Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atoka Industrial Development Board asks EDA for proposal on economic development services
Summary
The Atoka Industrial Development Board voted to begin negotiations with an economic development consultant and asked the firm to return a written proposal based on an initial scope of work focused on business recruitment, marketing and small-business support.
The Atoka Industrial Development Board voted to open negotiations with a consulting group that presented a proposal for economic development services and asked the firm to return a written proposal tied to a specific scope of work.
Board Chairman Jim Craig opened discussion after a firm identified in the meeting materials as “EDA” described services it offers to support business recruitment, marketing and local economic development. An initial motion to enter into conversations with the firm passed by voice vote at the meeting.
The board later approved a motion directing the consulting team — identified in the motion as John Chris and Carrie Vaughn of EDA — to prepare a proposal based on the board’s requested scope of work. The motion’s sponsor and seconder were not named on the record; members voted in favor and the motion passed.
The scope the board prioritized emphasizes the first set of tasks on the firm’s handout: tracking prospective industry leads, developing a marketing/recruitment package, targeting new businesses, supporting small-business development and assisting local businesses that want to expand. Several board members said these tasks should be the focus of an initial contract or retainer, with property acquisition, infrastructure planning and property management as later phases.
EDA representatives described flexible contracting options including a retainer or per-project fees and said they could provide marketing, data and targeted outreach. One EDA presenter said the firm aims to protect its reputation and work by avoiding conflicts with existing clients; board members asked about exclusivity in Tipton County and were told the firm was in discussions with other jurisdictions but indicated they could be the firm’s local contact for Tipton County/Atoka if the board desired.
City Administrator Mark (last name not recorded) and board legal counsel Will (last name not recorded) advised the board on process and the need to define a clear scope of work that the firm could price. Members asked that the scope the board approved at the meeting be sent to the firm so the firm could return a proposal outlining costs and deliverables.
The motion directing EDA to prepare a proposal passed by voice vote. Following the vote, board members discussed next steps: the chairman or designated board member would refine the scope, the town would provide any available data, and the firm would return a written proposal for board review.
Board members also discussed possible contract mechanics — retainers, exclusive arrangements limited to Atoka/Tipton County, and using the board’s existing funds to start work — and urged speed in outreach to local landowners and developers as part of recruitment work.
The board instructed staff to gather and forward the materials the firm requested and to schedule follow-up when the firm’s proposal is received.
Ending: The board approved the direction and asked the firm to return a priced proposal for the approved scope. The board did not adopt a contract on the spot; it asked staff and the chairman to prepare the scope and bring the proposal back for formal consideration at a future public meeting.
