of the different monthly
meetings at BAHEP to determine which
meetings best suit the needs of our ED ef-
forts.
Attended the Economic Alliance
Small Business Development meeting to
assist with coordination of the next ABC
Small Business Power Breakfast. Also
joined the Alliance for their welcome recep-
tion for County Judge Ed Emmett and their
new staff member Marie McDermott.
Staff has completed the RFP for the
new ED web site and it will be presented to
the Board for consideration at the proposed
8/27 meeting. Staff will also provide an up-
date on Project Austin Powers, present the
proposed FY 2008 Budget for consideration
and approval and other information.
Page 3
"The central problem of our
age is how to act decisively
in the absence of certainty"
~~ Bertrand Russell
IQ
,- '
v
Page 4
Economic Development Report
Minor Development Site Plans
West B Commercial Dev.
229 State Hwy. 146 S
Approved
Quality Inn
(85 Rooms, near Driftwood)
Approved
EI Rancheros
(Remodeling)
Approved
Quality Inn & Suites
(Phase II, 50 Rooms)
Under Review
Fairmont Parkway Plaza
9803 Fairmont Pkwy
(C Store/gas/retail ctr.)
Under Review
Retail CtrIMedical Office
40] W. Fairmont Pkwy.
Under Review
Bob McAmis Project
106 N. ]] th Street
(Proposed bldg.lgarage)
Under Review
Pfeiffer & Sons Ltd.
]]6 N. ] 6th Street
(Additional bldg.)
Under Review
Petro-Chern Refrig.lnc.
9] 02 Spencer Highway
(Additional bldg.)
Under Review
Cat-Spec
225 N. 16h Street
(Parking lot Improvement)
Under Review
Battleground Industrial Park
10] Old Underwood Road
(Office & storage yard)
Under Review
Candlewood Suites, Fairmont
Shopping Center, NLB Corp. of
La Porte, Phillips Services
Corp., and Glacier Water Co.
Still under review
Major Development Site Plans and Plats
Maior Site Plan
Preserve at Taylor Bayou
7]] McCabe Road (9 apt. bldgs. wll80 units
& clubhouse) Under Review
Final PlatlReplat
GRY Subdivision
2627 Underwood Road
Approved
Preliminary Plat
Pine Bluff Estates
Pine Bluff Drive
{Minor subdivision)
Under Review
City Council, Commissions and Board Meeting Dates
JULY
LPEDC - no meeting
City Council - July 23
LPRA/TRIZ Board - July] 8
P&Z - July ]9
ZBOA - July 26
AUGUST
LPEDC - August 27
City Council - August 13 and 27
LPRAlTRIZ Board - August 22
P&Z - August ]6
ZBOA - August 23
The 80th Texas Legislature was a (thankfully) quiet one for economic developers. Although the Texas
Economic Development Council (TEDC) actively tracked 56 bills, only 15 made it to the Governor's
desk. Despite the relative calm on the economic development front, the TEDC achieved many of its
top legislative priorities, including increased funding for the Skills Development Fund and continued
funding for the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The economic
development sales tax, usually a target for legislative action, was left virtually unchanged.
OVERVIEW OF BILLS FILED
The economic development bills flied this session covered the spectrum. Many were technical in nature
and focused on the use of incentives like tax increment financing (TIF) and enterprise zones. Several of
the bills flied, including HB 1196 by Kolkhorst, addressed the controversial issue of companies
employing undocumented immigrants. At least a dozen bills focused on the Texas Enterprise Fund and
the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, although only a few passed. A handful of bills addressed rural
development, including HB 2542 by Kolkhorst, the Office of Rural and Community Affairs
(ORCA) sunset reauthorization bill, which passed.
The following table details the approximate number of bills flied in different subject areas:
IililmJEiJ
-
~""~-
-
DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION PASSED
AND CONSIDERED
Economic Development Sales Tax
The economic development sales tax, which is typically the focus of several competing bills, was
left virtually unchanged during the 2007 session. A few minor bills did pass, such as SB 1089 by
Shapiro, which allows 4A or 4B corporations to spend economic development sales tax revenue on light
rail, commuter rail, or motor buses. Another bill, SB 1509 by Lucio authorizes the asset management
division of the General Land Office to sell real property to an economic development corporation.
HB 3440 by Parker, also passed. The bill adds "hangars, airport maintenance and repair facilities, air cargo
facilities, related irifrastructure located on or adjacent to an airportfacility" to the definition of "Project" in
Section 2 of the Development Corporation Act (DCA). The bill also adds airport facilities to the
definition of eligible projects under 4B of the DCA as long as the eligible city undertaking the project
officially enters into a development agreement with an entity that acquires a leasehold or other possessory
interest from the corporation and is authorized to sublease the entity's interest for other projects
authorized by this subdivision. The governing body of the eligible city must also adopt a resolution
approving the development agreement at a meeting called as authorized by law.
All told, only six economic development sales tax bills were flied during the 2007 session, surely a
record lovv. Of these bills, the TEDC only opposed one-HB 1874 by Aycock, which would have
added medical facilities to the definition of project under the Development Corporation Act. The bill
received a hearing in February before the House Economic Development Committee, but was left
pending. Other bills that failed to pass include:
· HB 2308 by Rose passed the House and Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Technology
and Economic Development, but never made it to the full Senate for a vote. The bill would
have released 4B cqrporations created by cities with less than 20,000 residents from the
requirement of holding a public hearing prior to approving a project, except if the project in
question is not authorized under Section 4A of the Development Corporation Act. The bill
also would have allowed voters to elect to: (1) limit (and later extend) the period during which
the tax is imposed and (2) restrict the use of the tax to a specific project or the projects for
which the tax is imposed and subsequently perform other projects with voter approval.
· HB 1617 by Darby, also passed the House, but failed to receive a hearing in the Senate.
The bill would have changed current law to allow a director of a 4B economic development
corporation to reside outside the city limits in communities with populations less than 100,000
(instead of current law which specifies 20,000). The bill also would have limited the number of
"non-resident" board members to two.
IlIiIDDtiJ
2
l.-.........,...,.,-
-Lillll [L -&tI L_......J
-__..~.,... <iJ_
.TI:i!iE~ _,..",~,....._,...... ll'_~~
P.t~:''''1l!I!
--~1I!'.il~
Texas Emerging Technology Fund
Another top legislative priority for the TEDC was continued funding for the Texas Emerging
Technology Fund (TETF), which was created two years after the TEF, as a way to boost Texas'
competitiveness in the area of science and technology.
Although funding levels for the TETF were less generous than the previous biennium, HB 1, the
Appropriations Act, directed about $180 million for the 2008-9 biennium for the Texas Emerging
Technology Fund, which includes $75 million in new money (the rest is interest income and
unexpended balances). HB 1 also provides $1.2 million for the biennium to administer the TETF,
which was also a TEDC legislative priority.
HB 1188 by Morrison, which passed, authorizes the governor to make awards in the form of loans
and to charge and receive reasonable interest for the loans. The bill also provides the state with the
authority to take an equity position in the form of a stock or other security when making an award
and the sell the security for the benefit of the fund. The TEDC supported HB 1188 and its identical
companion, SB 486 by Shapiro.
Skills Development Fund
More good news on the economic development front is the $51 million appropriation to the Skills
Development Fund, an increase of $11 million over the past biennium, to provide customized job
training to an additional 8,000 workers. In addition, HB 48 by Chavez, also passed, addressing the
funding mechanism for the Skills Development Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund.
Texas Economic Development Act
The Texas Development Act (HB 1200) was enacted in 2003 to create a mechanism for school districts
to offer property tax relief to businesses making major capital investments. Under the Act, a school
district has the authority (but not the obligation) to limit the appraised property value of certain
eligible projects ("value limitations").
HB 1470 by Eissler which passed, extended the "sunset" date of the Texas Economic Development
Act from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2011. The bill also transferred the responsibility of
conducting economic impact studies of value limitations from the Texas Education Agency to the
Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Several bills also were filed during the 2007 session to expand the type of businesses eligible to receive
value limitations under the Act. One bill that passed was HB 2994 by Bonnen, which authorizes
school district to grant "value limitations" to nuclear electric generation facilities and integrated
gasification combined cycle electric generation facilities. The bill also amended Chapter 312 of the
Tax Code (the statute regulating the use of property tax abatements) to permit owners of nuclear
1l1iI1m&J
4
,-,,=-=-L,- -->.~<T.j"'~''''''-----= "~=~k;~..~~~~~:1I~~,,"-"'----~-'-~~~'-
:t.~ ,,;'j~i,~Ek~~;:' ';;.:{,;-~,~lf ~;,;' 'L~'" ~ ~~::::~~'-~~J:- ,J~ ~
electric power generation facilities to defer the effective date of a tax abatement agreement up to seven
years after the date the agreement was made.
A bill strongly supported by the TEDC that failed to pass, SB 1105 by Watson, would have
expanded the type of projects allowable under the Texas Economic Development Act to include data
centers. The bill passed the Senate with a wide majority, but did not make it in time for a vote on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
Tax Increment Financing
The growing popularity of TIFs as an economic development pool is evidenced by the large number
of bills flied that would have amended Chapter 311 of the Tax Code, the Tax Increment Financing
Act. In the end, only SB 1264 by Brimer passed. The legislation authorizes a city or county that
levies taxes on real property in a reinvestment zone to make a loan to the board of directors of the
zone for deposit in the tax increment fund for the zone if the city council and/ or commissioner's court
determines that the loan is beneficial to, and serves a public purpose of, the taxing unit. The loan
proceeds could be used for start-up funding for the zone and would be repaid by the tax increments
generated as a result of the project.
Several bills, which did not pass, would have allowed TIFS to be used to build educational facilities
(HB 1294 by Villareal, SB 941 by Wentworth, HB 3027 by Frost). Other bills flied that did
not pass would have made it easier to establish and maintain TIFs. For example, HB 3957 by Castro
would have authorized the governing body of a municipality to extend the termination date for existing
reinvestment zones.
Enterprise Zones
As in previous sessions, several bills were flied to change the Texas Enterprise Zone Program. The bill
that finally passed was HB 3694 by Deshotel, which made several substantive and beneficial
changes to the program. Maj.or changes include the following:
· The number of available enterprise project designations was increased form 85 to 105 during
a biennium. Unused designations may be carried forward to the next biennium.
· The current sales and use tax refund available to enterprise projects (which is limited to
purchases of certain machinery, equipment, materials, labor, and electricity and natural gas)
has been replaced with a total exemption of all taxable items purchased for use at a qualified
business site related to an enterprise project or activity.
· Sales and use tax refunds available under the program may- not be used for jobs moved form
one part of the state to another.
IililtmtiJ
5
~_.~~'i-~""'"
_...,..,...~ft'I>E~~.2U~~~~-:!,-';m~~Y.&?U'~:ttl1'ffi'<ntEr~~!:.'d,~!~.!T...;.:fi.m~~~~~a~!!~j~d~
electric power generation facilities to defer the effective date of a tax abatement agreement up to seven
years after the date the agreement was made.
A bill strongly supported by the TEDC that failed to pass, SB 1105 by Watson, would have
expanded the type of projects allowable under the Texas Economic Development Act to include data
centers. The bill passed the Senate with a wide majority, but did not make it in time for a vote on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
Tax Increment Financing
The growing popularity of TIFs as an economic development pool is evidenced by the large number
of bills fIled that would have amended Chapter 311 of the Tax Code, the Tax Increment Financing
Act. In the end, only SB 1264 by Brimer passed. The legislation authorizes a city or county that
levies taxes on real property in a reinvestment zone to make a loan to the board of directors of the
zone for deposit in the tax increment fund for the zone if the city council and/or commissioner's court
determines that the loan is beneficial to, and serves a public purpose of, the taxing unit. The loan
proceeds could be used for start-up funding for the zone and would be repaid by the tax increments
generated as a result of the project.
Several bills, which did not pass, would have allowed TIFS to be used to build educational facilities
(HB 1294 by Villareal, SB 941 by Wentworth, HB 3027 by Frost). Other bills flied that did
not pass would have made it easier to establish and maintain TIFs. For example, HB 3957 by Castro
would have authorized the governing body of a municipality to extend the termination date for existing
reinvestment zones.
Enterprise Zones
As in previous sessions, several bills were flied to change the Texas Enterprise Zone Program. The bill
that finally passed was HB 3694 by Deshotel, which made several substantive and beneficial
changes to the program. Major changes include the following:
· The number of available enterprise project designations was increased form 85 to 105 during
a biennium. Unused designations may be carried forward to the next biennium.
· The current sales and use tax refund available to enterprise projects (which is limited to
purchases of certain machinery; equipment, materials, labor, and electricity and natural gas)
has been replaced with a total exemption of all taxable items purchased for use at a qualified
business site related to an enterprise project or activity.
· Sales and use tax refunds available under the program may not be used for jobs moved form
one part of the state to another.
iililmJriJ
5
(.'/'~~::t=>~._._,,~&LiI>ii=-~';~-~"-_""""""~. """.......""'".;F;i-~.,~;;;='. ,." "--~'~'D"''''''''~''''''''''-~~'';\-~'"'"''''''~''''''~~
~""''':a.:.!",=~..",,~M&~'fdf._~,~t!K"__'''___''''''lI!,",.;x~~'.i.,""._ ...,...............,,,
. A capital investment tax credit (in Section 151.429 of the Tax Code) was created for
enterprise projects designated on or after September 1, 200 I and before January I, 2005.
This credit was originally contained in HB 512 by Farabee.
. Compliance monitoring responsibilities were transferred from the Texas Economic
Development Bank to the Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Rural Development
Another top legislative priority for the TEDC was boosted state resources for rural economic
development. Although the Texas Entrepreneurial Network (TEN), which was created, but not funded
during the 2005 session, did not receive any state appropriations, the Office of Rural and Community
Affairs (ORCA) was reauthorized for an additional six years under HB 2542 by Kolkorst et. al.
The ORCA Sunset bill:
. Replaces the 9-member executive committee with an II-member board that would be
required, among other things, to review grant applications and approve grant and loan
awards.
. Narrows ORCA's powers and duties to include assisting rural communities in the key areas of
economic development, community development, rural health, and rural housing
. Authorizes ORCA to locate its field staff in Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) offices
and work in cOrUunction with the TDA to regularly cross-train office employees regarding the
programs administered and services provided by each agency to rural communities.
. Requires ORCA to work in consultation with the TDA to evaluate and streamline the
administration of the rural Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
SB 1128 by Hegar changes the name of the Rural Foundation to the Texas Rural Foundation, and
increases the number of board members from five to an odd number of members between nine and
14 appointed by the executive committee of the Office of Rural Community Affairs.
Another bill that passed is HB 2660 by King, which authorizes funds from the Texas Economic
Development Bank to provide grants or financing to the Texas Department of Transportation to
support rural rail development.
HB 2598 by Homer would have created a new funding source for rural economic development
called the Texas RuralJob Development Fund (TRJDF). The bill also would have amended the Texas
Enterprise Fund statute to authorize the governor to make grants to the Office of Rural Affairs. The
1i1S1iDti1
6
_~~'~OR'''''''''=::lL'~""",.v.....,~'7~ =-~~~)7r.;;';;~1a~,,_..;:il'"~-~;;.::n~~I'~~i'~tlt~tsF.."J;t~.
--.-
bill was voted favorably from the House Agriculture and Livestock committee, but did not make it to
the House floor. Senator Lucio filed similar legislation in the Senate.
Film Incentives
Legislation also passed (HB 1634 by Dukes) which changed the name of the Film Industry
Incentive Program to the Moving Image Industry Incentive Program. Under the new legislation,
grants can be made available to production companies that spend at least $1 million on the production
of a film or TV program or $100,000 on a series of commercials or digital interactive media produc-
tion. To qualifY for a grant, at least 70 percent of the crevv, actors, and extras must be Texas residents.
The Appropriations Act includes $22 million in funding for the program over the next two years.
Other Issues
· HB 2514 by McClendon authorized a municipality with a population of more than one
million to designate a defined area in the municipality as an arts and entertainment district.
· SB 1424 by Brimer repealed the minimum municipality population requirements for the
use of the Other Events trust fUnd.
· SB 1724 by Ogden abolished the Texas Military Facilities Commission and transfers its
functions to the Acljutant General.
Looking Ahead
Although the legislative session is over, the TEDC will continue to actively monitor legislative and state
agency activities that affect our profession and the communities we serve. During the upcoming interim
period, the TEDC will work closely with policymakers and their staff to ensure that the voice of the
economic development profession is heard. TEDC members will continue to receive updates on
important legislative matters and may be asked to participate in meetings, task forces, and other efforts
to communicate the needs and experiences of Texas economic developers.
A special thanks to our TEDC members for participating
in the 2007 legislative session. Your personal visits,
phone calls, emails, and committee testimony make a real difference.
iililmJ&J
7
.....-.-..-.. ,~._-"""",-- ~~""-"'=~~"'-"'~~'-"_"'.e'~~ .>-,-=.,..,.,..~,-"~.~~-;:.,,r,:;~~.~c!_'f.?i'.;'l.~~J~",T
.r
ABOUT THE TEXAS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
The Texas Economic Development Council (TEDC) is the nation's largest state association of eco-
nomic development professionals, volunteers, and elected officials. As the collective voice of the eco-
nomic development profession at the Texas State Capitol, the TEDC is dedicated to working closely
with lawmakers to pass legislation that helps bring good jobs to Texas. As a leading training provider,
the TEDC is also committed to preparing the next generation of economic development leaders for
success and educating the public about the value of economic development.
Key Contact: Carlton Schwab, President/CEO of the Texas Economic Development Council
Phone: 512.480.8432 I Email: carlton@texasedc.org
TEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
1300 GUADALUPE, SUITE 107, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
PHONE: 512.480.8432 I WWW.TEXASEDC.ORG
IilillmliJ
8
rc....s tc.::!r''''''J; (lC"'I;Li;i~..t~; c.c.....:;'.