Board reviews draft MOU defining roles between Stafford County and Economic Development Authority

Stafford County — Stafford County staff presented a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) meant to set administrative “guardrails” for how the county’s economic development department and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) will divide duties and use county resources.

Liz Barber, Stafford County director of economic development, told the Board of Supervisors the draft started nearly a year ago and “is a long time coming,” and that the document aims to make clear “what things should be handled within the department, which things are EDA responsibilities, and which are joint efforts.”

The MOU lays out administrative details such as access to EDA bank accounts and password controls, loan‑underwriting roles and the scope of staff support. Barber said the draft was developed with input from county administration, the EDA and county legal counsel and that legal had reviewed the text.

Why it matters: Supervisors said the absence of clear roles has caused confusion in the past and has limited the county’s ability to coordinate economic development activities. Several supervisors supported adopting a document that clarifies operational responsibilities, but many asked for edits tying EDA programs and incentive work to the county’s strategic plan and for stronger language addressing potential conflicts of interest.

Board concerns and directions - Strategic plan linkage: Multiple supervisors asked that the MOU require the EDA’s incentive programs and priorities to align with the county’s adopted strategic plan. Barber said the county’s departmental strategic plan is in procurement and that the EDA is awaiting the county plan to align its own strategy. Supervisors recommended language in the MOU recital saying the EDA will provide programs or incentives that align with the county strategic plan.

- Timing and review: The draft contains a five‑year term with renewal language. Supervisors proposed adopting the MOU now to establish rules of engagement, then returning to review and revise it after the county strategic plan is adopted — suggestions ranged from a follow‑up in 6 months to 1–2 years. Staff indicated the strategic plan procurement had seven finalists and remained in the selection process.

- Counsel and conflicts: Several supervisors raised the recurring concern that EDA‑retained counsel has appeared before the Board to present land‑use cases, a situation some supervisors said creates the appearance of a conflict. The board asked legal staff to research whether the MOU can and should limit or otherwise address the EDA’s outside counsel appearing before the Board in land‑use matters and to draft possible language for board consideration.

- Administrative load and staffing: Supervisors asked whether county staff hours devoted to EDA administration are significant and whether the EDA should contribute financially. Barber said routine support such as agenda preparation and limited processing takes “about 10 hours a month at probably the most” and that some EDA‑related tasks are explicitly in county job descriptions. Several supervisors asked staff to include clearer language about the division of duties and to consider whether the EDA should help fund administrative support.

What the board directed (no formal vote recorded): Staff were asked to draft amended language (including a suggested recital clarifying that the EDA will provide incentives or programs that align with the county strategic plan), to present that language to the EDA for concurrence, and to return the MOU for future adoption consideration. The board also asked county legal counsel to research and report back on the conflict‑of‑interest question about EDA counsel appearing before the Board on land‑use matters.

Quotes “Today I am here to talk with you about the EDA MOU draft, which is a long time coming, but very excited to have a product to share with you today,” Liz Barber, director of economic development, said.

“I would not be able to support this,” Supervisor Young said, describing concern about adopting a governing document before the county’s strategic plan is finalized.

Ending Staff will return with draft language reflecting the board’s requested edits and the results of legal review on counsel/conflict questions; the board indicated it wants reassessments after the county’s strategic plan is completed, with timeframes discussed but not formally adopted at the work session.