Economic Development Inventory 2003

1. Economic Development Inventory 2003 Economic Development Inventory 2003 Prepared for the Northwest Initiative By the Indiana Business Research Center Kelley School of Business Indiana University December 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

4. Training Providers

5. Years of economic development experience Years

6. Average number of years of economic development experience

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

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

9. Type of economic development organization

10. Geographic area of focus for economic development

11. Form of organization

12. Number of members on board of directors (median = 11) and number of paid employees (median = 3) N = 46 N = 42

13. Budget for economic development purposesMedian = $125,000 N = 31

14. Number of respondents reporting by object of expenditure

15. Median dollars reported by object of expenditure [n] = number of organizations reporting >$0 [12] [22] [22] [21] [9] [23] [20] [6] [9]

16. Number of respondents by reported total operating budget 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

18. Average percent of operating budget received from this source[n] = number responding > $0 [22] [10] [5] [8] [1] [3] [7] [9] [7] [11]

19. 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 Rankings of top three priorities for 2003-04 (N=34) Number mentioning Ranking 1.0 = highest

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

21. Strategic planningN= 51

22. 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 Organizational involvement (N=49) Number mentioning Number mentioning

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

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

26. 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. 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 Interviews

28. 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.

29. 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 and • 2. Elected leaders with fragmented and hidden • agendas. • Biggest obstacles in attracting new businesses: • 1. The stigma of industrial pollution and • 2. 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 they • are not concentrating upon their own north-south or east-west local spats.

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