Bradenton Area EDC Contract Renewal Declined by BOCC Majority

BRADENTON — Manatee County Government’s contract with the Bradenton Area Economic Development Corporation for the reimbursement of economic activities will be allowed to lapse later this month after a vote to renew failed to gain a majority support of commissioners.

The Bradenton Area Economic Development Corporation (EDC) is a not-for-profit corporation established by local business partners to foster economic development in Manatee County.

Since about 2011, Manatee County Government, through its Redevelopment and Economic Opportunities Department (REO), contracted with the local EDC for deliverables related to the activities of promoting economic development incentives for local, domestic, and international business retention and expansion.

The county’s Department of REO and the local EDC, in conjunction with the state’s Qualified Targeted Industry Tax Refund program, set minimum requirements for incentives, including creating at least ten jobs at 115% above the area median income for the given year, within targeted sectors.

In 2021, however, while former administrator Scott Hopes led the county organization, the REO Department was ordered disbanded, and the funds allocated to its operation were shifted to double the reimbursements toward services to the EDC—essentially outsourcing the majority of the county’s redevelopment responsibilities and management to the EDC. 

The county’s existing contract, or reimbursement agreement, is set to expire on September 30. The renewal for fiscal year 2025-2026, to cover services for local and global marketing and business development activities, sets the reimbursement total at $336,900.

Tuesday’s agenda item was opened with a presentation by EDC President and Chief Executive Officer Sharon Hillstrom. The last time Hillstrom stood at the chamber podium to address the commission was during board deliberation on raising impact fees, where Hillstrom spoke in opposition to the measure.

Following Hillstrom’s presentation on the EDC ahead of the commission’s vote for the EDC contract renewal, the commission appeared divided. Some questioned the metrics used to track and report deliverables, as well as the overall return on investment for the services contracted by the EDC.

Commissioner Jason Bearden directed a series of questions to Hillstrom regarding the specifics of the corporation’s work, services provided to the county, and outcomes. 

The commissioner requested Hillstrom to detail the EDC’s “direct involvement” in the expansions of two businesses to the area—First Watch Restaurant and IMG Academy—which were two examples included in Hillstrom’s presentation.

“Anytime there is an expansion,” answered Hillstrom, “there could be challenges with communication on both sides, with the county or the company. So, we try to liaison with them.”

She provided some examples of assistance with obtaining permits, workforce training, grants, incentives, or other programs. Hillstrom added that EDC’s cultivation of “great relationships” with county staff is a valuable tool in assisting businesses.

“If they don’t know the right people to talk to within the county, we do,” Hillstrom answered.

Bearden also inquired about how EDC measures its program's success and whether there was data that Hillstrom could produce to show the return on investment for its services over the last five years.

Hillstrom answered that projected jobs created and capital investments were a primary metric, which she called “a lagging indicator,” which “we don’t have a lot of control over.”

Commissioner Tal Siddique followed Bearden’s questions for Hillstrom with a series of his own.

Siddique asked about the EDC’s funding makeup, specifically its proportions of public versus private funding. Hillstrom confirmed that it was comprised of approximately 60% private funding and 40% public funding. Hillstrom further clarified that local governments fund all incentives offered to businesses.

Siddique expressed his desire for the EDC to have a focus and target that includes small business development, as opposed to only corporations, franchises, or industries, and for the development of a strategic plan through collaboration.

Concluding his questions, Siddique offered, “I appreciate the relationship we have with the EDC, but I do not think the current agreement really aligns with what I feel that we should be allocating taxpayer funds today… and I don’t think the data supports it either.”  

“This is very marketing-heavy,” said Siddique of the existing agreement.

“It doesn’t mention a conversion rate at all, which is a big concern I have,” he added, before offering a motion that the board allow the existing contract to terminate so that a possible new contract with revised terms could be negotiated.

Commission Chair George Kruse said that while he respected Siddique’s and Bearden’s perspectives, he disagreed with letting the contract expire.

Kruse further argued that, rather than waiting for the contract to come before the board for renewal, commissioners with concerns should have been proactive in asking questions and seeking information from Hillstrom and EDC staff ahead of the vote.

Siddique pushed back, alleging that he had held numerous conversations with the EDC and that the EDC staff “did not show up” to an initial meeting he had requested.

Staying firm in his position, Siddique reiterated his dissatisfaction with the collection and timely reporting of data, as well as the terms of the existing agreement to include the inclusion of “measurable decisive outcomes.”

Commissioner Mike Rahn joined Kruse in stating that he would not vote in favor of Siddique’s motion.

During public comment, Mark Vengroff, Managing Partner of One Stop Housing, and a current member of the EDC Executive Committee, was joined by a representative of FPL and Landefeld Communications in requesting the board reconsider allowing the contract with EDC to expire.

Commissioner Bob McCann directed comments and posed a question to Hillstrom as well.

“We have a lot of letters that you have brought us from individuals who are on the committee or something like that,” McCann continued, “So, my concern is that you are asking for money and talking about how what we are paying for is the relationships you have with people… It sounds to me like you have some sort of special relationships with county staff, too, which, are you a lobbyist, or what?”

“I’m not a lobbyist,” assured Hillstrom. “With all due respect, relationships are key in helping businesses.”

Siddique also took a moment to highlight the vast number of board members of the EDC.

“Did you know there are 58 board members?” Siddique said to his colleagues. “I’m a former management consultant. My father ran a small business. How do you run an organization with that many board members?”
 
“I think there are a lot of problems with the EDC that we are just not talking about here,” he continued. “I think it’s our job as a board to pressure to have some changes up here.”

Commissioner Amanda Ballard proposed exploring a compromise that would allow for a temporary extension of the contract, enabling new terms to be negotiated. 

With board deliberations running up against the lunch break, Siddique’s motion to allow the existing contract to terminate was put to a vote. It failed, 3-4, with Commissioners Siddique, Bearden, and McCann voting in favor, and Kruse, Rahn, Ballard, and Commissioner Carol Felts voting in opposition.

Commissioner Rahn then motioned for the board to vote on moving forward with approving the contract’s renewal for the next fiscal year. That motion also failed 3-4, leading to some moments of confusion as to how the item moved forward.

Commissioners Kruse, Rahn, and Ballard voted to renew, while Felts joined Bearden, Siddique, and McCann, voting against renewal.

With both votes failing, the status quo remained, meaning the existing contract with the EDC would be left to expire on September 30, without board approval for its renewal thereafter.

Ballard then moved to extend the existing contract to provide additional time for revisions. However, the county attorney requested that the board take a break for lunch to allow her office and staff to review the existing terms and determine whether they provided for the option of an extension.

When the board reconvened an hour later, the county attorney was able to confirm that the existing contract terms do not include provisions for extensions as is.

With the confirmation and the board’s two votes before lunch, the result remained the same—the county’s contract with the EDC would expire, and a contract renewal was not approved for the next fiscal year. 

Kruse called the decision short-sighted and poor timing.

“I think this is a good start, a good conversation. I think it is a productive conversation… But I still think we need to renew this for a year and put the EDC on notice,” proposed Kruse.

Bearden disagreed, suggesting that the board consider negotiations for a new contract that would require the recording and reporting of long-term economic outcome metrics, such as the number of companies represented by the EDC that remain in operation beyond 3-5 years.

“These are important metrics that we need to look at,” he said.

Siddique summarized the decision by telling Hillstrom, “The fact that when I ask the question of ‘What is your conversion rate?’ and your people don’t know what the hell that means, that’s a serious problem. I shouldn’t have to tell you that. The conversion rate is simple: look at the marketing leads you generated, and what ‘X’ outcome has it created? Has it created jobs, relocations, or expansions? That number, or that fact, doesn’t exist, or it’s difficult to ascertain… What business runs like that? No business.”   

Siddique added that he also had concerns related to the transparency of the EDC and its board.

“I do not like the fact that we are trying to hide economic development outside of the Sunshine. It should be a concern that the EDC is not a Sunshine board, Sarasota’s is a Sunshine board, and they function well,” Siddique added.

A final motion was proposed to amend the renewal contract attached to the agenda and before the commissioners. The proposed amendment would have shortened the contract’s duration to provide time to negotiate a new contract with revised terms, avoiding a total blackout between the expiration of the existing contract and any future contract.

However, when it became clear that the board majority was set on not approving any renewals to the EDC, the motion was withdrawn.

Click the videos below to see the EDC presentation and board deliberation. The second video will begin after the board reconvenes following the lunch recess.