Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.11.12 EDA Packet AGENDA City of Hugo Joint City Council & Economic Development Authority Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:00 PM 5:00 pm 1. Call to Order 5:01 pm 2. Roll Call 5:02 pm 3. Background on the Economic Development Strategic Plan for Washington County 5:10 pm 4. Facilitated Discussion • Dave Unmacht, Springsted Inc. 6:15 pm 5. Questions 6:30 pm 6. Adjournment City of Hugo Washington County Economic Development Study Community Engagement—Stakeholder Input October-November 2013 Purpose Develop a high-level, countywide economic development strategic plan for Washington County. Study Process • Profile the local economy and business sectors • Understand the factors that may drive economic growth in the County(and region) • Determine the current economic development resources and capacity within the county • Evaluate options for a possible expanded County role in economic development Immediate Steps • Data collection and analysis • Community engagement o Collecting information and input on perspectives from a wide variety of interested individuals and groups. o Please provide Jane Harper with names of business owners and economic development stakeholders that we should engage in the process. Strategy Questions 1. A recent survey of some communities in Washington County identified the following factors as impeding economic growth in the county. Which 2 or 3 would you say are the most critical? Which ones do you think the county should have an active role in addressing and what should that role be? • Lack of affordable housing • Lack of transit alternatives • Lack of coordinated strategy • Lack of coordinated infrastructure strategy • County's historical TIF policy(differing perspectives) • Infrastructure flexibility(regulatory restraint) • Shortage of niche financing programs(grants) • Still a slow recovery • Digital divide in parts of county • No policy on tax abatement • No economic development staff • The County is diverse—how can we effectively promote the county as a whole when areas are distinct and different(rural—low taxes) 2. What strengths does the county have that it should be playing up in attracting jobs and businesses? Please identify one or two considerations that you believe are unique or distinct to Washington County that can be a positive asset to economic development within the county. Some that have been identified include the following. • Accessibility and location with easy access to MSP,airport and Wisconsin • Land costs(may be higher),but tax environment is competitive • Human capital and workforce • Positive relationship with the county—trust level is in place to accomplish projects • Significant natural areas for recreation and tourism • Significant land supply within distinct communities • Rural and urban character • Fast growing cities • Available land • Good schools • New bridge in Stillwater • Natural amenities • Strength of existing economy • County changing to a"pro ED"place County Role 1. What can the county do that it is not already doing to assist you in your work? 2. Are there changes to county policy that can be made that would help in the recruitment or retention of businesses within the county? 3. Are there any things the county is currently doing that are helpful in your efforts to attract businesses and if so,could those be enhanced in any way? 4. Do you see the county role to be different depending on what city or township they are working with and the different tools and capacity of those communities? 5. Do you have an opinion about what Washington County's position should be on the tools used in economic development(e.g. financial incentives,transportation access, and direct investment of dollars)? 6. Is there something missing in how the cities,HRA, and other organizations use their economic development powers? Is there a gap that could be filled by Washington County? 7. What is the optimal structure for organizing an expanded county role? Question • What outcome would you like to achieve as a result of this economic development initiative? Key Milestones • December County Board Workshop • January Presentation of Draft Plan to County Board • February/March League of Local Governments Meeting Project Coordinator Consultant Consultant Jane Harper Tony Schertler David Unmacht 651-430-6011 651-223-3061 651-223-3047 Office of Administration Springsted, Inc. Springsted,Inc. Jane.HarperAco.washington.mn.us tschertler@springsted.com dunmacht@springsted.com UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION Washington County — Economic Overview SEPTEMBER 2013 ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. WHICH SECTOR IS LARGEST EMPLOYER IN COUNTY?WA HIN T N s G o Government Woodproducts manufacturing Hospitals Food services and drinking p laces JKUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Top 15 Sectors in Washington County, Sorted by Employment 9,000 8,000 7,000 61000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 - K ZCz O e d0erXIN0 dI� z z N I\ e \tee) \ r6 �1�1 e5c' r6 r6 \(::s C-i KN 0 A-, 06 & Cr16 "S'6 �'P 0 0 K\ q e, Coe olb� z1b A§� FO 0& 6N C-10 4z' C epo C od .6 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION 2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Employment by Industry Washington County 2011 Ag/Mining Construction Government 1 % 4% Manufacturing Transport, Info, Public Utilities 2% Retail Trade 16% Service 56% UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Employment in Services Washington County, 2011 Other services Information Finance & 11 % 2% insurance 13% Real estate & Accomodation rental & food 4% 16% Professional � Arts & 12% recreation Mgmt of co 5°�o mpanies 3% Administrative Health & social & waste 20% Educational 9% 5% JKUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Employment in Manufacturing . Washington County 2011 Other Food & Related 10% 6% Fabricated metal 9% Computer & electrical Wood & Paper 4% � 34°/® Machinery 10% Plastics & rubber Printing & 6% �` - --- Petroleum & Related Chemical coal 3% 13°/® 5 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. EmploVment Washington Co. versus Metro Counties 70.0% -- ---_-- - -- _— ---------...---- -- - _--------- _ — — - -- _ i i 60.0% 50.0% -- -- 40.0% -`------- - -- ------------ ----------- i 30.0% 20.0% I- - ----- --__ _ ■7-County Metro i ■Washington Co 10.0% 0.0% ___ _ _ ._ _ _. - --- _ — r.- x1%3 ao J �o of off` �5Q UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ( EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Top 15 Sectors in Washington County, Sorted by O Ut Ut $4,000 i-- ----- — i $3,500 --- - $2,500 c $2,000 -- ---- ---- $1,500 $1,000 — — --- I $500 --- -- ---__ --- -- – -- -- - ----- ------------- 0 ° o dao � \�05 ��aG� \��� ��,��' a °� ��' �o� o��� a a� \� o �a a Q °o o��`� \G°� `oG� G°� °tea �`o� ��� ° \4 . �vo� 50� fro �\o �, °�` ° 0 °oa ��o oG�� a��r �,�o �°� Gro o o� a�a ro UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ( EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. OUt Ut by Industry Washington County 2011 Agriculture & Government %Mining Construction 6% 3% Manufacturing 38% Service 42% Transport, Information, Utilities Trade 2% 8% UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION 9 2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Top 15 Sectors in Washington County, Sorted by Labor Income $350 $300 ---- -- ------- --- ---- $250 _ $200 0 $150 -- — ----- —--- $100 - — $50 $- °K\ `� 'CO o� 0A5 �o� a� to o� °� oC0 o� G'a� � Gam a° Q,`O) \aG ��` �NQ� �z �J� �� \`a+'s � ,oaJ �! 2aJ J��� \��Q oC, °�� `C`°� �e c�'`tJG J'` �Q'a Q��\� JG �`��� oQty ��o ao� ora a \�o '\Z e) 'p ��°G� o°a �a oC-1 \ �o� o'��\ Utz °a Geo Qo &A �o O I<,°oa 0 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION CP ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Labor Income by industry Washington County 2411 Agriculture & Mining Government 2% Construction 17% 5% Manufacturing 14% Transport, Information, Utilities 3% Trade 12% Service 47% UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Implan Data sources: IMPLAN employment includes both wage and salary employees and self-employed persons in a region. Both full-time and part-time workers are measured to create an estimate of annual average jobs. BLS Covered Employment and Wages (CEW) data, BEA Regional Economic Accounts (REA) data, and County Business Patterns (CBP) data are used in conjunction to create IMPLAN data because no one dataset provides enough information to create a complete IMPLAN database. In general, CEW data provide the county-level industry structure for IMPLAN, while CBP data are used to make non-disclosure adjustments to CEW data and REA data are used as control totals. The CEW dataset is one of the most important datasets used in IMPLAN database development. These data provide the industry structure for the states and counties and the "ground truth" for IMPLAN data. There can be many differences between CBP and CEW but in the end, if wage and salary employment doesn't exist in CEW, it won't exist in IMPLAN data sets. The data are provided by the U.S. Department of Labor as part of the Unemployment Insurance Covered Employment and Wages Program. The CEW dataset provides annual average wage and salary establishment counts, employment counts, and payrolls by county at the 6-digit NAICS code level. These data are collected from a federal/state partnership program. State employment services departments, as part of the Unemployment Insurance Program, collect the data and pass it to the U.S. Department of Labor. As a result, only establishments that pay Unemployment Insurance are captured, hence the name "Covered Employment". Since these data only captures covered employees, the data set cannot capture self-employed persons, railway employment, religious organizations, military, elected officials or any other establishments that have their own social insurance program and/or do not pay into the Unemployment Insurance program. Since most farm employment is self employment, CEW data misses much of the farm data. Farm data is supplemented with REA data. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ( EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. WASHINGTON COUNTY RETAIL TRENDS Current Dollars Constant 2011 Dollars Estimated Taxabe Gross TaxatAe Per Year Population Gross Sales* Sales Sales' Sales Number Capita Pull millions ($ ) ($millions} ($millions) ($rmllions) of Firms sales Factor 20033 213,564 $3,246.88 $1,474.48 54,008.50 31,820.35 3,800 $6,904 0.77 2004 216,660 $3,257.72 $1,539.54 53,924.96 31,854.87 3,977 $7,106 0.-7 2006 220,426 $3,656.27 $1,634.52 54,251.47 31,900.61 4,165 $7,415 0.78 2006 225,000 $3,763.58 $1,661.06 54,228.74 $1,866.36 4,142 $7,382 0.'7 20017 226,4;5 $3,905.56 $1,705.46 54,245.18 31,857.02 4,216 $7,544 0.78 Ma 229,173 $4,203.13 $1,665.69 S4,424.35 $1,753.36 4,297 $7,268 0.76 20C9 231,956 $3,980.06 $1,583-91 54,189.56 31,667.27 4,343 $6,62-8 0.76 2010 238,844 $4,190.81 $1,590.71 S4,320.43 51,639.90 4,338 $6,664 0.74 2011 .240,640 $4,655.49 $19691.42 S4,655.49 31,691.42 4,198 $7,029 0.75 �yrCh o� t 11.196 42.9% 9.9% 18.696 1 -8.8% 5.6% -1.1% -1.8% Taxable Sales and 1.5% -3.5% - _ -3.3% -0.8% Td regional n a" ' competitiveness dropping in the last I EXTENSION decade eserved. Washington County: Reta i ll Service Sales in Constant Dollars Total Sales: Cross &Taxable 4,5DD 44,00 S3,5DQ 33.00 Lap ,$'22,50 - ------- -$2,0DD 41,5DD -- do �1,0DD 5500 30 CP OP 4b 41 Year —I.—Wit;Gos amn —m CarztmR i TU,&*Sacs J% UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA l EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Washington County Components of Change*, 2008 to 2011 Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Dollar Percent Category 1 1 : 2011 Change Change Vehicles & Parts $69,974,599 $56,812,504 -$13,162,095 -18.81°10 Furniture Stores $58,859,131 $58,441,264 -$417,867 -0.71% Electronics $75,559,762 $61,871,107 -$13,688,655 -18.12% Building Materials $2727848,811 $256,403,348 -$16,445,463 -6.03% Food, Groceries $132,101 ,900 $136,919,150 +$4,817,250 +3.65°0 Health, Personal Stores $25,894,339 $27,988,293 +$2,093,954 +8.09% Gasoline Stations $27,090,652 $34,111 ,661 +$7,021,009 +25.92% Clothing $45,514,053 $42,602,673 -$2,911,380 -6.40°x0 Leisure Goods $73)538,640 $02,820,375 -$10,712,265 -14.57% Generial Merchandise Stores $274,919,485 $325,559,864 +$50,640,379 +18.42% Miscellaneous Retail $65,816,053 $72,879,970 +$7,063,917 +10.73% Accommodations $25,405,931 $29,026,382 +$3,620,451 +14.25% Eating & Drinking Places $278,394,910 $279,713,736 +$1 ,318,826 +0.47% Total Retail and Services Sales $1 ,665,691 ,117 $1 ,691 ,421,315 +$25,730,198 +1 .54°'0 • Figures not adjusted for inflaticn. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Dollar Changes by Category (in Millions) 2008 - 2011 +$50.64 +$4.82 + +$7.02 : : +$7.06 $2.09 +$3.62 +$1 .32 -$2.91 -$13.16 -$13.69 -$10.71 -$16.45 Parts Furn_ Elect_ Bldg. Food Health GasSt. Clothes Leis_ GenMer. Misc_ Accom_ Eat UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION y ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Consumers coming from Pull Factors by NAICS from outside Merchandise Category ('I of 2) the County Consumers leaving they County toe . purchase elsewhere -icles { Furniture Elec- Building Food Health & Gas aothin Leisure arts tronics Materials Personal Stations g Goods ■2003 0.94 1 0.83 , 0.94 1 .40 0.89 0.92 0.74 0.77 1 .10 ■2004 0.95 ; 0.76 1 0.69 1 .39 0.86 0.95 0.70 0.90 1 .14 ■2005 0.97 1 0.74 1 1.03 1 .36 0.94 1.02 0.74 1.13 1 .08 02006 0.98 0.76 ¢ 0.81 1.26 0.95 0.97 i 0.65 1.14 1 .12 m200 0-88 i 0.91 0.91 1 .32 0.96 1.06 i 0.69 125 1 .18 2008 0.81 0.94 0.92 1 .30 0.99 0.99 0.70 1-27 1 .23 a 2009 0.73 1.04 0.86 1 .29 1.03 1.03 ! 0-77 _ 1 1-05 1.20 2010 0.65 1.04 0.79 124 0.99 1.02 0-77 1 0.99 1 .12 2011 0.60 1.05 0-83 1.24 0.96 0.98 0.76 0.98 1 .08 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ( EXTENSION ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Pull Factors by NAICs Merchandise Category (2 of 2) 1 .60 -, 1 1 .40 1 .20 1 .00 0 0.80 - - ------ +I 4i I 0.00 i 75 0.40 0- 0.20 0.00 Gen Mon-Store i Eating Personal hlerch. ? Misc. Store Retail Amusem't Lodging Orinlang Repair Services a 2003 -1.06 0.80 0.13 } 1.31 0.37 0.94 0.69 0.60 2004 1.03 0.81 0.11 1 0.95 t 0.33 0.97 f 0.71 0.71 ®2005 1.04 0.76 0.09 1 1.38 0.36 0.99 0.67 0.68 o2006. 1.10 j 0.78 0.10 1.04 0.35 101 ! 0.62 140.66 i 2007 1.11 0.85 0.11 1 1-11 `0.31 f 0.93 I 0.61 0.64 ■2008 1-11 ! 0.84 0.08 1 0-93 1 0.33 s 0-94 0.62 0.55 ■ 2009' 1.14 i 0.97 0.09 0.85 1 0.30 0.92 0.63 0.65 2010 1-12 i 0.98 0.09 0.97 0.35 0.86 0.63 0.69 20111 1.32 0.99 0.10 0.91 0.37 0.86 0.62 0.68 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I EXTENSION . ©2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Public Facilities Plan The following implementation strategies will be used to carry out the Public Facilities Plan. PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN (CHAPTER 12) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES No. Description Timing 1 Building Maintenance. Maintain existing public buildings. On- going 2 Fire Hall/Public Safety Building. Study the option of constructing a Medium new fire hall/public safety building in northern Hugo. 3 Public Works Expansion. Continue to monitor staffing needs at Medium Public Works and plan for a building expansion (as included in the original building plans) when needed to accommodate staff. 4 City Hall Expansion. Continue to monitor staffing needs at City Hall Long and plan for a building expansion (as included in the original building tans) when needed to accommodate staff. 5 Fire Hall Expansion. Continue to monitor staffing needs at the Fire Long Hall and plan for a building expansion (as included in the original building plans) when needed to accommodate staff. Chapter 13 13-10 Implementation Plan Hugo