Fulshear EDC narrows options for Fast Track program; staff to present preferred option to city council

The Fulshear Development Corporation discussed four options for a year‑3 addendum to the Fulshear Fast Track program at its June 9 meeting and gave staff direction to present the board’s preferred option to city council on June 17.

What was proposed: Staff reported Canon (the program operator) provided three options and staff had drafted a fourth. The options presented were summarized by staff as:

- Option 1: Renew the Canon contract with a full‑time on‑site representative; proposed budget $216,850 (a 2.4% increase over the current year).

- Option 2: Shift to an in‑house model where Canon provides limited services ($71,500) while the EDC hires a new full‑time staff member to perform management duties (estimated additional personnel cost roughly $83,000 total, including benefits).

- Option 3: A phased approach keeping Canon support while hiring a new staff member; Canon hours reduced (from 32 to 20) for a full year while the new staff member is onboarded (combined cost depends on exact allocation; staff estimated a modest net year‑over‑year change).

- Option 4: Do not renew the Canon contract and do not add new staff; existing EDC staff would absorb the program duties and staff would scale programming to available capacity. (Staff noted costs would vary depending on how many services are retained; no exact price provided.)

Board feedback: Several board members said they preferred either Option 3 (phased transition with training overlap) or Option 1 (continuing the existing full contract for another year to preserve momentum). Board members raised concerns about internal capacity if the program were brought entirely in‑house and pointed to the Canon’s existing website, marketing and advisory network as services that would be difficult and time‑consuming to replicate locally.

A majority of board members said they wanted to preserve program continuity while allowing for an eventual transition to in‑house management. One board member explicitly stated a preference for Option 1 at the meeting; others publicly voiced support for Option 3 as a compromise that permits onboarding of city staff while keeping Canon resources available during the transition.

Next steps: Staff said it will convey the board’s guidance to city council at its June 17 meeting and will return to the EDC with budget numbers and the city’s budget‑packet presentation. Staff also noted that B board will review related items at its meeting prior to council. No formal roll‑call vote was recorded; the board provided direction for staff to present options to council and to proceed with budget‑year scheduling.