In local government, these issues can be even more daunting, especially when the new ideas have not been readily vetted and adopted by the public policy community, and may involve taking chances with entrusted public funds. This was the case with an incentive-based competition and the city of Las Vegas, Nevada.

During the past 20 years, Las Vegas has seen its share of highs and lows. Up until the Great Recession, population was booming with unprecedented growth rates and a strong economy.

After the recession hit and Las Vegas’s economy stalled, it had one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and was at the top of the list when it came to home foreclosures. The community needed to focus on promoting economic and job development to help speed its recovery.

By 2011, through a variety of redevelopment efforts, the city and its business community had ignited a strong fire of recovery downtown. It needed to keep that fire lit by looking at other areas in need of economic development and taking a different approach to keep moving forward.

Our organization needed to keep pushing and exploring where the next big ideas for development were going to come from and make sure that it was something that the entire community could support. The Strong Cities Strong Communities Visioning Challenge (SC2) grant provided a potential resource with a big idea.

Out-of-the-Box Opportunities

Incentive-based competitions award people for bringing the best ideas to the table as opposed to laying out an organization’s concepts and paying someone to put ideas into action. An incentive-based competition does not guarantee any remuneration for time and effort and only the best ideas get monetary awards.

Las Vegas was introduced to this concept in 2011, when this unique grant opportunity became available for the first time through the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA). SC2 was a pilot program whereby chosen communities would administer a grant competition to leverage ideas and approaches to create economic development plans by incentivizing participants to compete for cash prizes.

Las Vegas applied for the grant, not only because this was the type of “out-of-the-box” opportunity it needed, but because the city met the criteria of being economically distressed. The EDA awarded the $1 million SC2 grant to Las Vegas along with Greensboro, North Carolina, and Hartford, Connecticut.

Las Vegas’s goal for the grant program was to procure highly innovative, creative, and transformational economic development plans from qualified multidisciplinary teams.

Since an incentive-based competition had never been done by the city, there were political concerns about awarding “unconditional” cash prizes and whether the ideas generated through the grant program would be valued at more than the match contribution from the city.

In an effort to continue to fuel development in different ways and plan for a new kind of economically vibrant community, the city decided the potential payoffs were worth the risk. It invested in-kind resources by donating staff, office supplies, and space to administer the program.

In addition, a 20 percent match was required by EDA. A $250,000 match contribution was earmarked to fund future planning efforts for winning proposals. The next step was building the right team to make the project successful.

Team + Partnerships

The city built a core team led by internal project management staff, along with strong partnerships. Part of that team was with competition consultant Jaison Morgan, owner and CEO of The Common Pool (TCP), a consulting firm that focuses on incentivized prize competitions. Another major team contributor was Melissa Warren, managing partner of the marketing firm Faiss Foley Warren (FFW).

EDA contracted with Morgan and his team to create the prize competition and provide guidance to each of the three SC2 cities. Warren and her staff were instrumental in developing a targeted marketing approach, reaching out to organizations and individuals globally to seek the best and brightest minds to engage in the competition. FFW also aided city staff in communication with registered teams, judges, and public relations.

In order to award cash prizes, the competition required judges. Twenty-six influential community leaders who care deeply about the city’s future made a commitment to be a part of the SC2 competition. These individuals graciously donated their time to learn about the competition and select the best economic development plans for Las Vegas.

The competition was crafted in two phases. The Las Vegas SC2 website was launched in January 2013, which provided program information, timeline, rules, and detailed instructions on how to submit proposals in phase one.

The website also included photos and biographies of each of the judges, accessible to anyone participating or interested in the competition. Scoring criteria and tips for submitting a well thought-out plan were also available on the site. This transparency created a fair and open process that the participants, judges, and city leadership could all appreciate.

Phase One. In phase one, teams were asked to submit their most creative ideas to spur economic development in four focus areas. During this phase, the SC2 team hosted a question-and-answer panel discussion about the competition and provided detailed information about the four areas of focus: Cashman Center, a convention center and baseball stadium; redevelopment areas; business parks; and the medical district. A site tour of Cashman Center was also provided to all interested participants. It was unlike the other three focus areas because it was a physical location with a structure.

With the competition and registration under way, FFW continued its marketing and outreach efforts by connecting with experts in architecture, banking, planning, development, business and finance, and other areas related to economic development. The goal was to get individuals and organizations registered so they could connect and create a multi-disciplinary team.

Soon, registration numbers grew and teams formed. In September 2014, after eight months of planning, 18 teams submitted proposals to be judged in the first phase.

Two webinars were held to train the phase one judges, technically known as the Evaluation Panel, to provide a step-by-step tutorial of the scoring process. Once the plan deadline passed, the judges were able to log into their account, score their five randomly distributed proposals, and provide feedback associated with each score.

The first round of competition was successful. Evaluation panel judges made recommendations to the city council in December 2014 to award $100,000 in cash prizes to the top three contenders: First place, $60,000; second place, $30,000; and third place, $10,000. The mayor and council also approved seven additional teams that advanced to the second phase of the competition, for a total of 10 finalists vying for $800,000 in cash awards.

Phase Two. Phase two began immediately after phase one concluded in December 2014. Finalist teams were invited to a mandatory workshop so they could fully understand the expectations for submitting comprehensive economic development plans. Teams would be judged on three criteria: 1) how they understood and addressed local conditions; 2) project feasibility; and 3) innovation for their respective projects.

Teams were given five months to further develop their concepts into comprehensive economic development plans, seek letters of support from community leaders, and develop strategies for winning the competition.

Phase two judging involved a selection committee composed of seven judges, none of whom were judges in phase one. Each judge was provided with plan documents and a 10-minute video of team concepts to view and assist in providing preliminary scores.

The selection committee convened in May 2015 to listen to finalists’ presentations on their fully developed plans, and the judges made their decision to award $800,000 to six teams. Selections required the utmost confidentiality; no one outside of the committee knew the rank order of the winning teams.

On June 17, 2015, two selection committee members stood before the council, gave a presentation on their SC2 experience, and presented their recommendations for the six winning teams.

The team who won first place and a cash prize of $500,000 included a researcher, a developer, an architect, a consultant, and a business owner. Their team name was Build a Better Las Vegas, and their concept was called Unmanned Aerial and Robotics Resources Center (UARRC).

The UARRC plan aims to use Cashman Center as an incubator site for start-up companies in the drone and robotics industry. The plan also includes research and development at the Cashman site and eventually manufacturing in the robotics industry.

Since receiving the reward, Brandon Wiegand, a member of the winning team, says “Now the real work begins! We’ve been in conversations with the city and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to determine how to move the Cashman site forward. Concurrently, we’ve been developing interest among prospective tenants and investors.

“As we developed the UARRC idea for the SC2 competition, we saw that we were creating a real business, not just a proposal, and it is our intention to see that business come to fruition.”

Engaged Contestants

The overwhelming feedback the city has received from the teams who participated in SC2 was that they entered into this competition process to possibly win money for an idea, but throughout the planning process they became passionate about their concepts and fully engaged in the future development of Las Vegas.

That sentiment is a true indication of why this competition was successful and how the entire city and its residents benefit from that ignited passion.

Allotting funding for prizes to contest winners contradicts all of the traditional public policy lessons government professionals have been taught over the years. Through this process, however, Las Vegas learned that the creativity and imagination shown by contestants were not stifled by an institutional system that was used to doing things as they had always been done before.

Successful economic development requires energy and new ideas, and the risks and challenges the city took to implement this new effort paid off with out-of-the-box ideas that will serve Las Vegas well into the future.