County Support of Development Authorities presentation by Michael Dougherty (WVU-ES). This research looks at how development authorities are actually funded in West Virginia. It is in response to previous research showing little if any relationship between county funding and impacts.

1. Michael John Dougherty, WVU Extension Service
2009 Community Development Society Conference

2. Intent of Research
On‐going effort designed to create a database of
spending levels in larger counties in West Virginia
Hope is to finally answer question on the relationship
between development‐related spending and outcomes
Presentation focuses on pilot study of eight counties
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 2

3. West Virginia Context
55 counties
Predominantly rural – mountains and river valleys
Vary in size ( d 100 to over 1,000 square miles)
V i i (under il )
Vary in population (under 10,000 to over 200,000)
Development authorities authorized in 1963
WVC §7‐12 (1963) gave power to counties, municipalities
State LED Grants fund counties development activities
Money available to designated lead organization
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 3

4. Previous Research
CDS 2005
Reported county spending on development‐related
activities did not seem to impact vitality indicators
CDS 2007
Reported county spending on development‐related
activities over long‐term showed some limited impacts
but most of those plagued with “statistical” issues
ABFM 2008
Questioned the accuracy and the appropriateness
of the spending data used in the two previous studies
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 4

5. Pilot Project Description
Examines eight counties comparing reported spending
by county and development authority level
Selected based upon data availability
Only eight counties that had commission audits and
development authority audits available for FY2008
Hope to answer questions raised by ABFM 2008 study
through these county‐specific comparisons
(previous studies used aggregated county‐level data)
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 5

6. Counties in Pilot Study
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 6

7. Information on Counties
2008 County Total EDA Change in
County Pop. Est. Spending Revenue Ratio Assets
Hampshire 22,574 $ 113,420 $ 694,544 6.12 $ 358,238
McDowell 22,707 $ 0 $ 2,108,498 ∞ $ 600,525
Monongalia 88,221 $ 138,500 $ 573,778 4.14 $ 176,279
Ohio 44,106 $ 46,333 $ 2,809,394 60.63 $ ‐3,702,853
3,702,853
Pleasants 7,150 $ 15,000 $ 84,296 5.62 $ ‐17,902
Preston 30,285 $ 34,000 $ 196,314 5.77 $ ‐265,782
Randolph
R d l h 28,264
8 6 $ 15,000 $ 383,035
8 25.54 $ ‐42,132
Roane 15,169 $ 25,000 $ 167,985 6.72 $ ‐375,536
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 7

8. Point #1: EDA ≠ EDA
All development authorities examined were organized
under provisions of WVC §7‐12
Only six actually were the designated economic
development entity for their respective county
Mon. County is MAEP and Ohio County is RED
Result is data is not as “rich” as it would seem to be
Presence of multiple entities complicates research
p p
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 8

9. Point #2: County Small Potatoes
Budgeted spending on county development activities
turns out to be a small portion of total EDA spending
One county reported no spending on development
while only two counties reported over $100 000
$100,000
Five of six counties where designated development
organization was examined had reported county
spending at level no greater than LED Grant match
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 9

10. County vs. EDA Spending
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 10

11. EDA to County Spending Ratio
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 11

12. Point #3: EDAs Entrepreneurial
Development organizations cope with lack of county
allocations by developing own sources of revenue
Seeking other grants/contributions and using interest
from assets to finance activities was universal while
generating rental/leasing income or by charging for
services/administrative fees was also very common
As a result of this approach, development entities are
more like a enterprise than a government agency
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 12

13. EDAs with Grants/Contributions
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 13

14. EDAs with Interest Income
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 14

15. EDAs with Rental Income
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 15

16. EDAs with Charges for Services
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 16

17. Next Steps in Research
Becoming (increasingly and painfully) apparent that
the approach of examining only county spending is
both incomplete and inconsistent
Alternatives include looking at total amount spent by
development entity from all sources or looking at
change in assets of development organization
Both would better capture the entire spending picture
– the latter may even be a functional “barometer”
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 17

18. Contact
Michael John Dougherty
Extension Professor/Specialist
WVU Extension Service (CEWD)
E i S i
2104 Ag. Sciences Bldg. – PO Box 6108
Morgantown,
Morgantown WV 26506 6018
26506‐6018
304‐293‐6131 Ext. 4215
304 293 6954
304‐293‐6954 Fax
Michael.Dougherty@mail.wvu.edu
CDS – MJ Dougherty July 27, 2009 18