Dougherty Cds 2009 County Support Of Development Authorities Presentation

402 views

Published on

County Support of Development Authorities presentation by Michael Dougherty (WVU-ES). This research looks at how development authorities are actually funded in West Virginia. It is in response to previous research showing little if any relationship between county funding and impacts.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
402
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dougherty Cds 2009 County Support Of Development Authorities Presentation

  1. 1. Michael John Dougherty, WVU Extension Service 2009 Community Development Society Conference
  2. 2. Intent of Research On‐going effort designed to create a database of spending levels in larger counties in West Virginia Hope is to finally answer question on the relationship between development‐related spending and outcomes Presentation focuses on pilot study of eight counties CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 2
  3. 3. West Virginia Context 55 counties Predominantly rural – mountains and river valleys Vary in size ( d 100 to over 1,000 square miles) V i i (under il ) Vary in population (under 10,000 to over 200,000) Development authorities authorized in 1963 WVC §7‐12 (1963) gave power to counties, municipalities State LED Grants fund counties development activities Money available to designated lead organization CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 3
  4. 4. Previous Research CDS 2005 Reported county spending on development‐related activities did not seem to impact vitality indicators CDS 2007 Reported county spending on development‐related activities over long‐term showed some limited impacts but most of those plagued with “statistical” issues ABFM 2008 Questioned the accuracy and the appropriateness of the spending data used in the two previous studies CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 4
  5. 5. Pilot Project Description Examines eight counties comparing reported spending by county and development authority level Selected based upon data availability Only eight counties that had commission audits and development authority audits available for FY2008 Hope to answer questions raised by ABFM 2008 study through these county‐specific comparisons (previous studies used aggregated county‐level data) CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 5
  6. 6. Counties in Pilot Study CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 6
  7. 7. Information on Counties 2008 County Total EDA Change in County Pop. Est. Spending Revenue Ratio Assets Hampshire 22,574 $ 113,420 $ 694,544 6.12 $ 358,238 McDowell 22,707 $ 0 $ 2,108,498 ∞ $ 600,525 Monongalia 88,221 $ 138,500 $ 573,778 4.14 $ 176,279 Ohio 44,106 $ 46,333 $ 2,809,394 60.63 $ ‐3,702,853 3,702,853 Pleasants 7,150 $ 15,000 $ 84,296 5.62 $ ‐17,902 Preston 30,285 $ 34,000 $ 196,314 5.77 $ ‐265,782 Randolph R d l h 28,264 8 6 $ 15,000 $ 383,035 8 25.54 $ ‐42,132 Roane 15,169 $ 25,000 $ 167,985 6.72 $ ‐375,536 CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 7
  8. 8. Point #1: EDA ≠ EDA All development authorities examined were organized under provisions of WVC §7‐12 Only six actually were the designated economic development entity for their respective county Mon. County is MAEP and Ohio County is RED Result is data is not as “rich” as it would seem to be Presence of multiple entities complicates research p p CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 8
  9. 9. Point #2: County Small Potatoes Budgeted spending on county development activities turns out to be a small portion of total EDA spending One county reported no spending on development while only two counties reported over $100 000 $100,000 Five of six counties where designated development organization was examined had reported county spending at level no greater than LED Grant match CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 9
  10. 10. County vs. EDA Spending 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 10
  11. 11. EDA to County Spending Ratio 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 11
  12. 12. Point #3: EDAs Entrepreneurial Development organizations cope with lack of county allocations by developing own sources of revenue Seeking other grants/contributions and using interest from assets to finance activities was universal while generating rental/leasing income or by charging for services/administrative fees was also very common As a result of this approach, development entities are more like a enterprise than a government agency CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 12
  13. 13. EDAs with Grants/Contributions CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 13
  14. 14. EDAs with Interest Income CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 14
  15. 15. EDAs with Rental Income CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 15
  16. 16. EDAs with Charges for Services CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 16
  17. 17. Next Steps in Research Becoming (increasingly and painfully) apparent that the approach of examining only county spending is both incomplete and inconsistent Alternatives include looking at total amount spent by development entity from all sources or looking at change in assets of development organization Both would better capture the entire spending picture – the latter may even be a functional “barometer” CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 17
  18. 18. Contact Michael John Dougherty Extension Professor/Specialist WVU Extension Service (CEWD) E i S i 2104 Ag. Sciences Bldg. – PO Box 6108 Morgantown, Morgantown WV 26506 6018 26506‐6018 304‐293‐6131 Ext. 4215 304 293 6954 304‐293‐6954 Fax Michael.Dougherty@mail.wvu.edu CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 18

×