Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Communications It topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss adding economic‑development liaison and a more robust communications/IT function
Summary
City manager proposed a full‑time economic development liaison in Community Development and suggested shifting some outsourced communications and IT contract dollars to create a stronger in‑house communications and systems‑integration capability; commissioners debated structure and requested a consolidated proposal.
Cooper City’s manager proposed adding one full‑time economic‑development liaison inside the Community Development Department to support business attraction, retention and permit navigation, and discussed reallocating money from current contracts (communications consultant and some IT services) into a consolidated in‑house program that would include communications, IT systems integration and business outreach.
Staff said the recommended new position would be a flexible, nonstandard hours role to meet business needs (evenings and weekends as required) and would provide a single point of contact for prospective businesses and for coordination of economic incentives and regulatory processes. The manager characterized the role as “an economic liaison for businesses focusing on business attraction and retention, partnerships on community engagement, administrative policy support.”
Commissioners debated where the position should be housed. Some favored placing the liaison within Community Development because of subject‑matter expertise and permitting ties; others suggested a unit or “department” that bundles communications, IT and development outreach to capitalize on shared functions such as website/permit integration, data and marketing. Staff noted the city currently pays roughly $66,000 for an outsourced communications consultant and about $194,000 for an IT services contract; staff indicated some monitoring/desktop work can be moved in‑house to save an estimated ~$104,000 in contract costs.
Several commissioners asked staff to return with a consolidated proposal showing costs and tradeoffs — for example, a blended option that uses existing contract savings to fund a higher‑level, in‑house communications/IT/economic development team versus a single new hire. Staff said they will prepare budget figures, job descriptions and an organizational recommendation for commission review and will try to show whether the proposed consolidation would be cost‑neutral or would require added funding.
