Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Director topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates hiring, funding and past performance of Economic Development director role
Summary
Councilmembers reviewed an EDC board request to post an Economic Development director position, examined how the role was budgeted across city and EDC funds, and aired concerns about past returns and candidate residency.
City councilors discussed a proposal from the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) to post and hire an EDC director, examined budget allocations that would fund the position, and questioned the measurable returns from prior hires.
A staff member explained the EDC board had directed an open job posting for an EDC director and that several council members requested discussion before proceeding. Council reviewed how the position had been budgeted: the city’s economic development fund (Fund 22) included $123,075 budgeted for salary and benefits for the position this fiscal year; the EDC (Fund 75) budgeted $65,000 to contribute toward that fund. Staff said the base salary in the budget is $88,400 and that the prior director was hired at roughly $100,000, which increased payroll taxes and benefits costs.
Councilmembers pressed for accountability and asked for evidence of return on investment from previous hires and contracted work. One councilmember said results from prior consulting and staffing “have not been there,” and several members said prior directors who did not live in Lampasas undercut business‑recruitment credibility. Members discussed alternatives including partnering with the Chamber of Commerce or having the chamber administer certain economic programs under contract.
Speakers agreed a future posting should seek candidates with a track record of local results and that the city should not rush to hire if the candidate pool is not a good fit. No hiring action was taken at the meeting; the discussion focused on roles, funding sources (Fund 22, Fund 75), past performance and potential contract or partnership alternatives.
Council also discussed the historical funding split and noted the city bears a majority of the position’s cost under the current budget structure. The council requested follow‑up on measurable outcomes from prior directors and on options to structure the role to better align costs and expected returns.
The item remained discussion only; no motion to hire or hire‑authorization vote was recorded.
