• Like
  • Save
2011 NADO CEDS Innovation Forum
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

2011 NADO CEDS Innovation Forum

on

  • 3,098 views

The National Association of Development Organizations hosted a forum of regional innovation January 19 -21. These slides highlight the projects of economic development practitioners from around the ...

The National Association of Development Organizations hosted a forum of regional innovation January 19 -21. These slides highlight the projects of economic development practitioners from around the country.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,098
Views on SlideShare
2,288
Embed Views
810

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
35
Comments
0

2 Embeds 810

http://www.knowyourregion.org 809
http://kyr.livepulsedev.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2011 NADO CEDS Innovation Forum 2011 NADO CEDS Innovation Forum Presentation Transcript

    • 2011 CEDS REGIONAL INNOVATION FORUMSPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONSAND THE NADO RESEARCH FOUNDATIONREGIONAL STRATEGIES. PARTNERSHIPS. SOLUTIONS
    • About NADO’s Mission Strengthen local governments, communities  g g and economies through the regional  strategies, partnerships and solutions of the  nation’s regional development organizations Advocacy | Education | Networking | Research
    • 2011 CEDS Innovation Forum2011 CEDS I i F Noteworthy practices for leveraging the EDA  p p Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy  gy (CEDS) process for building resilient regions Peer exchange for EDD practitioners and stakeholders Explore pathways forward for EDD CEDS process,  including opportunities to leverage with other federal including opportunities to leverage with other federal  programs and resources
    • Forum Partners and SponsorsF P dS Appalachian Regional Commission Bank of America Delta Regional Authority  Economic Development Administration Economic Development Administration   Federal Highway Administration (NADO’s Center for Transportation Advancement and Regional Development) (NADO’s Center for Transportation Ad ancement and Regional De elopment) Ford Foundation   U S S ll B i Ad i i i U.S. Small Business Administration
    • Participant ShowcaseRegional Innovation and Cluster DevelopmentCl D l
    • Building Resilient Regions:NADO CEDS Innovation ForumJanuary 19-21, 2011 18
    • Driving Good Policyfrom Data Points • Software & Semiconductor Mfg sectors represented less than 1% of the jobs created in the Austin region during immediate five pre-recession years. • New BLS employment data for metro areas released – the news is a mixed bag for Austin region;; employment g g g p y gains while unemployment rose. p y • Austin third best job market according to Forbes – 6 of top ten are state capitals. capitals • Education: Texas vs. Russia – the growing achievement gap between US and its global competitors competitors. • Looking forward to 2040, Texas’ population will bifurcate along age and race/ethnicity lines resulting in significant challenges to sustaining the / h l l f h ll h economy. 19
    • The CEDSWhat it’s not…• Christmas list of projects• Priorities by color dot voting• Target industries….who wants a call center?What it is…Data and analysis to compel goals for regional economic competitiveness Post-secondary education Entrepreneurship Innovation clusters Clean Energy 20
    • CATS ConsortiumHUD Sustainable Community Grant Project • Over 60% of workers drive to another county for their jobs jobs. • Median home costs continue to increase in outer ring. • No money + auto dependency = congestion Q.How Q How does the region drive future growth in the MPO Plan’s proposed activity centers? A.Use an analytical approach that measures changes in fiscal and economic impact of development – tax revenue from new rail station? 21
    • Employment Growth, Average Salary, & Employment Size (2000 – 2009) MANUFACTURING NATURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS SERVICES FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION & HEALTH CARE TRADE & TANSPORTATION LEISURE & HOSPITALITY 22
    • Jobs..not the quantity, the quality • Innovation clusters…the new best thing in economic development. • Smart grid – great energy project and so much more. • What does it take to build a cluster of interrelated businesses? • Look for a trend that has movement, like smart meters and energy conservation, that will generate demands that must be met in the market placeplace. • Pecan Street Project= applied research & patents, appliances, energy internet, software, prof services. pp , gy , ,p 23
    • • Contact information: Betty Voights, Executive Director Voights Capital Area Councils of Governments 512.916.6008 512 916 6008 bvoights@capcog.org www.capcog.org 24
    • Compounding Regional Economic p g gGrowth through Business Innovation and Opportunity Networking pp y g John R. Cyr, R Cyr Jeffrey Tucker Tucker, Kansas Association of Regional Advanced Manufacturing Institute Development Organizations Kansas State University
    • EDD Needs Access to Access to Business Ideas R&D Support / ServicesVenture / seed Identified training funds District needs Access to A t Access to A t Capital Workforce Informed and I f d d Access to Educational Ed i l Infrastructure engaged banks support John R. Cyr, Kansas Association of Regional Development Organizations
    • EDD Planning Considerations Virtual (geo-coded data or network) • What abilities / resources can be accessed or developed with a boundary-spanning mindset? Region (geographic footprint) • What abilities / resources can be accessed from or developed in cooperation with a neighboring city, county or region(s)?Local (city, county or region) • What abilities / resources are available within a specific p location that enable local business to develop and succeed? John R. Cyr, Kansas Association of Regional Development Organizations
    • Tradition vs. PragmaticTraditional Approach Pragmatic Approach• Rural-Urban dichotomy • Inventory Talents / Interests – Policy issue, not practical issue – What talents / interests or – Focus is on haves and have nots capacities / capabilities do exist?• Administrative Region • Critical Mass – Targets staff expertise, but… – What resource mix is needed to achieve “escape velocity”? • Boundaries set arbitrary limits, restricting both thought and action • Networks (Virtual Regions) • Encourages replication and poaching, if not cannibalism – What can be connected to achieve needed critical mass? John R. Cyr, Kansas Association of Regional Development Organizations
    • Functional RegionsFootprints and what theyimply f r lanninim l for planning /development purposesNess County, Kansas• 2000 P Population – 3 454 l 3,454• Individual city, county and regional boundaries do not adequately explain the limits of any one p y “community”.• Look to the “datascape” to define and explain the physical footprint of the subject in front of y j you.”• Seek alliances and use of social networks. John R. Cyr, Kansas Association of Regional Development Organizations
    • Networked (Virtual) Region = Community of Linked Resources Creates the critical mass necessary to take advantage ofopportunities as they present themselves or as opportunities are constructed by the various parties involved.Network :Connections:Services:Project: John R. Cyr, Kansas Association of Regional Development Organizations
    • Building Regional Connectedness• Based on our experience and input from our regional partners, a viable f i l i bl regional “connectedness” solution must: m st Weave networks of companies to global markets p g and development opportunities to create “hard-to-copy” wealth generating industries that attract/retain skilled people and engage regional / i kill d l d i l wealth and investment capital Jeffrey Tucker, Advanced Manufacturing Institute
    • AMI’s EDA University Center • Leverage AMI’s integrated technology/business development competencies • Profile innovation capabilities and needs of regions and local companies • Scout new global opportunities • Actively weave networks of technology providers, expertise and capital • Intermediate when necessary to help respond to the pp opportunityy Jeffrey Tucker, Advanced Manufacturing Institute
    • Leveraging Connections Companies assisted Students Involved• Department in K‐State’s College of  Engineering,  Engineering, • MISSION: to advance • KTEC Center of Excellence  technologies, people, and  t h l i l d• EDA University Center  companies through • Global Wind Network Center of  collaborative engineering  Excellence  Excellence and business partnerships. db i t hi Jeffrey Tucker, Advanced Manufacturing Institute
    • Business Profiling/Supply KTEC Technology Business Profiling and Chain Network Cluster Strategy Innovation Networking Development Development Partner: North Central Partner: KDOC Partner: KTEC Regional Planning Commission Involve “invested” partnersRegional Asset Regional Manufacturing Wind Supply Chain ID and Kansas ArmyMapping Park/Incubator IBED Pre-profiling Assessment Ammunition PlantPartner: Great Plains Strategy and Business Partner: South Central Business RedevelopmentDevelopment Inc. Development Kansas Economic Partner: Great Plains Partner: Harvey County Development District Development Authority Economic Development Council
    • KOIN Framework• Innovation Intermediary • Innovation Assessments• Boundary Spanner • Needs-based Profiling• Link Competencies p • Opportunity Scouting pp y g• Weave Capabilities • Business Development Assistance• Build Critical Mass Role Process • Integrated Development• Strengthen Collaborations Approach• Regional Analysis/Planning Methods • Regional Competitiveness• Business Modeling Strategies • Open Innovation /Tools• Social Network Analysis y • Design as Competitive Advantage g p g• Network Weaving • Incubation• Information Visualization • Supply Chain Development• Business Finder Tool • IT-based Strategies Jeffrey Tucker, Advanced Manufacturing Institute
    • Weaving an OpportunityInnovation Network Kansas  Livestock  Livestock Foundation TEXASAMI Phosphorus Recovery AMANA FARMSTechnology Development TCFA
    • ONE REGION’S ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE INNOVATE IDEAS & THINKINGTO BUILD A MORE RESILIENT REGION CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT •Coalition Building •Innovation Led Economic Development •Impact Analysis S Studies
    • CREATING COALITIONS ASSOCITION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS  1-We 1 We are Staff on Contract al Basis to State-wide Association Contractual State ide  2-Formal Bylaws  3-Provide Venue/Menu/Agenda & Minutes to Monthly Meetings  4-Organize Annual Conference (650+) ½ Profits  5-DC Capitol Reception & Split Costs w/Statewide County Association  BENEFITS: Strength in Numbers, Education, Keep Membership Informed, Face of LDDs ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES & CITIES  1-Regional Meetings Across the State  2-Annual Conferences  3-DC Capitol Reception In Conjunction w/Counties  BENEFITS: Strength in Numbers Keep Pulse of Local Gov’t (our members) Education Numbers, Gov t members), CENTRAL MS MAYORS ASSOCIATION  1-Organized w/Bylaws  2-Meet Quarterly (Legislative Reception)  3-In Conjunction with State Municipal Association  BENEFITS: Legislation, Keep In Touch, Remain Relevant COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS and COUNTY & CITY CLERKS  1-Informal with No Minutes  2-We Provide Venue & Menu  BENEFITS: They Pay Our Dues, Find out what’s Really Going on @ Local Level what s MS TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE  BENEFITS: Move in New Circles, New Opportunities, Entrepranuarel
    • INNOVATION LED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SHIFT HAPPENS!) Economy is Shifting-Better be Prepared  New Economy will be Knowledge Dependent, Entrepreneurial, Rooted in Information Technology, Driven by Innovation & Global Partnered with the MS TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE & ILED  High Growth Innovative Intensive Companies, Organize & Focus on Private Equity, Create Innovative Ecosystems How We Applied their ILED Model to Region  Innovate, Collaborate, Communicate & Participate  F Formed th “Capital I d the “C it l Innovators” w/$20K G t S t U Steering Committee, t ” /$20K Grant, Set Up St i C itt Plan of Action & Created Team of Local Entrepreneurs, Economic Developers, State Econ. Dev. Team, Bankers, Chambers & MTA  Provided Seminars & Training on ILED, Introduced Entrepreneurs to Angels/Bankers, Angels/Bankers Introduced Innovative Marketing Educated Developers Marketing,  BENEFITS: Graduated an ILED Class, Econ. Developers Changed their Focus from Industry to Innovation
    • ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepare studies using economic impact analysis software and our own supplemental calculations Key tool for local governments to recruit and retain businesses “What If” scenarios conducted as part of the study can help local g governments determine the level of incentives they should offer y Each Impact Analysis shows:  Number of direct and indirect jobs created by a business  Salaries to be paid to those workers  Number of new residents expected in the area  Taxable sales expected in the area  Additional residential property added to the local tax rolls, and  Oth applicable i Other li bl impacts t BENEFITS: reports are not limited to just the impact on a single jurisdiction, studies can show the impact on a region as a whole if a new business locates in the area or if an existing business shuts its g doors, which can create multi-jurisdictional support for a project
    • CONCLUSION Not Enough Time to Discuss One, Much Less, Three Concepts There is Strength in Numbers; CREATE COALITIONS SHIFT IS HAPPENING; Better Prepare Your Region for It Economic Impact Analysis- A Great Tool to Add to Your Region s Region’s Economic Development Tool Kit
    • ClusterDevelopment andD l t dEntrepreneurship
    • Rural Cluster Development Shifts in regional economy  need for strong plan for diversification, targeted strategies Regional planning efforts Identification of target clusters l t  A cluster consists of groups of companies and/or services and all of the public and private entities on which they depend. depend These relationships create efficiency and competitiveness
    • MCEDD’s cluster development process: d l tCommunity Asset Industry Cluster Mapping Strategies: 5 year workplansOutcomes:Networking opportunitiesDevelopment of business opportunitiesImplementation of business ideas CommunityFocus on ideas with champions Leadership:Facilitation by economic development Cluster Teams professionalsPrivate sector driven PrivateExpansion of economic knowledge
    • MCEDD s MCEDD’s Role Identified Clusters  High Tech  Wine  Arts and Culture  Healthcare  R Renewable E bl Energy Created five year strategic plans Developed cluster leadership Engaged in research, marketing, and education Provided ongoing support and linkages for long- term sustainable d t t i bl development l t
    • Gorge Tech Alliance Workforce Robotics pgm CC programs Marketing Industry Assoc. Assoc Branding Networking Promotion Supplier connection CEDS Cluster: High Tech Biz Education Research Classes Economic Impact Forums Markets Access to Capital RLF’s RLF’ PubTalks Gorge Angel
    • Participant ShowcaseStatewide Initiatives for Regional Development, Innovation f R i lD l I iand Collaborationand Collaboration
    • A Cluster Initiative of the Alaska Partnership for Economic Development 
    • A two phase project:A two phase project:• Phase 1– Situational Analysis: an “economic reality check”  completed• Phase 2 Strategy Development: developing Phase 2 — Strategy Development: developing  recommendations for new economic development directions,  policies and practices.  Resulting plan will be Alaska’s 1st statewide economic  p development strategy. gy49
    • Phase I  Situational Analysis ReportPhase I – Situational Analysis Report• Economic Profile and Forecast• Alaskas Industry Cluster Portfolio• Competitive Benchmarking• pp Global Market Opportunities• Analysis of existing economic development  objectives and strategies j g• Assessment of Entrepreneurship and Business  Climate• Final Report ‐ A Path to the Future50
    • Alaska’s 11 Clusters 12 Mature 11 Star Note: Fishing & U.S. Gross 1.Size of circle represents employment in 2008 10 2. 2 For Fishing and Seafood Processing Processing, Seafood Output Growth, 3.7% p , ECR=30.6 Processing 9 tration Ratio, ECR (U.S. Average = 1) Travel and Tourism 8 7 Mining Oil & 6 Military Gas/Pipeline/ 5 Refinery Community and Social Services 4Employment Concent 3 Federal Government 2 Specialized Machinery/Capital goods 1E Forestry/Wood Products Opportunity 0 -1 Logistics and International Trade Advanced Business Services Challenge -2 -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% Industry Dynamism (Gross Output, CAGR %), 2009-2019 51
    • Turning it into a Strategic PlanT i it i t St t i Pl – Work with Leadership Council and political leaders          to develop mission & vision to develop mission & vision – Identify top actions recommended by clusters Identify top actions recommended by clusters – Incorporate into dynamic “Strategic Doing” approach Incorporate into dynamic  Strategic Doing approach • Reflect current industry cluster recommendations • Updated semi‐annually • Used to support funding and legislative requests 52
    • Next Steps Next Steps • Statewide Cluster Initiatives  – Established Alaska Forward Leadership Council E bli h d Al k F d L d hi C il – Identified initial clusters for development – Identifying cluster co‐chairs Identifying cluster co chairs – Establishing structure for developing clusters • Local Cluster Initiatives Local Cluster Initiatives – Identifying and establishing regional clusters • Education Component Education Component53 – Competing for Prosperity: Application and Theory
    • Alabama Comprehensive  pEconomic Development Strategy
    • The Alabama Comprehensive Economic  D l t St t Development StrategyA little background……There have been at least three efforts at a Statewide CEDS in Alabama g – Statewide Strategic Plan: Phase I of 2001 and Phase II of 2002 – Consolidated Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy of 2007 (This e o t was associated with the Hurricane Katrina recovery e o ts) ( s effort assoc ated w t t e u ca e at a ecove y efforts) (Over 600 volunteers were involved in the Regional CEDS processes that culminated in the Consolidated CEDS of 2007 Consolidated Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy of 2011 (The current effort)
    • The Alabama Comprehensive Economic  D l t St t Development StrategyThe purpose of the 2011 Statewide CEDS effort is……to enhance statewide and regional economic development efforts through the establishment of: Statewide CEDS Statewide Advisory Committee y System of economic benchmarks and performance measures Web-based communications and performance monitoring
    • The Alabama Comprehensive Economic  D l t St t Development StrategyThe objectives of the 2011 Statewide CEDS effort are to foster economic development that promotes a more holistic approach to: Promoting economic prosperity Protecting environmental quality, and Serving the needs of the people of the State; …while remaining mindful of certain guiding principles, i l di hil i i i df l f i idi i i l including: Global awareness, competitiveness, Regional competitiveness Community livability, and A sustainable future.
    • The Alabama Comprehensive Economic  D l t St t Development StrategyPartners, Support and Approach The Alabama Association of Regional Councils (AARC) The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) The U. S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) e co o c eve op e s a o ( ) The Planning Task Force of the AARC The Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama and other consultants .
    • Mo-Kan Regional Council (MKRC)•Established in 1968•Located in St. Joseph, Missouri•MKRC’s service area totals 2 512 MKRC’ l 2,512 square miles and represents over 163,000 individuals.•Two Kansas counties and four Missouri Twocounties•Governed by a 32-member Board of Directors, 16 from Kansas and 16 , from Missouri.•Recognized by EDA as an Economic Development District in 1988.
    • Funding Stream
    • CEDS Organizational Goals g Provide additional Most recently, Mo-Kan created a assistance to microloan fund using USDA-RD businesses through RBEG funds. We have also applied for expansion of Mo- RMAP resources. Kan’s loan programs Currently, Mo-Kan staff are assisting Continue to offer several communities in these efforts long-range planning through comprehensive city plans, guidance pa planning sessions, and ot e regional g sess o s, a other eg o a activities. As traditional funding resources Undertake activities dwindle, Mo-Kan works to improve dwindle Mo Kan that will beneficially opportunities for meaningful impact the local and economic development; projects regional economy. include EEZs, county-based strategic plans, and workforce development activities.
    • MACOG – Missouri Association of Councils of Governments•19 RPCs/COGs with statewide coverage•1970 St t id association f 1970s- Statewide i ti formed d•1980s- Hired Gamble and Schlemieir to serve as organization’s advocatein J ffi Jefferson City and provide administrative support. Cit d id d i i t ti t•2001- Created an RFP to solicit statewide coordinator.•2000 W k d to close gaps by securing 2000s-Worked l b istate and federal funds to re-establish threeregional planning commissions commissions.
    • MACOG - Missouri Association of Councils of Governments Projects created as a result of MACOG’s activities:  Missouri Department of Transportation  M Missouri HHomeland S l d Security O Oversight C h Committee  SEMA Countywide All-hazard Mitigation Plans  EIERA (Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority) workshops  Electric Co-op All-Hazard Mitigation Plans  Missouri broadband planning effort  Outcomes  Statewide Coverage offers standardization  Vi bl option f state programs ( th th hi i additional staff) Viable ti for t t (rather than hiring dditi l t ff)  Do not compete with each other/Respect boundaries  Stronger partnerships  Routine meetings and professional development
    • An EDA University CenterInstitute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • Institute f Economic Advancement for Institute formed in 1955…an EDA University Center since 1996. Secretariat, Advocate, and partnership builder for the EDA Districts in Arkansas. Coordinating Southwest Regionwide effort to build a strategy g g gy direction for UCs for their support of the Austin EDA office and the region’s EDA Districts. In late 2006 we improved the Southwest Region s Revolving Loan 2006, Region’s Fund reporting system  Improved report accuracy, lessened the data entry burden for Grantees, and added several report export options We continue to provide updates and services to both users and AURO:  Technical support for each reporting period, as well as user training  Organize and archive reports for AURO Institute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • Regional Innovation Clusters in Arkansas Identify Classify Analyze DevelopIdentify industry Classify clusters Analyze gaps Develop strategiesclusters existing in by level of between to assist existingeach Arkansas innovation and characteristics of clusters toDevelopment regional/statewide innovative and increase level ofDistrict, using research non-innovative innovation, payingstatistical d i i l data, capabilities bili i clusters l special attention to i l isurveys and focus rural areas.group sessions. Institute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • EDA Disaster Recovery and Preparedness Plan The eight Planning and Development Districts continue to be an integral part A boat building of the recovery and preparedness business in planning process in Arkansas. Clinton, AR (Van Buren County) is devastated from a IEA used collaborative partnerships to p p tornado in 2008. identify and prioritize ways that communities and governments can help business and industry (B&I) cope Benton Carroll Boone Marion Baxter Fulton Randolph Clay with natural disasters and how B&I NORTHWEST Izard Sharp Lawrence Greene Craighead Mississippi plays a significant role in disaster Washington Crawford Franklin Madison Johnson Newton Pope Searcy Van Buren Stone Cleburne Independence WHITE Poinsett EAST preparedness, cleanup, and the overall Jackson RIVER Conway Cross Crittenden Sebastian Woodruff Faulkner White Logan regional recovery. Yell WESTERN Perry St. Francis CENTRAL Lee Scott WEST Pulaski Monroe CENTRAL Prairie Lonoke Saline Polk IEA continues these efforts with the Garland Montgomery Arkansas Grant Jefferson Phillips Hot Spring Howard Pike Dallas districts in developing effective Sevier Cleveland Clark Hempstead Lincoln Calhoun Drew Desha Legend strategies to address future natural Little River Ouachita Feb 20, 2008 - Ar Severe Storms, Tornadoes & Flooding Nevada May 22, 2008 - Ar Severe Storms, Miller Tornadoes & Flooding SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST Bradley June 24, 2008 - Ar Severe Storms, Tornadoes & Flooding Union disasters. disasters Columbia Sep 18, 2008 - Ar Severe Storms & Flooding Associated with Hurricane Gustav A i t d ith H i G t Lafayette Chicot Ashley Sep 18, 2008 - Ar Severe Storms & Flooding Associated with Hurricane Ike Institute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • Partnerships and Services for the Arkansas PDDs Data and CDs from Census Bureau and BEA as affiliates of the Arkansas Census State Data Center Data summed to district level and maps for grant applications and other uses Mapping and interactive mapping services available Promotion Grant from Census 2010 Partnership Training and Technical Support Institute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • EOTP in Economic Development The Elected Officials Training Program (EOTP) was a program creation lead by the IEA and Arkansas’ PDDs/EDDs and included Arkansas PDDs/EDDs, the support of the Governor’s Office, the Arkansas Municipal League and Association of Counties, as well as State, local and utility economic developers. Training sessions are conducted by staff of the IEA, PDDs/EDDs, and AEDC. Sessions focus on the key aspects of economic development and the role of local government in its successful implementation. Programs are delivered at State conferences, regionally within each PDD/EDD and at the community level. y The intended outcome is a body of better-prepared communities across the state with the physical and human infrastructure in place for economic development and j creation/retention. p job Institute for Economic Advancement | 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 | www.iea.ualr.edu
    • Existing CEDS Product Existing CEDS  Training Needs: ject • Room for Improvement,  Process • Help with CEDS per EDA • Time‐Intensive • Improve Data eb Proj • Opportunity for Added Opportunity for Added  • Valuable Valuable  Audience, Added Value Interaction • Low Visual Appeal How to Address? EDS We • Automate CEDS  How to Improve? Process? • Lower Time Impact by  • Sources of Data Reducing Effort? y y • Raise Value / Visibility by  exas CE Increasing Effort? Three‐Part CEDS  Three Part CEDS Project • CEDS Web Sites • CEDS Construction Te web environment web environment • Data Tools
    • Link regional  plans & state,  federal goals Enable analysis of multiple CEDSCEDS work area:  CEDS work area: resources,  collaboration
    • Put regional  projects in CEDS context Link regional  plans  state,  federal goalsSocioeconomic / demographic  data analysisOnline public participation participation process
    • oject CEDS Product Improved: CEDS Process Unimpeded: Better Data, Better Look, More  B tt D t B tt L k M Interaction and Local  Interaction and Local Web Pro Visible, More Relevant, Greater  Differences Preserved, Data  Audience and Formatting Assisted Texas CEDS W • Strengthen value of EDA  investment • Leverage increased local buy‐ in by expanding audience and  increasing value of product • Enable use of product by new  p yT public, private stakeholders
    • Participant ShowcasePost‐Disaster Economic Recovery
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• SWAPDD is  comprised  comprised of TWELVE counties in  counties in southwest  Arkansas     Arkansas
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• FOUR of  those  those counties  are in the   are in the Mississippi Delta. Delta
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• EDA provided SWAPDD with $150 000 to EDA provided SWAPDD with $150,000 to  create a DISASTER RESPONSE plan. – Create a database of ALL businesses in the region » Geospatial data » Number of Employees » Mailing addresses                    
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• EDA provided SWAPDD with $150 000 to EDA provided SWAPDD with $150,000 to  create a DISASTER RESPONSE plan. – Geospatial data can be compared to stormtracker data to instantly predict businesses impacted by  tornados and floods. tornados and floods – Pre‐filled assistance documents can be prepared  for impacted businesses using the database  f i db i i h d b records 
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• DRA provided SWAPDD with $150 000 to DRA provided SWAPDD with $150,000 to  create a Local Strategic Delta Development  Plan specific to Southwest Arkansas. Plan specific to Southwest Arkansas – For Delta Communities, additional fields added to  the database: th d t b » Geospatial data for critical infrastructure & needed  improvements to promote  critical mass development improvements to promote “critical mass” development » Catalog available economic development  sites » Develop a plan to increase employment diversity » Develop a plan to increase workforce education l l kf d
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• SWAPDD leveraged the EDA and DRA monies SWAPDD leveraged the EDA and DRA monies   to obtain $87,000 in state General  Improvement Funds to expand the DRA project  Improvement Funds to expand the DRA project into non‐Delta communities in the region. – GIF monies:  – Hired an employee for 1 year, to be trained as a GIS specialist – Purchased a truck for project use, to be donated to a member  community after 1 year – Purchased GPS hardware and GIS software
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning        & Development District l• SWAPDD leveraged the EDA DRA and GIF SWAPDD leveraged the EDA, DRA and GIF  monies in a $1.9M CDBG Disaster Grant  application, to expand the SWAPDD project  application to expand the SWAPDD project into the other Development Districts in the  state. state – Under CDBG Disaster rules, “Disaster Planning”  satisfies a national objective of the CDBG Program ti fi ti l bj ti f th CDBG P – Grant awards to be announced this month.
    • Southwest Arkansas Planning       & Development District lFor more information, contact: Ms. Renee Dycus Executive Director Executive Director SWAPDD Renee.dycus@arkansas.gov
    • Total funds to businesses: $9,574,400BRAP EBRAP LISP CRRG RLF Jumpstart  p ERAP FIRP Unallocated 18% 21% 1% 3% 0% 1% 8% 16% 32%
    • • 13 loans to 11 businesses (2 businesses received 2 loans) • Manufacturing: 7 • Service: 2• Amounts from $50,000 to $250,000 • Working capital: 11 loans Working capital: 11 loans • Equipment: 2 loans•J b Jobs created: 57 t d 57• Jobs retained: 177
    • Early, rigorous update of CEDS and Long‐Range Transportation PlanCooperative Venture of ECICOG/Region 10 RPA and Corridor Business Alliance • Alliant Energy •John Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center •Kirkwood Small Business Development Center • Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce •Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services • Corridor2020 Networking Corridor2020 Networking •MidAmerican Energy Company • Iowa City Area Development Group •Priority One • ECICOG/Region 10 RPA •University of Iowa Research Foundation • Entrepreneurial Development Center •University of Iowa Small Business Development Center • Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Iowa City Area Chamber of CommerceSix‐month Planning Process • County Meetings • Regional Economic Development Summit • Website Updates • Coordinated with Other CBA Priorities, including Regional Branding
    • South Central Regional Construction Code Council & MyPermitNow.org MyPermitNow org Cullen CuroleSouth Central Planning and Development Commission Louisiana
    • Benefits of Regional Building Code EnforcementReduced Permit FeesReduced Permit FeesFaster, Consistent Inspections & Plan ReviewPublic Input at Regional Code Council MeetingsRepresentation and Advocacy at the State LevelRepresentation and Advocacy at the State LevelTeam of Inspectors able to respond to disasters across region
    • MyPermitNow.org SoftwareLow, monthly cost determined by permit volumeAutomatic Phone & Email NotificationsFree Online Customer Portal gives access to  ee O e Custo e o ta g es access topermit information at any timeInstitutional Knowledge of other jurisdictionsInstitutional Knowledge of other jurisdictionsNear paperless system, where records are archived automatically allows for fasterarchived automatically, allows for faster, digital plan review process
    • Faster Plan Review and InspectionAverage Residential Plan Review in less than 3business daysAverage Commercial PlanAverage Commercial Plan Review within 5 business daysInspections are performed the Inspections are performed thesame day as they are scheduled (day of/day after)scheduled (day of/day after)
    • Economic BenefitsReduced permit feesThe increased speed and efficiency reduces construction timeConsistent, comprehensive building code Co s ste t, co p e e s e bu d g codeenforcement can reduce insurance costsGreater accountability and transparencyGreater accountability and transparencyStrengthen building codes through ongoing collaboration
    • CEDS Innovation ForumJanuary 2011 Planning & Development District III Service Area • 15 Counties • 60 Communities • 3 Indian Tribes • 95 Person Governing Committee • Separate 27 Person CEDS Committee11,911 Square MilesEstimated Population: 98,534 (2009) p ( )
    • CEDS Value to the Region g Issue Idea RiskPerspective Generation Mitigation Focus Freedom Perceptions Credibility Expertise Resources Experience E i Innovation I i Cooperation C i
    • CEDS Implementation p CEDS Committee InputIssues Interests Initiatives DIII Response Sustained Immediate Deferred (Ongoing Priority) (High Priority) (Low Priority) Regional R i l Benefits Jobs Capacity Investment Building B ildi Performance Documentation Annual CEDS A l Monthly Annual C A l County Committee Report Reports Reports
    • CEDS Implementation Examples p p Issue Interest Initiative Disaster Affordable Wind Energy FOCUS Preparedness Housing Development South Dakota Office SD Housing Mitchell TechnicalPARTNER of Emergency Development Institute Management Authority FEMA Approved Single Family Units Full Size Turbine forOBJECTIVE Pre-Disaster Pre Disaster in Small Towns Technician Training Mitigation Plans Program EDA Project County PlanDIII ROLE Development & Development p g g Financial Packaging Implementation 8 Single Family Full Size Training 12 ApprovedOUTCOME Units in 4 Small Turbine Within 108 County PDMs Communities Unit Wind Farm
    • Participant ShowcaseRegional Development and Workforce
    • Initial Collaboration• EMDC as facilitator• Creation of network C i f k• Defining common goals• Recognizing the lack of a comprehensive strategy
    • Greater Bangor Region g g Mobilize Maine• Private Sector Leadership• Regional Goal Development• Regional Benchmark Development• Regional Asset Identification• Short-Term Wins/Strategic Initiatives S /S
    • Asset Based Approach• Asset Mapping Teams• Data Collection• Short Term Wi /St t i Initiatives Sh t T Wins/Strategic I iti ti
    • Mobilize Maine Regional Vision• Development of an asset- based regional vision• Bold goals with regional participation• Driven by private sector leadership
    • Shifting Processes• Streamlining workflow• Increasing collaboration I i ll b ti• Increasing efficiencies g
    • Shifting Workforce g Development• Job Seeker based Old Model Seeker-based• Business-based New Model
    • Shifting Business g Development• Business Visitation Pilot Project • Pilot Partners • Outcomes O t• Business Resource Center• WebCats
    • Comprehensive and Collaborative Economic Development• Internal Organizational Changes • Increased efficiency • Increased understanding• CEDS Process • Mobilize Maine Regional Vision’s Role • Private Sector Participation
    • Advancing Common Strategies• Regional Vision Action Plans • Mid-point benchmarks• CEDS priorities• Transportation/Tiger II T t ti /Ti• Livable Communities• Energy/Pathways• Workforce Development priorities
    • Emphasis on Collaboration• Financial Capital Development • Local venture capital/Sidecar Fund creation L l t it l/Sid F d ti• Environmental Capital Development p p • Asset-based prioritization• Human Capital Development • Business/Workforce integration
    • A Broad Multi-Regional Strategy? Multi Regional • A regional approach is stronger than operating as individual regions, cities or counties. • Help regional leaders identify the top p g y p challenges and opportunities for the area. • Lay out a game plan. • Emphasize three important factors: Talent, Talent Innovation and Place Place.
    • TIP: Talent, Innovation and Place• A strong pool of Talent to allow businesses to flourish.• An environment that supports Innovation and entrepreneurship.• A quality of Place that draws people and companies to the area while meeting the needs of current residents.
    • Wired65 RegionalCompetitiveness Strategy - p gyChallenges • Employers will continue to face labor shortages •The skill sets of the regions workforce do not match future jobs • Regional infrastructure needs are piling up • Business climate issues can hamper growth • Ch Changes at Fort Knox will create workforce and ill kf d other challenges, along with opportunity
    • Wired65 RegionalCompetitiveness Strategy – p gyPriority Recommendations • Fix the Education Pipeline • P Prepare for 21 C f 21st Century J b Jobs • Create a Talent Magnet • Invest in Priority Sectors • F Focus on Quality of Place Q li f Pl
    • Continue the conversation…• What does it mean to address issues as a region?• What is the best way to create meaningful connections among regional players in the workforce, education, and economic development arenas?• Which trends are likely to have the greatest impact on the region going forward?• How d we use the Wired65 Region’s assets and do h i d65 i ’ d strategies outlined in these pages to best position the region for success? g• What factors will determine success?
    • Northern Arizona Council of Governments One message, One voice • One of the nation’s                 largest COGS g • 4 Counties • 22 Communities • 9 Tribal Nations • 5 National Forests                       • (11 national parks) (11 national parks) • 3 Local Workforce  Investment Areas • 48,000 sq. miles               (40% state land)
    • Sponsored by Arizona Public Service (APS)  a Public Utility  ‐Focus Future, developed by APS as a cooperative strategic planning Focus Future, developed by APS as a cooperative strategic planning  process that evaluates the region’s competitive advantage with specific  strategies specific to job creation, economic development and research. Economic Analysis overnments s ‐ Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities.  Common issues,  A l i f h k ii C i Unemployment , preservation of natural resources, educational  attainment, tourism and poverty. Challenges & Opportunities g pp ouncil of Go ‐ Global competition, economy, labor changes, demographic shifts,  natural resources.  CEDS Action Plan ‐Vision, mission, identify focus areas Vision mission identify focus areasNorthern Arizona Co Roles & Responsibilities ‐ Clearly define strategies and who will carry them out, EDC staff,  committee, partners.  Annual Evaluation ‐EDC sets performance based strategies that measure the effectiveness  of the Economic Development District. 
    • Regional Council   40 member board of Directors (BOS, Mayors, City/Town Council members, Tribes 40 member board of Directors (BOS, Mayors, City/Town Council members, Tribes Economic Development Council   30 member committee  (City/Town managers, economic/workforce development  overnments s professionals, education, Tribes, BLM and LWIA) f i l d i T ib BLM d LWIA) Bureau of Land Management  ouncil of Go Government Technology Information Agency (GITA)   Arizona Department of Commerce/Arizona Commerce AuthorityNorthern Arizona Co Transportation, Housing, Community Development Block Grants Arizona Association for Economic Development Arizona Association of Workforce Developers
    • Statewide State Energy Sector Partnership Grant      $6 million $6 million Statewide Broadband Opportunity   $52 million overnments s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Products and Services Business Assistance Center (BAC) $2 million Healthcare grant ouncil of Go Arizona Commerce Authority Rural operations Arizona Jobs Bill Arizona Jobs BillNorthern Arizona Co White paper Local Transportation Area Funding $201,477 $201 477 Local Workforce Investment Areas State Initiative for Re‐Districting
    • Economic Development Council  Scope of Work Scope of Work 1. Support economic development and workforce development partnerships that provide  business retention and expansion in the District.  2. Plan and implement State Energy Sector Partnership (SESP) Green Energy statewide grant  that expands training and employment opportunities in the District that promote  renewable, sustainable and efficient energy sources in the District.  3. Support and explore the use of energy technology for business development in the District.  pp p gy gy p overnments s 4. Work actively with the State Department of Commerce to develop and implement the  state’s plan for rural economic development activities in the District.  5. Expand partnerships and working relationships with other Economic Development Districts  in the state.  ouncil of Go 6. Gain state support to re‐invest in business incentives for attraction and retention.  7. Maintain APS sponsored B‐3 Building Bridges to Business, licensing for business analysis. 8. Partner with transportation planning organizations for strategic planning.  9. Partner with communities and other agencies to produce an annual Tourism Forum focused  g pNorthern Arizona Co on private industry.  Realign Tourism Forums with private sector, (ex. Hospitality, retail etc.  10. Promote and encourage regional, joint marketing opportunities that improve tourism in the  District.  11. Support EDA regional public works technical assistance projects that align with District  pp g p p j g Goals and Priorities. 
    • Teri Drew, Regional Director NACOG‐EWD 221 N. Marina St. Suite 201 Prescott, AZ  86301 928/778‐1422 @ g g Email to:  kmass@nacog.orgWebsite:  www.nacog.org Find us on FACEBOOK at NACOG
    • The Tri‐County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of  yMaryland was formed by an Act of the Maryland General  Assembly in 2001. The purpose of the Council is to  facilitate regional planning and development in  facilitate regional planning and development in Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester counties. Michael Pennington, Executive Director
    • More Efficient CEDS Process Data consolidation One-stop location for all relevant demographic, economic, and p g p , , workforce indicators Easy data analysis to help make better, more informed decisions Updated regularly (as source updates data) rather than just an annual update End goal: to make the annual report online, interactive, more user- friendly, friendly and easier to understand
    • RuralStat The Dashboard below will take a few moments to load… http://www.rural.state.md.us/Resources/Ru ralstat.swfhttp://www.rural.state.md.us/Resources/Ruralstat.swf
    • Biomass Locator
    • Dorchester Building and Sites
    • GeoDASH Initiative Goal: To provide technical assistance to community leaders in matters involving economic development and g p transportation planning. This initiative is facilitated by:  The Business, Economic and Community Outreach Network (BEACON) Business Economic, of the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury University  The Eastern Shore Regional GIS Cooperative (ESRGC) of the Richard A. Henson School of Science and Technology gy In partnership with:  The Mid-Shore Regional Council  The Tri-County Council of the Lower Eastern Shore Tri County Funded by:  The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce  Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED)
    • Staff Sharing Team members on the ground are Sarah Bunch, Economic Development and Transportation Planner and James Garrity, Eastern Shore Business and Economic Development Dashboard Specialist. Specialist  They are housed at BEACON and ESRGC where the technological and business resources and know-how are available. Partnerships with the Mid-Shore Regional Council and Tri-County Council provide an avenue for id tif i needs TiC t C il id f identifying d and reaching all of the six counties, through projects such as the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. p p gy
    • Project ListSpatial: Biomass Search Webmap: Webmap: p http://fairview.salisbury.edu/biofuels/ Rural Stat: http://www.rural.state.md.us/Resources/Ruralstat.swf htt // l t t d /R /R l t t f Chesapeake Bay Foundation Impacts (Data for Demo Only): http://staff.salisbury.edu/~jrgarrity/cbf/impact.swf Dorchester Buildings and Sites: http://www.choosedorchester.org/sites/Dashboard.swfNon-Spatial: Sales Estimates: http://beacon.salisbury.edu/geodash/sales/allsales.swf http://beacon salisbury edu/geodash/sales/allsales swf Economic Impact of Space Tourism (Data for Demo Only): http://staff.salisbury.edu/~jrgarrity/wallops/wallops.swf
    • Participant ShowcaseRegional Sustainable Development
    • Comprehensive EconomicDevelopment Strategy (CEDS) 2007-2012 2007- Land-of- Land-of-Sky Regional Council Region B, North Carolina Buncombe, Henderson, Madison B n mb H nd r n M di n & Transylvania Counties
    • BackgroundLand-of- y gLand-of-Sky Regional Council (LOSRC) is designated ( ) g by the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) as the planning organization f r an E r iz ti for Economic D l pm t Di tri t mi Development District (EDD), which is Region B.A Board-appointed Strategy Committee developed the Board- CEDS with input from an online survey, a Regional Resource Group, a strategic planning exercise by the full Board, and a staff review of local, regional and state plans and policies policies.
    • Overarching ThemeThe Strategy Committee chose “RegionalCoordination”C di i ” among local governments and l l dother partners as the overarching theme of the p gCEDS. This theme applies to all strategic issuesand solutions in the CEDS.
    • Strategic InitiativesTheTh CEDS contains fi “Ti 1” strategic i five “Tier iinitiatives. These are the highest priority g p yprojects that emerged from the StrategyCommittee’s issue ranking process. Theseprojects will be the main focus of our j ill b h i f forganization’s activities in the next five years. g y
    • Strategic Initiatives:1. Regional Growth Management Planning Goal: Regional coordination of growth management planning. g g w g p g2. Transportation and Air Quality Goal: Continue to meet and exceed air quality standards to ensure protection of public health and the environment, while providing f f d h i hil idi for future economic prosperity and for state-of-the-art i i d f state-of-the- f h multimodal transportation services to residents of the region.3. Housing g Goal: To increase the stock of affordable, energy efficient housing throughout the region.4. Regional Brownfields Initiative (RBI) g Goal: To continue and expand this valuable program in the region.5. Clean Energy Planning and Entrepreneurship Goal: To create a clean, secure, resilient energy future and a robust economy.
    • How d H does th R5DC S t i bl Communities the Sustainable C iti Plan stand to assist our region in Central Minnesota?1. Shared vision and alignment of multi‐jurisdictional,  multi‐discipline/agency priorities. 2. Inclusion of the regions demographic profile.3. Improve our economic and environmental vitality – the  p y balanced approach.4. Drive increased efficiency and delivery of services  through regional scale.  Builds on existing regional  through regional scale Builds on existing regional efforts in a new way.
    • How dH does th R5DC S t i bl Communities the Sustainable C itiPlanning effort tie to Economic Development?1. Less silo work. Each discipline becomes the responsibility of several agencies/funding  mechanism. New partners!  2. Access to funding that did not previously prioritize Access to funding that did not previously prioritize  economic development.3. Innovation spurs from several wells that all lead to 3 Innovation spurs from several wells that all lead to the same pool.
    • How dH does th R5DC S t i bl Communities the Sustainable C iti Planning effort tie to the CEDS?1. The Sustainable Communities Plan IS OUR CEDS. a. Avoids duplication of efforts b. Inclusionary of people not typically part of the CEDs  process. c. Adds a policy piece. Adds a policy piece. d. Elevates the regional value of our CEDS.2.  Creates the opportunity for the CEDS to be recognized 2 Creates the opportunity for the CEDS to be recognizedby several State and Federal agencies as a valid process worthy of implementation funding. What if?................
    • What else?......Why do this? ? i ?1. This is how we must adapt to the “new norm”….  h h d h “ ” new way of doing business.2. New opportunities, new relationships. • new BMP’s (use of political, social, fiscal capital) • shared data shared data • Funding of regionally significant projects 3.  Regionalism can “step up” to a new level of 3 R i li “ ” l l fimportance. Driven by community need and will…… not by mandates.
    • {‐Matt McCauley, Director of Regional Planning & Community Development NADO CEDS Innovation Forum, 2011
    •  Consortium of 10 Counties in Northwest Lower Michigan Almost 100% grant funded ($20M Annual Budget, Regional  Planning $1M) 40 funding streams per year operating on 5 different fiscal years f d d ff f l Only region in Michigan to co‐administer both planning and  Only region in Michigan to co‐ workforce development  workforce development Three Boards: NWMCOG Governing Board, Workforce  Development Board, TC‐TALUS (quasi‐MPO) Development Board, TC‐TALUS (quasi‐ p q A true public‐private partnership, dating back to the early 1980’s A true public‐NWMCOG Background
    •  Workforce Investment Act  Michigan Prisoner            Re‐Entry program Re‐ Trade Act  Residential alternative  Residential alternative Employment Services high school YouthBuild  Regional economic  Adu Education Adult Education Adult Educa io development JET (welfare to work)  Transportation Regional Skills Alliances  Housing SBTDC  EnergyNWMCOG Programming
    • www.thegrandvision.org  6 County Regional Land Use & Transportation Initiative  8.5% of regional population participated  V Very connected to economic prosperity t dt i it  Transportation, Housing, Energy, Food, Land Use, Natural  resources networks transitioning planning to implementation resources networks transitioning planning to implementation  Distributed leadership modelPlanning Highlights
    • www.nwm.org/nwm3e.asp www.nwm.org/environment.asp Regional strategy linking energy and water to economic development Acted as catalyst to provide energy audits and energy efficiency  programming to the NWMCOG programming to the N Phase 1: 10 County building energy efficiency audits completed,  Ph 1 10 C t b ildi ffi i dit l t d identified $1.8M in savings measures‐ NWMCOG to provide $400k identified $1.8M in savings measures‐ Phase 2: Local government audits underway‐ Phase 2: Local government audits underway‐ NWMCOG to provide  g y p $400k in implementation funds Annual energy savings to region expected to be $250k+Planning Highlights
    • www.nwm.org Mathias McCauley         (mccauley@nwm.cog.mi.us or 231.929.5061) l i 231 929 5061) P.O.B. 506 600 E. Front St., Suite 201 Traverse City MI 49684 Traverse City, MI  49684 Agency: nwmcog A e y o Regional Planning: nwmcogger
    • Central Florida ‐Regional Planning Council p ‐Economic Development District ‐Heartland 2060 Consortium Vision For 7 Counties 28 Cities
    • Issue Task Forces Environment and Natural Resources Education,Workforce, and Transportation Economic E i and Land UseDevelopment Community Resources
    • Economic Diversification: Future Industry ClustersCEDS Target Projects:• Healthcare and Social Services• Green Products Manufacturing Healthcare• Logistics and Distribution Logistics &• Bio‐fuels and Energy Distribution Green Products Component Manufacturing• Incubators Manufacturing Bio-fuels Environmental Energy SciencesClusters identified by EDWED Task Force: Clusters identified by EDWED Task Force: Eco-Tourism Eco Tourism & Sustainable Recreation• Sustainable Agriculture Agriculture• Environmental Sciences• Eco‐Tourism and Recreation
    • Transportation, Land Use and Natural Resources : Regional Systems Planning EffortsExisting Land Uses 0.4% 0 4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 4.6% 5.6% 14.9% 5.2% 67.0% Single Family Multi‐Family  Commercial  Industrial  Industrial Institutional  Institutional Agriculture  Agriculture Conservation  Mixed‐Use  Mining 
    • Heartland 2060 Consortium
    • Regional Plan for Sustainable Development• Heartland 2060 Scenario Modeling Multi‐Modal Transportation, Land Use, Water,  Natural Resources, Energy, Air Quality•Rural Housing Initiatives GIS Inventory of Available Affordable Housing Lots GIS Inventory of Available Affordable Housing Lots Methodology for Siting Affordable Housing in Rural Areas in Rural Areas
    • Regional Plan for Sustainable Development• Energy  Baseline Inventory Modeling with Land Use & Transportation Economic Strategic  Plan for Alternative Fuels g• Public Engagement Public Engagement• Complete 2060 Vision for the Heartland• Development 5 Year Action Plan l i l
    • Energy Conservation +  Alternative Fuels = Future Economic OpportunitiesDeSoto CountySolar Farm Alternative Energy Alternative Fuel Crops p
    • Energy and Climate Change: How do we prepare for future impacts? Source: University of Arizona
    • www.Heartland2060.com(www.Heartland2060.org)
    • Merrimack ValleyPriority Growth Strategy
    • Regional Economic Shift• Decline of Traditional Industries• Rise of New Technologies – Route 128 “America’s Technology Highway” – Greater Boston Area
    • Merrimack Valley Workers Employment Location p y 146,923 6,9 3160,000160 000 130,672140,000120,000 Total Commuters 78,743 77,849100,000100 000 (60.3%) (53.0%) Stay within MVPC 80,000 Region 60,000 27,474 36,026 Boston, Greater Boston, (21.1%) ( (24.5%)) 40,000 40 000 Rt.128 Rt 128 20,000 0 1990 2000
    • Regional Housing Changes Supply & Demand• Worker Housing• Migration• Affordable• Growth Pressures
    • Population Growth 10-year Census Numbers Projection 1980 1990 2000 2030MVPC 260,893 288,280 318,556 352,615 (REMI Model Forecast) 10.5 10 5 10.5 10 5 10.7 10 7Mass. 5,737,037 6,016,425 6,349,097 7,012,009 (Census Forecast) 4.9 5.5 10.4
    • Merrimack Valley Housing Median Sales Price 500,000 432,550 417,286 412,953 450,000 408,537 , 374,607 400,000 378,192 342,250 347,533 346,847 350,000 310,281Data Source: 300,000 242 946 243,267 257,879 259 151 252 778 242,946 , 259,151 252,778The WTh Warren 240,895 250,000 218,445 212,763 Group 174,980 200,000 138,313 150,000 100,000 50,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1-Family Condo
    • Commuting Patterns Evolved• Longer Commute Times• Congestion g• Aging Infrastructure
    • Merrimack Valley Workers Average Co ute Time ve age Commute e30292827 27 Minutes26252423 22 Minutes222120 1990 2000
    • South The Merrimack Valley RegionKingston Hampstead Newton Hampton Seabrook Derry Congested Intersections and Roadways ¬ « 150 § ¬ ¨ « ¦95 1 2007 ¬ «1A Amesbury ¬ « 110 ! ( Atlantic Al i Ocean Merrimac Salisbury Atkinson Plaistow ¬ « 110 § ¨ ¦ 495 Windham ! ( ¬ « 113 Newburyport ¬ « 1A ¬ « 113 ¬ «1 West Salem ¬ « 97 ¬ « 125 Newbury ! ( !! ¬ « 110 Haverhill (( ¬ «113 Newbury ¬ « 97 ¬ «1A Groveland § ¨ ¦95 ¬ «1Pelham ¬ « ! (( 213 ! ¬ « 113 Methuen ¬ «125 Georgetown Rowley ! ( ¬ « 28 Lawrence ¬ « ¬ «97 ¬ « 110 133 ¬ « 133 ! ( ! ( ¬ « 1A ¬ « ! ( ¬ « 133 ¬ « 113 § ¨ ¦ 93 ! ( ¬ « 114 1 Dracut ¬ « 110 Ipswich Legend ¬ « ! ( 125 North Andover Boxford ! ( Congested Intersection Town Boundary Rail Road Lines µ Interstate § ¨ ¦ 495 ! ( Major Roads Local Roads ¬ « 133 Andover 0 1:168,000 1 inch equals 14,000 feet 7,000 Feet 14,000 Topsfield ¬ « JArcGISMVPC2008TransportationCongestedIntersections_8x11.mxd 114 ¬ ¬ « « 28 125 Hamilton Tewksbury § ¨ ¦93 Middleton Essex A State Designated Regional Service Center Wenham "Mapping the Crossroads of New England" Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) North Reading Danvers 160 Main Street Haverhill MA, 01830 Printed May 5, 2008 SAL Manchester
    • Condition of Bridges in the Merrimack Valley May 2007 Structurally Deficient 8% Functionally Obsolete 24%Adequate 68% Structurally Deficient Functionally Obsolete Adequate
    • Loss f C t L of Controll over Municipal Financing• Proposition 2 ½• Growth• “Good” vs. “Bad” Good Bad
    • Merrimack Valley Revenue Total Municipal Receipts p p1,050,000,0001,000,000,000 950,000,000 Actual Budgets 2.5% Increase 2000 $735,030,017 $735 030 017 $735,030,017 $735 030 017 900,000,000 900 000 000 2001 $791,075,882 7.6% $753,405,767 2002 $808,130,698 2.2% $772,240,912 850,000,000 2003 $831,686,107 2.9% $791,546,934 2004 $838,864,379 0.9% $811,335,608 800,000,000 2005 $859,904,194 2.5% $831,618,998 2006 $921,242,941 $921 242 941 7.1% $852,409,473 7 1% $852 409 473 2007 $959,807,176 4.2% $873,719,710 750,000,000 2008 $1,009,940,633 5.2% $895,562,702 700,000,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Data Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue Actual Budgets 2.5% Increase
    • Competing Public Policies• “Need to Encourage Growth to Finance Municipal Services”• “N d to Create Job Opportunities That pay well and Reduce “Need t C t J b O t iti Th t ll d R d Commuting Demands”• “Need to Keep Housing Cost Affordable for Our Children and Need Future Generations”• “Need to Manage Development to Avoid Adversely Affecting Our Quality of Life”
    • Regional Plan to Address these Challenges g• “Where do Communities want to Encourage Regionally Significant Growth that creates these Jobs and Affordable Housing Opportunities”• “Which Areas of the Valley Should be Protected from Future Development Due to Environmental and Other Constraints to Maintain the Character of the Valley”• “How well Does the Region’s Transportation Network Support these Land g p pp Use Priorities”
    • Where do We Want Wh d W W to Encourage Growth• Local Decision• Concentrated Development Centers (CDC)• CDC: “An Area of Concentrated Development, Including a Town Center, Consisting of Existing and Appropriately Zoned Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use Areas Suitable for High Density Development”• Priority Development Site (PDS)
    • CDCs Map
    • CDCs & PDS Map
    • CDC Evaluation “Strengths & Constraints to Development” and “Smart Growth Principles”• Land Use• Infrastructure• Access• Environmental
    • Land Use “Concentrate a mix of uses that foster a sense of place, increases job opportunities and sustainable businesses”• Density & Potential Build-out y• Zoning / Mix of Uses• Priority Development
    • Infrastructure “Encourage Reuse and Rehabilitation of Existing Infrastructure E i ti I f t t ”• Water• Sewer• Broadband• Utilities
    • Access “Provide Transportation Choices”• Road – Access to the Site – Congestion• Transit• Bike & Pedestrian
    • Environmental “Restore and Enhance the Environment”• Wetlands• Flood Plain• Water Supply Protection• Rare Species
    • GREATER LAWRENCE SUB-REGION CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT CENTER EVALUATION ANDOVER LAWRENCE METHUEN NORTH ANDOVER Strengths & Lowell Junction n Rolling Green Weaknesses River Road Raytheon LOW MEDIUM HIGH LAND USEDensity & Build outZoning / Mix usePriority DevelopmentINFRASTRUCTUREWaterSewerBroadbandUtilitiesTRANSPORTATIONSite AccessibilityCongestionTransit ServiceBike/Pedestrian ENVIRONMENTALWater Supply ProtectFlood PlainWetlandsRare Species
    • CDC Classification• Smart Growth Center• Center of Commerce• Business Center• Village Center
    • Where Should We Protect Land from Future Development p• Local Decision• Protected Lands & Lands Suitable for Protection• Protected Lands: “Lands Protected by Agricultural y g Preservation Restrictions, Protected Federal, State & Municipal Lands, Protected Public and Private Outdoor Recreation Areas” R A ”
    • New Priority Areas for Protection• Open Space Plans p p• Watersheds for Public Water• Farmlands F l d• Identified Potential Regional Collaboration and Cooperation Opportunities to Protect Open Space Throughout the Valley
    • CDCs & PDS & OS Map
    • How do We Connect These Land Use Patterns• Existing Transportation System• Connections: “Inter-State Highways, Regional Roads, Transit, Bike and Pedestrian Connections that Support the Promotion of CDCs and Protected Lands”
    • New Connection Priorities• Local Priorities• Regional Significant Priorities• Transportation System Management ( ) improvements p y g (TSM) p to address congestion management concerns• Bike & Pedestrian
    • Growth Strategy Map w/Priority Transportation Projects
    • Implementation• Promote Smart Growth Principles & Techniques - Strengthen CDCs - MVPC Workshops• Identify Conflicts in the Strategy• Promote Cooperation & Coordination p• Advocate Strategy Consistency Thru MEPA & Clearinghouse Procedures• Potential “Growth District” Designations• T tC Target Commonwealth C it l G t t P i iti lth Capital Grants to Priorities• Seek Federal Funding to Advance Strategy• Connect the MPO Process to these Land Use Patterns
    • Participant ShowcaseRegional Community and Economic Development
    • CEDS Innovation ForumTri-County Council for Western MarylandJanuary 2011 • 3 Counties • 24 M i i liti Municipalities • Population of 250,000 • 26 Board Members • 27 Additional Persons on CEDS Committee
    • Who are our partners? Government Education Private Businesses Non Profit Agencies Philanthropic Community Phil th i C it
    • Regional Collaboration  Regional in Nature eg o a atu e  Adaptable  Flexible  Redirect Resources Quickly  Leverage Resources g
    • Economic Development Commission Appointed as a Task Force by Governor Ehrlich in pp y the spring of 2003 Charged with making recommendations for g g improving the Economic Climate of Allegany and Garrett Counties The Commission divided itself into 5 sub-committees The report was issued in June 2004
    • Economic Development Commission The following year the Council included the standing committees in the CEDS process and expanded them to all 3 Counties The CEDS process served as the vehicle that expanded our leadership role in the community p p y This visibility and credibility as a leader attracted several new opportunities f th agency l t iti for the
    • Regional Convener Regional Education Community Foundation Small Business Development Center Maryland Broadband Cooperative RSVP
    • Regional EdR i l Education Service Agency ti S i A(RESA) RESA served as the regional platform for collaboration of the 8 educational institutions across the region Issues – Grants no longer supporting Admin fees – Loss of existing Executive Director – No increase in annual dues Opportunities – Strengthened the Councils relationships with the education community – Provided regional education the opportunity to directly interact with economic development – Improved preparation of future workforce
    • Community Trust Foundation Two of our three Counties were the only two Counties in MD not served by a Community Foundation Worked with the existing Foundation in Washington County Formed a 501 C 3 Developed a Board of Directors Leveraged Funding Spun off
    • Small Business Development Center Only SBDC in state that was private Current operation did not serve all counties Was not tied to the University Existing SBDC destroyed due to fire g y Worked with Economic Development offices to recreate and co-locate co locate
    • Retired S i V l tR ti d Senior Volunteer Program P(RSVP) This Federal program requires a host agency as well as matching funding A opportunity was created when the existing host agency withdrew The Council competitively applied to be the new host agency. While Whil another agency was awarded th program, th th d d the the Council was successful in acquiring State Funds to leverage the program Partnering with the agency that was awarded
    • Regional Assessment During the elections of 2010 only 2 of our 11 2010, County officials were retained 5 of the 6 representatives to the Council were new Recognizing this we contracted with SERDI to perform a regional assessment
    • Regional Assessment Worked with members of the outgoing Board of Directors to define the current and future roles of the Council that would make us more effective and relevant in enhancing the community and economic development of the Region. The completed written report provides recommendations for consideration of the new Board of Directors SERDI provides an objective third party viewpoint and is contracted to assist in the transition and education of the new Board
    • Regional Assessment and CEDS The assessment resulted in the recommendation of a new meeting format The new format would consist of 1-3 regional summits that would include training sessions sessions, networking and focus groups The Summits will be 2 day events with open registration The focus groups would allow an expanded g p p audience to provide input into the CEDS
    • Building Local Food Systems Nancy Reger, AICP y g , Deputy Director, Transportation
    • Center for  gy Energy &  Environment Housing & Transportation Community  Community Services Public &  Government  Affairs
    • The  answer: In Central Ohio Agriculture is a  In Central Ohio Agriculture is a$1 1 billi d ll i d$1.1 billion dollar industry$340 million used for food Food Grain,  BeansReturn is 1/10 what it  / Nursery  productscould be with more value added industriesadded industries
    • Local Food Production L lF dP d iGood for consumersGood for consumersGood for farmersGood for the economyGood for the economyGood for the landLocal food is NOT limited to Farmers markets &Farmers markets &Community gardens
    • WHO is involved?• Farmers, farm organizations • Health advocates• Food‐related businesses • Land use planners Land‐use planners• Processors and distributors • Local governments• Anti‐hunger advocates • Economic development• Faith‐based groups • University researchers• Banks, lenders • other
    • ImplementationFresh food  ImplementationLocal food has a successful niche.successful nicheThe goal is to make it a mainstream it a mainstreamsuccess.
    • NeNeighborhood Food Campus$865,000 received  from HUD  i d f HUDSustainable Community Grant C it G tfor low income area
    • Connect with us:www.morpc.org
    • Web- Web-based Tools for Economic DevelopmentCarol Andersen, Information Services DirectorAppalachian Council of GovernmentsGreenville, SCPresented by David Shellhorse, Economic Shellhorse,Development Planner CEDS I Innovation F ti Forum January 19, 2011
    • Evolution of Tools  Technology  Economic Development  Regionalism  Opportunities
    • South Carolina Appalachian Counties # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ### # ## # # ### # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # ## # # #### ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # ## ## ## # ## ## ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # ### ## ### # ## ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # # ## ### # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### #### # ## ## # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # # ## # # # #### # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ### # # ## ## # # ## # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # #### ##### # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # ## ### # # # #### # ## ## # ## # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # #### # # # # # ### ## # ## # # # #### # ## ## # ### # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## ### # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## ## ##### # # # # # #### ### ## ## # # ## # #### # ## # # ## # #### # # # ### # ### ##### # ## # # # # ### # # # # # ## ### # # ### ## ## ### ## # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # #### # # ## ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # ## # # ### ## ## # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## ##### # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## ## # # ## ## # ## ## ### # # # ## # ## # ### ## # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # ## # ## ### # ## ## ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## ## #### # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ### # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # ## # # ## # ### # # # # ## ## # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # Existing Industries # ## # # ## # # # Population per Sq. Mile # # # Industries # # # # 19 - 70 Population per mi2 # # 71- 104 4,000 Square Mi. # # ## 105 - 200 20201 - 340 6000 1,000,000+ People 341 - 5000 I-85 C Corridor
    • Evolution of Economic Development Tools i T l in SC Upstate U t tRegionalism g 1990 Protected P t t d D kt Desktop Attitude Platform Toward Economic Information Open & 2010 Available Web
    • EDIS Partnership Board p  Public- Public-Private  Policy, Objectives, & Work Program  Budget and Fundraising
    • Best Practice ProjectsGOAL:Create a decisionsupport tool to helpattract b i tt t business anddcreate jobs in Upstate SC
    • infoMentum infoMentumSUITE OF SERVICES  On-line Delivery of On- GIS Application  Small Business Resources  Property Database  Fact Finder Database  Radius Reports and Services  Technical Support T h i lS t
    • InfoMap InfoMap• O -Li M On- On Line Mapping t l f i tools for economic development• Tool for region with unique twist for each county• Benefit of Distributed Cost• EDA Grant
    • infoMentum Suite of ServicesinfoMentumON-ON-LINE GIS APPLICATION CHEROKEE COUNTY INFOMAP2
    • infoMentum Suite of ServicesinfoMentumIndustrial Properties Database
    • infoMentuminfoMentum Suite of Services RADIUS REPORT
    • infoMentum FINDER FACT infoMentum Suite of Services FACT FINDER DATABASE• 15 Data Categories• 30 Counties• 260+ tables• 4L Levels of Geography l fG h
    • Next Steps Steps… InfoMap 2 Tools Incorporate Pl -A-Bi I t Plan Biz Plan- Expand Scope of Services p p
    • FOR MORE INFORMATION...Appalachian Council of GovernmentsPO Box 6668Greenville, SC 29606Phone: 864-242-9733 infomentum@scacog.org 864-242-Fax: 864-242-6957 864-242- WWW.SCACOG.ORG WWW SCACOG ORG InfoMentum InfoMentum TEAM Carol Andersen Information Services Director Amy Wright Webber GIS Programmer/Analyst Beth Lewis Economic Information Analyst Cricket Jenkins Economic Information Researcher
    • Special Appreciation for NADO’s Partners Portions of this project are funded by the NADO Research Foundation under award No. 08‐79‐04379 and No. 99‐06‐07548 with the Economic  Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations are those of the  author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EDA or the U.S. DOC. Portions of this project are based upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under agreement No. DTFH61‐06‐H‐00029 for the  NADO Research Foundation s Center for Transportation Advancement and Regional Development. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or  NADO Research Foundation’s Center for Transportation Advancement and Regional Development Any opinion findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the FHWA.This project is partially funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBAHQ‐10‐I‐0317). SBA’s funding should not be construed as  an endorsement of any products, opinions or services. All SBA‐funded projects are extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis.
    • National Association of Development Organizations (NADO)  and the NADO Research Foundation 400 North Capitol Street, NW | Suite 390 | Washington, DC 20001                         NADO.org | Ruraltransportation.org | Knowyourregion.org Regionalcouncilguide.org Regionalcouncilguide org 202.624.7806 | Info@nado.org  Regional Strategies. Solutions. Partnerships.
    • National Association of Development OrganizationsRegional Strategies. Partnerships. Solutions