David, if you go back to the Austin report and go to page 72, you’ll find their outline for a Prototype Cost Benefit Analysis. It deals with both Private and Public Benefits of incentive -induced investment.

At the bottom of that same page is a VERY important statement: “The city should have a neutral third party conduct the (continue on p.73) formal estimate. These estimates should not be done in-house by city staff or by consultants who rely heavily on the city for contracts and who might feel pressured to ‘give the city what they think they want’ “.

Developing a cost-benefit analysis is difficult when only the economic factors are considered. It is much more difficult when cultural factors are considered.

Thanks for commenting. You bring up what I think is an important issue in the study.

Based on my reading, Austin DID have a cost-benefit analysis. In fact, I would PERSONALLY say that I found it more sophisticated than many that I’ve seen in other communities.

The concern brought up by the study, at least in my reading, was that the Austin approach did not do as well as the leadership desired/expected/demanded in terms of estimating or tracking COSTS in their cost-benefit analyses.

PERSONALLY, I think we could do a better job with cost-benefit analysis in Northfield. I AGREE with you that it makes sense to apply this type of analysis to BOTH incentives and regulations.

Thanks again for your comments.

Austin was investing public money in private projects without a good handle on the cost-benefit analysis. Northfield tends to implement restrictive policies without analyzing the cost-benefit of those restrictive policies.

For example, the rental ordinance has had a significant adverse effect on people trying to sell their houses. Without the ability to rent the property while the house is on the market, options are restricted. It also increases the rental costs for the college students.

The First Street cul-de-sac carries additional costs of maintenance, together with traffic costs.

Without some way of judging the “value” of these projects, the matter often becomes a battle of political philosophies.

What I liked best, and now I have read it ALL, is the third party, cost-benefit analysis of projects. That applies to anywhere , anyone, and any project. Don’t we all personally do a ‘cost benefit’ analysis every time we make a major financial move, even if it’s just within our household budgets? Isn’t that the best way to make a solid case to taxpayers?

Another amazing thing, was the amount of public input they solicit, in a city of 1.2 million.

Before you say anything about Bobos and Nimpus, David, refresh me on what those terms mean to you? I seem to have put them ‘out of sight’, ‘out of mind’.

Well, they’ve got Willie Nelson, Jerry Jeff Walker, and Billy Joe Shaver and we don’t. What else do you need to know?

I guess I found a few things about Austin’s economic development policies to be of interest. I’m not sure I was looking for applicability as much as just some ideas worth considering.

First, the folks in Austin seemed pretty clear about their goals. They had five to seven target industries that they would support, with financial incentives, for expansion or recruitment. Interestingly, they updated the targets every five years.

Second, they had a really good sense of their community’s strengths and weaknesses. They had seven areas for which they evaluated their competitiveness in attracting and growing the targeted businesses. When they recognized a weakness, in one case the appropriateness of their workforce for the target industries, they worked on it. In fact, the Austin Chamber raised over $40 million to invest in workforce development.

Third, they had a system for evaluating costs and benefits of proposed projects in place. Although after they had a couple of projects that didn’t work out so well they decided to improve this system, it was acknowledged that Austin was already ahead of many communities in this area. They determined to better estimate and track the costs, better communicate this information to the taxpayers, and get unrelated, third-party cost-benefit analyses of potential deals.

Fourth, their economic development “toolbox” (yes, they use that term) was designed to support their investment in and pursuit of the targeted industries. In a process that was part of evaluating their community’s strengths and weaknesses, they supplemented their toolbox where appropriate.

Finally, they worked to be increasingly inclusive in the decision-making process. Trying to find the history of economic development in Austin in an analysis of their public incentive policies, it seemed to me that for several decades, everything worked fairly well. Then they had a decade where it appears they made some bad decisions on both the target industries and the projects for incentives. It appears that the recent calls for a more informed and involved citizenry stems, at least in part, from a desire to gather ideas from a broader and deeper source.

I hope that helps to answer your question. I’d be willing to discuss it further, as long as you’re buying the beer.

Oh, and Austin also has Lyle Lovett, Joe Ely, and the Dixie Chicks and we don’t…

The Austin Plan. ROSS! Another thousand pages (more or less)! Spare me the pain. What about Austin Texas might be relevant to Northfield’s struggles?

Austin, the capital of Texas. a metro population of hundreds of thousands, the home of the University of (hook em horns) Texas .. and not the home of much if any gross industry … but a lot of clean green development … and really good Mexican food. Austin, thriving on the edge of the Texas lake country, is Idyllic.

Oh, that’s the comp, Idylic.

Other than that Ross, what might we learn from the pages of the Austin report?

victor

P.S. what’s the “Second Street cul-de-sac” you refer to?

My 20 years of Northfield experience tells me that often a minority who are trying to bend policy decisions in their favor. Three examples -- the rental ordinance, the Second Street cul-de-sac, and the Comp Plan.

Without this discussion and the political will to hold to it for the desired LONG TERM outcome, we are always succumbing to the immediate choice presented.

Yeah, I know y’all hate the Target example but that was a hightech industry designated (by the EDA) site , Site “A”, and it was 36 or so acres, and with the 30-some Gleason-owned acres across the Hwy, that was 70, YES 70, Acres of high tech possibility as a gateway to Northfield… what’s there now? Shopping and fast food!

Does anybody regret that lack of political will now?

I don’t think the Key is the ideas, NF is full of ideas; the Key is POLITICAL WILL to
hold to a POLICY developed for a DESIRED FUTURE OUTCOME.

I’m just back in town trying in vain to catch up, whatever that means in the various spheres of my life, but this is quite a post. I’ll have to read the incentive study. It may be very timely info since Northfield will soon be interviewing consultants for the master planning of our proposed business parks. (The RFP included a market analysis, and development standards which would reflect the goals of our Comp Plan.) Thanks for sharing the link.