Economic Development Inventory 2003

Prepared for the Northwest Initiative

By the Indiana Business Research Center Kelley School of BusinessIndiana University

December 2003

Economic Development Inventory 2003

2

The survey

• 51 participants from eight counties

• Letters, faxes, phone calls to encourage participants from a list of 91 organizations

• Surveyed during Fall 2003

• On-line survey instrument equal to five pages

• Developed by and tested with economic development professionals

3

67% of the respondents have had professional training in economic

development

34

17

YesNo

4

Training Providers20

3

5

2

6

17

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Center for Economic& Community Dev

Int'l Econmic DevCouncil

Nat'l Assn of Housing& Reved Officers

Nat'l Assn ofRegional Councils

Econ Dev Inst

Other

5

Years of economic development experience

0

3

6

9

12

15

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

In presentposition

At presentorganization

In comparableorganization

0-1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

10-11

12 or more

Years

6

Average number of years of economic development experience

5.7

6.86.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yea

rs

In presentposition

At presentorganization

In comparableorganization

7

Percent of respondents with less than five years of economic development experience

55%53%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Per

cen

t

In presentposition

At presentorganization

In comparableorganization

8

About half of respondents consider more than 80% of their jobs to be economic development

11

5 5 4

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

20% or less 21 to 40% 41 to 60% 61 to 80% 81 to 100%

9

Type of economic development organization

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Chamber of Commerce

Urban Enterprise Assn

Econ Dev Corp

Empowerment Zone

Community Dev Corp

Workforce Dev Agency

Gov't entity

Econ Dev Comm/Dept

Tourism

Private consultant

Other

Number of respondents

10

Geographic area of focus for economic development

0 5 10 15 20 25

Downtown

Neighborhood

City

County

Empowerment Zone

Enterprise Zone

Redevelopment Zone

Regional area

Other

Number of respondents

11

Form of organization

0 5 10 15 20 25

501c3

501c4

501c6

Local gov't

Private

Mixed public/private

Other

Number of respondents

12

Number of members on board of directors (median = 11) and number of paid employees (median = 3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Board of directors Paid employees

0 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 40

41 +

Number

N = 42 N = 46

13

Budget for economic development purposesMedian = $125,000

0

3

6

9

0 to$0,000

$41,000 to$80,000

$81,000 to$120,000

$121,000to

$240,000

$241,000to

$480,000

More than$480,000

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

N = 31

14

Number of respondents reporting by object of expenditure

0 5 10 15 20 25

Capital projects

Personnel

Travel

Training/Workshops/Conf.

Programs

Advertising/Promotions

Supplies/Expenses

Rent

Other

15

Median dollars reported by object of expenditure [n] = number of organizations reporting >$0

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000

Capital projects

Personnel

Travel

Training/Workshops/Conf.

Programs

Advertising/Promotions

Supplies/Expenses

Rent

Other

[12]

[22]

[22]

[9]

[9]

[23]

[20]

[6]

[21]

16

Number of respondents by reported total operating budget

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

$10mil +

$5-$10mil

$3-$5mil

$2-$3mil

$1-$2mil

$500k- $1mil

$250K-

$500k

$100k-$250k

$75k-$100k

$50k-$75k

Lessthan$50k

N u

mb

er o

f re

spo

den

ts

Question? Did the respondents answer the intended question about their operating budget for economic development, or did they report the entire budget of their organization?

17

Source of operating budget

0 5 10 15 20 25

Local govtCounty govt

St govtFed govt

Ch of CommFoundations

Private bus/ individualsSales, fees, earned inc.

Membership duesOther

Number of respondents

Some funding 80% or more from this source

18

Average percent of operating budget received from this source[n] = number responding > $0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Local govt

County govt

St govt

Fed govt

Ch of Comm

Foundations

Private bus/ individuals

Sales, fees, earned inc.

Membership dues

Other

Percent

[22]

[10]

[5][8]

[1][3]

[7][9]

[7]

[11]

19

Rankings of top three priorities for 2003-04 (N=34)

• Business attraction 27• Business retention 19• Redevelopment 12• Downtown devel. 9• Fed & St

infrastructure grants 9• Prospect devel. 7• Land acquisition 5

• Affordable housing 1.3• Business retention 1.5• Transportation 1.7• Business attraction 2.0• Downtown devel. 2.0• Telecommunications

(e-infrastructure) 2.0• Fed & St infrastructure

grants 2.1

Number mentioning Ranking 1.0 = highest

20

Number of respondents focusing on specific sectors (N= 29)

0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Small businesses

Recreation & entertainment

Tourism

Retail

Commercial

Logistics & Distribution

Advanced manuf.

Info. Technology

21

Strategic planningN= 51

22

1

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

None in place In place, partiallyimplemented

In place, used to settargets & monitor

progress

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

22

Organizational involvement (N=49)

• Ch of Commerce 44• NIRPC 30• IN Dept Commerce 30• NIPSCO 30• NW Ind Forum 29• County Convention &

Visitors Bureau 23• Northwest Initiative 20• Workforce Dev

Agency 20

• Other 19• Quality of Life Council 16• Urban Enterprise Assn 16• Ind Econ Dev Assn 15• Empowerment Zone 12• U.S Dept. Commerce 11• Construction Advancement

Foundation 8• Ind Econ Dev Council 7

Number mentioning Number mentioning

23

Percent of respondents indicating specific factor is an asset (part 1)

• Access to markets 93• Utilities

water/gas/elec/sewer 91• Transportation access 89• Availability of land 82• Highways 82• Public safety 74• Post secondary educ. 70• Local amenities 63• Living wage & higher earning jobs

61• Zoning 61

• Access to finance & capital 60

• Community identity & image 59

• Availability of waterfront land 59

• Quality of waterfront land 58

• Local political leadership 56

• Educ system K-12 56• Housing stock 53• Knowledge base at local gov’t

level 51

•

24

Percent of respondents indicating specific factor is an asset (part 2)

• Local tax structure 50• Available industrial

buildings 41• Telecommunications –

broadband 41• Code enforcement 40• State tax structure 32• Public Perception

of NW Ind 32

• Environmental constraints 31

• Cost of doing business• Workforce dev agencies• Overall quality of life• Infrastructure updating

Write-in assets

Write-in liabilities•Organized labor

•No regional approach to Econ Dev

•Too many gov’t entities (turf wars)

•Expressway system/commuter rail

•Available skilled labor

•No long range planning.

25

Number of respondents identifying specific information needs

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Targeted sectors

Website for exchange of ideas/info

Forum for econ dev professionals

GIS mapping

Advice on capital formation

Funding sources

Northwest Indiana Interviews

Summary of responses from informal discussions with several economic

development leaders regarding obstacles to – and opportunities for – both localized and regional economic

development.

27

Interviews

• At least one person in each county of the Southern tier– Jasper– Newton– Pulaski– Starke

• More than one person in each county of the Northern tier– Lake– La Porte– Porter

Southern Tier Commonalities•All concentrate on job retention and expansion of existing businesses as opposed to attracting new development. Why?

•They lack the infrastructure (sewer and water) availability and capacity to handle substantial new development.

•They all have political schisms between rural and urban interests regarding economic development.

Southern Tier Commonalities continued

•K-12 schools are “OK” but not particularly aggressive about advanced classes or educational innovation.•Absentee ownership means local managers have limited interest in community growth and leadership.•All see development of affordable housing as a necessity, but none do housing development themselves.•Being the only non-profit economic developer in their respective county they enjoy the advantage of concentrating on work at hand rather than dealing with competitive efforts within their areas.

30

Northern Tier Commonalities

•The Northern Tier non-profit developer spends about an equal amount of time on job retention and business expansion as on attracting new development.•Property tax uncertainties have hindered potential growth.•The relationship between non-profit economic development entities is generally good in spite of overlapping agendas.•There is considerable communication between them and a willingness to help one another when possible.•The casinos are viewed as a positive – they don’t have a negative image to those considering bringing business to the region and will ultimately bring business development in around them.

31

Northern Tier Commonalities continued

•Biggest problems in development:1. A deep resistance to change and2. Elected leaders with fragmented and hidden agendas.

•Biggest obstacles in attracting new businesses:1. The stigma of industrial pollution and2. The stigma of political corruption.

•There should be a comprehensive plan for Brownfield cleanup and redevelopment rather than the present “hit or miss” approach. State government needs a push.•Everybody is jealous of Porter County…when theyare not concentrating upon their own north-south or east-west local spats.

32

Suggestions for Facilitating Change

1. Create a dialogue with the building trades so they might better understand their role in economic development and the need - from time to time – to consider concessions.

2. It would be helpful if an independent entity (perhaps a combined effort by IU and Purdue?) would offer training for local elected officials in the areas of EDIT, tax abatement usage and priority budgeting.

3. It would be helpful if an independent entity would offer training for local elected officials on the concept of “student-servant leadership” – putting personal agendas aside and thinking about their responsibilities to their communities as a whole. (Getting them to attend might be a challenge!)