Committee reviews MACEDC service agreement, debates measurable deliverables and oversight

Minot’s Economic Development Plan Review Committee opened a sustained review of Exhibit 1 of the MACEDC (Minot Area Chamber Economic Development Corporation) service agreement, focusing on whether the contract should list prescriptive, measurable deliverables or allow MACEDC and its board to set metrics internally.

The committee’s conversation centered on value for taxpayers, with members asking whether activity-based deliverables (for example, business retention and expansion interviews) are the best way to show return on the city’s investment. Harold Stewart, city manager, told the committee that the city requires written agreements when it provides taxpayer funds to outside organizations: “If you’re receiving city funds, there needs to be an agreement in place.”

Committee members discussed two contrasting approaches. Some argued the contract should require clear, measurable outcomes so the city can judge whether the investment is producing results. For example, one committee member asked for metrics such as job growth, GDP, average pay, housing starts and labor-force age. Others warned that economic development outcomes depend on external factors — macroeconomic conditions, private-sector decisions and housing availability — and that overly prescriptive contract measures risk micromanaging a partner that must be nimble.

Mark, a MACEDC representative, described the current practice as a mix of strategy and tactics and said some items in the exhibit were added recently to emphasize workforce development. He suggested streamlining overlapping workforce bullets into a single deliverable: “go do workforce development. Period.” MACEDC staff also described routine outputs the organization already provides: “we do 40 to 50 to 60 interviews every year,” referring to business retention and expansion (BR&E) interviews, which the organization said are shared with the city and with MACEDC’s board on a multi‑monthly cadence.

Several council-members and committee participants proposed a compromise: keep the service agreement focused on a clear scope of services (the “job description” or “scope of services” language), but pair it with a city-facing dashboard or regular packet that summarizes key metrics — housing starts, building permits, BR&E sentiment, and other indicators — so councilors can evaluate community-level results without prescribing every operational tactic in contract language.

Participants compared peer cities’ arrangements (Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Williston) and noted that structures and spending vary widely. The committee discussed whether Minot should hire an in-house economic development director or continue outsourcing most functions to MACEDC; some members said a city liaison or dedicated staff position would close gaps and improve coordination with city programs and developers, while others worried about budget capacity and the risk of duplicating efforts.

Committee members asked staff to refine the exhibit text to make deliverables clearer and easier to read, and several participants recommended adding an explicit requirement for regular communication and twice‑annual presentations to council. Mark offered to propose condensed language that combined overlapping workforce items and added a clear, plain‑language expectation of regular communication.

The committee did not vote on changes to the agreement at this meeting. Members agreed to continue work in subsequent meetings and to return a prioritized set of recommendations for the council to consider.

The committee next scheduled follow-up meetings to refine priorities and expected to present recommendations to the City Council in May.