The Pennsylvania Economic
Development Association’s
2007
Economic Development Corporation
Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Pennsylvania Economic Development Association
J. Patrick Killian, President
Partial funding provided by
Team Pennsylvania Foundation
Matthew A. Zieger, Director of Initiative Outreach and Investor Relations
Consultant
Urban Research and Development Corporation
Bethlehem, PA
November 2007
PEDA thanks the following member organizations
for providing financial support for the
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adams County Economic Development Corp.
Berwick Industrial Development Authority
Bucks County Economic Development Corp.
Cambria County Industrial Development Corp.
Cameron County Economic Development Corp.
CAN DO (Hazelton Area)
Chester County Economic Development Corp.
Clarion County Economic Development Corp.
Clinton County Economic Partnership
Franklin County Area Development Corp.
Fulton Industrial Development Assoc. Inc.
Greater Berks Development Fund
Greenville-Reynolds Development Corp.
Harrisburg Regional Chamber & Capital Region Economic
Development Corp.
Lawrence County Economic Development Corp.
Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corp.
Milton Area Industrial Development Assoc.
Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership
Westmoreland County Industrial Development Corp.
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table of Contents
PAGE
Table of Contents........................................................................................ i
Executive Summary .................................................................................. iv
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Project Overview .......................................................................................................................1
Client Survey .............................................................................................. 2
Reason for IDC Contact.............................................................................................................2
Method of Contact .....................................................................................................................2
Client Satisfaction with IDC Services .......................................................................................2
Client Satisfaction with State Services ......................................................................................6
IDC Survey .................................................................................................. 7
Organizational Background .......................................................................................................8
Capacity and Programming......................................................................................................17
Activities ..................................................................................................................................18
Impact and Results...................................................................................................................20
Commentary.............................................................................................................................22
General Economic Development Improvements ...............................................................22
Actions to Create a More Business-Friendly Economic Climate ......................................22
Gaps in the Pennsylvania Economic Development System ..............................................23
Working Experience with Other Agencies ........................................................................23
Impacts on IDCs ................................................................................................................25
Most Important Improvements Needed .............................................................................25
Other Suggested Changes ..................................................................................................26
Appendix A –– Client Survey Results ................................................. A–1
Appendix B –– IDC Survey Results ..................................................... B–1
i
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
PAGE
Tables
1
Pennsylvania Business Survey, 2007 PEDA Study.............................................................3
2
Reason for IDC Contact.......................................................................................................5
3
Satisfaction with IDC Services ............................................................................................5
4
Satisfaction with State Services ...........................................................................................6
5
Industrial / Economic Development Corporation Questionnaire for 2007
PEDA Study ...............................................................................................................9
6
Type and Extent of IDC Role ............................................................................................18
7
Jobs Created and Retained, 2003–2006 .............................................................................20
8
Total Economic Impact of Responding IDCs....................................................................21
9
Working Experience with State Agencies .........................................................................23
10
Working Experience with Economic Development Organizations ...................................24
11
Working Experience with Local Governments..................................................................25
A-1 Number of Employees .................................................................................................... A-1
A-2 1. What was the primary business situation that resulted in your initial contact
with the IDC / EDC?.............................................................................................. A-1
A-3 2. How did your organization discover the EDC / IDC? ................................................ A-2
A-4 3. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the EDC/IDC? ..... A-2
A-5 4. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the state? .............. A-3
B-1
Is your organization an Economic or Industrial Development Corporation? ..................B-1
B-2A Is your company a registered Economic or Industrial Development Corporation?.........B-1
B-2B Is your company an IDA, Chamber of Commerce, council or other organization? ........B-1
B-3
Does your organization have by-laws? ............................................................................B-2
B-4
Does your organization file an annual tax return with the IRS?......................................B-2
B-5
Is your organization under direct control of a county or municipal government?...........B-2
B-6A Number of full-time staff .................................................................................................B-3
B-6B Number of part-time staff ................................................................................................B-3
B-7
Sources of Revenue..........................................................................................................B-4
B-8
Does your organization have a Board of Directors?........................................................B-5
B-9A If yes, how many directors are on your board .................................................................B-5
B-9B Number of private sector board members........................................................................B-6
B-9C Number of public sector members (county, municipal, state or federal elected
officials ...................................................................................................................B-6
B-9D Number of hours per year (total rounded to full hours) volunteered by board
members..................................................................................................................B-6
B-10 Does your organization’s service area cover more than one county?..............................B-6
B-11A Please rate your organization’s working relationship with the IDC / EDCs from
adjoining counties ...................................................................................................B-7
B-11B What is your organization’s working relationship with the IDC / EDCs within
your county?...........................................................................................................B-7
B-12A Would your organization be enhanced if your staff were to have cost effective
access to professional development opportunities and additional training?...........B-7
B-12B If so, what training would most benefit your staff? .........................................................B-7
ii
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
PAGE
Tables
B-13 Organizational Priority Ranking ......................................................................................B-8
B-14 Indicate the type and extent of the roles of your IDC / ECC...........................................B-8
B-15 Has your organization identified any target industry clusters?......................................B-10
B-16 Have you developed a strategy to attract and grow these industry clusters?.................B-11
B-17 Has your organization utilized any of the findings of the Team PA Foundation’s
Global Competitiveness Initiative (IBM Global Report)?....................................B-11
B-18 What are your current financing assistance capabilities? ..............................................B-12
B-19 Local / State Funding Program ......................................................................................B-13
B-20 Federal Funding Programs.............................................................................................B-13
B-21 Jobs Created and Retained, 2003—2006 .......................................................................B-14
B-22 Total Funds Provides (Grants, Loans, Tax Credits, Other) ...........................................B-15
B-23 Funds Leveraged (Private Equity, Bank Participation, Sale of Bonds).........................B-16
B-24 Total Economic Impact..................................................................................................B-16
B-25 Are there gaps that you can identify in the Pennsylvania economic development
system and improvements you would recommend to fill those gaps?..................B-18
B-26 What is your working experience with the following state agencies?...........................B-20
B-27 What is your working experience with the following economic development
organizations? ......................................................................................................B-20
B-28 What is your working experience with local governments?..........................................B-20
B-29 Has local government ever caused a significant problem with one of your
organization’s projects? .......................................................................................B-21
Figures
1 Employment Impact of Responding IDCs.........................................................................21
iii
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
This page intentionally blank.
iv
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the summer of 2007, the Pennsylvania Economic Development Association (PEDA), the statewide association of economic development professionals, sponsored two surveys to help assess
the impact of industrial development corporations (IDCs) and economic development corporations (EDCs) a in Pennsylvania. The first survey, termed the “IDC survey”, was sent to all
industrial development corporations (IDCs) in the state according to the PEDA mailing list––a
total of 75 questionnaires. The survey asked for information about the organization, activities,
budget, results, and impacts of the IDC programs from 2003 through 2006. The final question of
the survey asked the IDCs for two examples of successful projects with contact information for
each company involved in the project.
The second survey––referred to as the “client survey”––was sent to each of the companies
involved in the successful projects identified by the IDCs. The client survey explored the contact
between the employer and the IDC and the quality of assistance that the employer received from
both the IDC and from the state.
Client Survey
Respondents to the IDC survey provided citations for a total of 49 successful projects, each of
which was sent an client survey. A total of 24 employers responded to the survey, for a response
rate of 49.0 percent. The survey instrument is found in Table 1. Key findings of the survey are
summarized below. Complete survey returns appear in Appendix A.
• The most common activity requiring IDC assistance involves some type of expansion within
the same geographic area.
Almost half of respondents (49 percent) contacted the local IDC/ EDC to either expand or
modernize facilities and/or equipment at a current facility or develop a new facility to expand
production in the same general area. An additional one in four respondents (24 percent)
relocated or added a facility in the current area.
• Users are generally happy with IDC services.
The survey question asked respondents to rate IDC service as either “exceptional”,
“satisfactory to complete project”, or “insufficient” in nine areas:
a
Throughout the report, the term IDC will be used to refer to the entities providing economic development
support at the local level. Many of the IDCs are also EDCs. However, some EDCs are not IDCs.
v
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
−
−
−
−
Understanding your needs
Frequency of communications
Responsiveness to your needs
Contacts/relationships with the state, other agencies,
county and local governments
− Knowledge of funding programs and financing techniques
− Relationships with local
financial institutions
− Professionalism
− Confidentiality
− Overall rating of
EDC/IDC
For each of the nine areas of service, at least 67 percent of respondents classified the service
received from the local IDC as “exceptional”.
• Users are generally happy with state services.
The survey question asked respondents to rate state economic development services as either
“exceptional”, “satisfactory to complete project”, or “insufficient” in six areas:
− Understanding needs
− Responsiveness to needs
− Relationships with the IDC/EDC
− Professionalism
− Confidentiality
− Overall rating of experience with state
More than half of respondents classifying service as “exceptional” for every category of
service. Seven out of ten respondents (70 percent) said the state was exceptional in both its
relationship with the local IDC/EDC and in confidentiality. The area of state services that
received the lowest ratings from respondents was “responsiveness to your needs”, and, even
with the lowest rating, more than half of respondents (57 percent) rated state service as
exceptional. Only eight percent of respondents felt that the state’s responsiveness the specific
needs was “insufficient”.
IDC Survey
A total of 75 IDCs were contacted for the survey, and 42 responded for a response rate of 54.7
percent. A complete list of respondents is presented on page seven of the report. The survey
instrument is found in Table 5. Complete survey returns appear in Appendix B. Key findings of
the survey are summarized below according to the five topical areas covered by the survey:
•
•
•
•
•
Organizational Background
Capacity and Programming
Activities
Impact and Results
Commentary
vi
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Organizational Background
• Most IDCs are organized as 501(c)(6) entities, and many perform multiple functions.
Seven out of ten (70 percent) of respondents are organized under Internal Revenue Service
chapter 501(c)(6) regulations. An additional 22 percent are 501(c)(3) organizations.
Approximately half (52 percent) of respondents carry some organizational designation other than
IDC or EDC. Other designations include:
−
−
−
−
Industrial Development Authority
Chamber of Commerce
Tourist Promotion Agency
Area Loan Organization
• The diversity in size and activity of IDCs reflects the economic diversity of the state.
Pennsylvania is a diverse economic state, ranging from rural to metropolitan in development
pattern and level of economic activity. IDC budgets reflect the commonwealth’s diversity, with
respondents reporting annual budgets ranging from “none” to $30 million. The median budget
among the 37 respondents was $524,000.
• Fees and self-generated revenue are a key component in most IDC budgets.
Fees and self-generated revenue was a component in the budgets of 83 percent of respondents.
Other income sources include:
−
−
−
−
LEDA (State)
County government
Municipal government
Private
sector
contributions
−
−
−
−
Lease/land sales
Interest
Revolving loan funds
Investments
• All responding agencies are governed by a board of directors, primarily from the private
sector, that serves on a volunteer basis.
Respondents with public sector board members reported relatively few (1–10) public sector
board members. The amount of volunteer time offered by each board member annually ranges
from up to 100 hours to more than 1,000 hours.
vii
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Capacity and Programming
• Most IDCs offer services in a single county or part of a county.
Four out of five respondents (80 percent) said the organization does not cover more than one
county. Therefore, most responding IDCs serve a county or a portion of a county, such as a
multimunicipal region.
• Relationships between IDCs are “good”.
Eight out of nine (88 percent) respondents ranked their relationship with IDCs from other
counties as “good”. More than 70 percent ranked their relationship with IDCs from their own
county as good.
• IDCs would benefit from additional training and professional development opportunities.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents cited the need for more staff development. Areas specifically
cited for improvement include development & project management, finance, marketing/public
relations, technology, grant writing, and fundraising.
Activities
• IDCs are a strong, active partner in economic development throughout Pennsylvania.
The survey asked respondents to describe (as exclusive, joint, supportive, or none) their role in
performing seven important economic development functions:
−
−
−
−
Retention
Loan packaging
Project financing
Land development
– Spec building
– Technical assistance
– Economic planning
The most common assessment of the IDC role was “joint”. The cooperative nature of IDC efforts
may be partially attributable to the fact that 52 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are covered by
Local Development Districts (LDDs), the local structure associated with the Appalachian
Regional Commission. The LDD structure requires communication and coordination.
• Most IDCs target specific industries for promotion and recruitment.
Almost four out of five (79%) of the responding IDCs have identified specific industry clusters
to target recruitment efforts. Budgets for industrial targeting, if any, range from a few thousand
dollars to several million. Target industries mentioned by more than one respondent include:
viii
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
Biomedical
Health care
Information technology
Logistics
Manufacturing (including advanced
manufacturing)
Powdered metals
Technology
Tool and die
Wood products
• The Team Pennsylvania Foundation’s Global Competitiveness Initiative, also known
as the IBM Global Report, was useful to many IDCs.
Forty-six percent of respondents reported using some of the report findings. A complete
list of reasons cited, both for using and not using the report, is found with the full survey
results in Appendix B.
• IDCs offer an extensive array of state and federal funding programs to assist
businesses.
The IDCs have the capability to assist employers with a wide range of state and federal
funding programs. The most commonly used funding sources are the Pennsylvania
Industrial Development Authority (PIDA) and the federal Economic Development
Administration (EDA).
Impact and Results
• From 2003 through 2006, the responding IDCs accounted for more than 186,000 jobs
in Pennsylvania.
The respondents reported creating more than 91,000 jobs and retaining almost 95,000
jobs during the four years covered by the survey. The number of jobs retained increased
in each of the four years. The number of jobs created increased from 2003 to 2004 and
from 2004 to 2005.
• From 2003 through 2006, the responding IDCs had a total economic impact of more
than $4.8 billion.
In the four years covered by the survey, responding IDCs provided more than $1.45
billion from grants, loans, tax credits, and other sources to clients. During the same
period, the respondents leveraged more than more than $3.35 billion in private equity,
bank participation, and bond sales.
Commentary
Respondents provided comments on a variety of topics, generally grouped in the
following areas:
ix
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General economic development improvements
Actions to create a more business-friendly economic climate
Gaps in the Pennsylvania economic development system
Working experience with other agencies
Impacts on IDCs
Most important improvements needed
Other suggested changes
Key recurring themes included:
• Wherever possible, programs should be consolidated and simplified.
• The local level should be given more control.
• Taxes must be lowered because the tax burden is too high to entice new jobs to
Pennsylvania.
• Permitting processes should be streamlined, simpler, and faster.
• Responding IDCs have a generally good working relationship with local
governments.
x
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
INTRODUCTION
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association (PEDA) is the statewide association of
local, state, corporate, and nonprofit economic development professionals. PEDA's mission is to
promote sound economic development policies, provide leading edge economic development
education, and nurture an effective statewide economic development network to foster the
economic health of the commonwealth.
Project Overview
In the summer of 2007, PEDA sponsored two surveys to help assess the impact of industrial
development corporations (IDCs) and economic development corporations (EDCs) 1 in
Pennsylvania. The project was funded by the Team Pennsylvania Foundation, a public-private
partnership dedicated to improving Pennsylvania’s economy. To aid in conducting the project
and to maintain the confidentiality of responses, PEDA retained the services of an independent
contractor, Urban Research and Development Corporation (URDC) of Bethlehem, PA. URDC:
• Designed, developed, and distributed the survey questionnaires.
• Received and tabulated the survey responses.
• Compiled the report of project results.
The project was structured as two surveys. The first survey, termed the “IDC survey”, was sent
to all industrial development corporations (IDCs) in the state according to the PEDA mailing
list––a total of 75 questionnaires. The survey asked for information about the organization,
activities, budget, results, and impacts of the IDC programs from 2003 through 2006. The final
question of the survey asked the IDCs for two examples of successful projects with contact
information for each company involved in the project.
The second survey––referred to as the “client survey”––was sent to each of the companies
involved in the successful projects identified by the IDCs. The client survey was intentionally
brief, to minimize the time necessary to respond. The survey explored the contact between the
employer and the IDC and the quality of assistance that the employer received from both the IDC
and from the state.
1
Throughout the report, the term IDC will be used to refer to the entities providing economic
development support at the local level. Many of the IDCs are also EDCs. However, some EDCs are not
IDCs.
1
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
CLIENT SURVEY
Respondents to the IDC survey provided citations for a total of 49 successful projects. On 17
July 2007, URDC mailed the original client survey (Table 1) to the 49 employers for whom
contact information was provided. URDC also mailed a reminder copy of the survey instrument
on 1 August 2007 to those employers that had not yet responded to the initial mailing. A total of
24 employers responded to the survey, for a response rate of 49.0 percent. Appendix A contains
a complete tabulation of responses to the client survey. More specific discussion of the response
to individual questions appears below.
Reason for IDC Contact
Almost half of respondents (49 percent) contacted the local IDC/EDC to either expand or
modernize facilities and/or equipment at a current facility or develop a new facility to expand
production in the same general area (Table 2). An additional one in four respondents (24 percent)
relocated or added a facility in the current area. New businesses accounted for one respondent in
six.
Method of Contact
The client survey results indicate that either the employer or the IDC made direct contact in 58
percent of the cases. A third party, such as a business contact, financial institution, government
agency, or other intermediary, was involved in bringing the IDA and company together in 34
percent of the cases, and the IDC/EDC itself was the developer in the remaining 8 percent of the
successful projects cited.
Client Satisfaction with IDC Services
Respondents generally gave IDCs very high marks for performance in all areas. The survey
question asked respondents to rate IDC service as either “exceptional”, “satisfactory to complete
project”, or “insufficient” in nine areas:
•
•
•
•
Understanding your needs
Frequency of communications
Responsiveness to your needs
Contacts/relationships with the state, other agencies,
county and local governments
• Knowledge of funding programs and financing techniques
• Relationships with local
financial institutions
• Professionalism
• Confidentiality
• Overall rating of
EDC/IDC
For each of the nine areas of service, at least 67 percent of respondents classified the service
received from the local IDC as “exceptional” (Table 3). IDCs received the highest rating for
“professionalism”: 83 percent of respondents rated IDC service as exceptional. At least three of
four respondents (75 percent) classified IDC service as exceptional in the following areas:
2
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table 1
Pennsylvania Business Survey
2007 PEDA Study
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association (PEDA) is conducting a survey to help determine the
usage and effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s economic development assistance programs. All of following
information will be kept confidential from both the EDC/IDC that your company worked with and from the
state. All surveys will be returned and kept by our consultant, Urban Research & Development Corporation
of Bethlehem, for exclusive use in this study. The few minutes you take to complete this survey will really
help your local EDC/IDC and the state in assessing the effectiveness of customer service to companies like
yours.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
Questionnaire regarding your company’s experience with the
__________________________________________________________________Corporation
(Name of IDC/EDC)
INFORMATION:
Your Company Name ___________________________________________
Your Name and Title __________________________________________
Email______________________Phone _____________________ _
Type of Business/Product/Service ______________________________
_____________________________________________________________
How many employees do you have at this location? ______Full-Time______Part-Time
YOUR EXPERIENCE:
1. What was the primary business situation that resulted in your initial contact with the IDC/EDC?
a. _____ Expand/modernize facilities and/or equipment at current facility
b.
Develop new facility to expand production in same general area
c.
Relocate or add facility here from outside the area but within Pennsylvania
d. _____ Relocate or add facility here from outside the area and outside of Pennsylvania
e. _____ Start a new business here
f.
_____ Other; Please explain: ______________________________________________
2. How did your organization discover the EDC/IDC?
a. _____ EDC/IDC made initial contact
b. _____ We knew about the EDC/IDC and made contact
c.
_____ EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a business contact
d. _____EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a government agency or other economic
development organization
e. _____ EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a financial institution or consultant
3
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
f.
_____ A brochure, newspaper, article, media coverage, etc.
g. _____ Other
3. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the EDC/IDC?
Please circle your answer as follows:
E = Exceptional
S = Satisfactory to complete project
or
I = Insufficient
a. Understanding your needs
E
S
I
b. Frequency of Communications
E
S
I
c.
E
S
I
d. Contacts and relationships with the state, other agencies,
agencies, county and local governments
E
S
I
e. Knowledge of funding programs and financing
techniques
E
S
I
f.
E
S
I
g. Professionalism
E
S
I
h. Confidentiality
E
S
I
i.
Overall Rating of EDC/IDC
E
S
I
j.
Comments:
Responsiveness to your needs
Relationships with local financial institutions
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
4. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the state?
Please circle your Answer as follows:
E = Exceptional
S = Satisfactory to compete project
or
a.
Understanding your needs
E
S
I
b. Responsiveness to your needs
E
S
I
c.
E
S
I
d. Professionalism
E
S
I
e. Confidentiality
E
S
I
f.
Overall rating of experience with state
E
S
I
k.
Comments:
Relationships with EDC/IDC
Source:
I = Insufficient.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
URDC
4
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table 2
Reason for IDC Contact
n = 29
Percent of
Respondents
A. Expand/modernize facilities and/or equipment at current facility
8
28%
B. Develop new facility to expand production in same general area
C. Relocate or add facility here from outside the area but within Pennsylvania
D. Relocate or add facility here from outside the area and outside Pennsylvania
E. Start a new business here
F. Other
6
3
4
5
21%
10%
14%
17%
3
10%
• Attract companies to xxxxx
• Establish another multi-tenant building in the xxxxx
• Purchase and reopen an existing paper mill that had been closed
Source: URDC
Table 3
Satisfaction with IDC Services
A. Understanding your needs
B. Frequency of communications
C. Responsiveness to your needs
D. Contacts and relationships with the state, other agencies,
county and local governments
E. Knowledge of funding programs and financing techniques
F. Relationships with local financial institutions
G. Professionalism
H. Confidentiality
I. Overall rating of EDC/IDC
Source:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of Respondents
Satisfactory to
Exceptional
Insufficient
complete project
75%
25%
0%
67%
33%
0%
71%
29%
0%
75%
25%
0%
76%
77%
83%
70%
75%
20%
23%
17%
30%
25%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
URDC
Understanding needs
Contacts and relationships with the state, other agencies, county, and local governments
Knowledge of funding programs and financing techniques
Relationships with local financial institutions
Professionalism
Overall rating of EDC/IDC
Seven respondents provided comments regarding IDC service, all of which were positive in
nature. Comments are found in the survey tabulation in Appendix A.
5
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Client Satisfaction with State Services
The final question on the client survey asked for respondents’ views on services provided by the
state. Similar to the previous question, respondents were asked to rate service as either
“exceptional”, “satisfactory to complete project”, or “insufficient”. Only six relevant areas were
explored for state services:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Understanding needs
Responsiveness to needs
Relationships with IDC/EDC
Professionalism
Confidentiality
Overall rating of experience with state
In general, the state received high marks from respondents, with more than half of respondents
classifying service as “exceptional” for every category of service. Seven out of ten respondents
(70 percent) said the state was exceptional in both its relationship with the local IDC/EDC and in
confidentiality. Sixty-four percent of respondents characterized state services overall as
exceptional.
Table 4
Satisfaction with State Services
Percentage of Respondents
Satisfactory to
Exceptional
Insufficient
complete project
61%
39%
0%
A. Understanding your needs
B. Responsiveness to your needs
57%
35%
8%
70%
30%
0%
C. Relationships with EDC/IDC
68%
32%
0%
D. Professionalism
70%
30%
0%
E. Confidentiality
F. Overall rating of experience with state
64%
36%
0%
Source:
URDC
The area of state services that received the lowest ratings from respondents was “responsiveness
to your needs”, and, even with the lowest rating, more than half of respondents (57 percent) rated
state service as exceptional. Eight percent of respondents felt that the state’s responsiveness the
specific needs was “insufficient”.
The lower rating of state services than IDC services is not surprising, since the IDC is the local
agency that will be more familiar with local circumstances and local companies than the state.
IDCs are designed to provide more localized and personalized service to clients than state
agencies, so the phenomenon of IDC ratings higher than state ratings is not surprising.
6
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
IDC SURVEY
URDC mailed the IDC questionnaire to all PEDA members that are IDCs/EDCs on 5 June 2007. On 22
June 2007, URDC provided PEDA staff with a list of all recipients of the questionnaire that had not yet
responded. PEDA staff personally contacted all nonrespondents and explained the survey with an appeal
to respond promptly. A total of 75 questionnaires were distributed and 42 were returned for a response
rate of 54.7 percent. PEDA acknowledges and thanks the following members for participating in the
survey:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adams County Economic Development Corporation
Allegheny Valley Development Corporation
Allentown Economic Development Corporation
Altoona Blair County Development Corporation
Armstrong County Industrial Development Authority
Bedford County Development Association
Cameron County Industrial Development Authority
Carbon County Economic Development Corporation
Chambersburg Area Development Corporation
Chester County Economic Development Council
Clarion County Economic Development Corporation
Clearfield County Economic Development Corporation
Clinton County Economic Partnership
Community Development Corporation of Butler County
Delaware County Commerce Center.
Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland
Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County
Franklin County Area Development Corporation
Fulton Industrial Development Association
Girard Area Industrial Development Corporation
Greene County Industrial Development Corporation
Greenville - Reynolds Development Corporation
Harrisburg Regional Chamber and Capital Region Economic Development Corporation
Hastings Area Industrial Development Assoc.
Huntingdon County Business and Industry
Jefferson County Development Council
Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc.
Mifflin County Industrial Development Corporation
Mon Yough Area Industrial Development Authority
Moshannon Valley Economic Development Partnership, Inc.
Pocono Mountains Economic Development Corporation
Regional Industrial Development Corporation of Southwestern Pennsylvania
Schuylkill Economic Development Corporation
Scranton Lackawanna Industrial Building Company
The Clearfield Foundation
Tioga County Development Corporation
Titusville Industrial Fund, Inc.
Union County Industrial Development Corporation
Washington County Chamber of Commerce / Industrial Development Corporation / Industrial
Development Authority
York County Economic Development Corporation
7
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
The survey (Table 5) requested information on all aspects of IDC operations:
•
•
•
•
•
Organizational Background
Capacity and Programming
Activities
Impact and Results
Commentary
Appendix B contains a complete tabulation of responses to the IDC survey. More specific discussion of
the response to individual questions appears below.
Organizational Background
Seven out of ten (70 percent) of respondents are organized under Internal Revenue Service chapter
501(c)(6) regulations. An additional 22 percent are 501(c)(3) organizations.
Approximately half (52 percent) of respondents carry some organizational designation other than IDC or
EDC. Other designations include:
•
•
•
•
Industrial Development Authority
Chamber of Commerce
Tourist Promotion Agency
Area Loan Organization
All responding organizations have by-laws, and 19 out of 20 (95 percent) file an annual tax return with
the IRS. Only eight percent of respondents report being under the direct control of a county government.
Pennsylvania is a diverse economic state, ranging from rural to metropolitan in development pattern and
level of economic activity. IDC budgets reflect the commonwealth’s diversity, with respondents reporting annual budgets ranging from “none” to $30 million. The median budget among the 37 respondents
was $524,000.
More than half of respondents (54 percent) reported having 1–4 full-time staff persons. Only 17 percent
of responding agencies reported having 10 or more full-time staff. Almost all respondents (96 percent)
reported having some part-time staff working 30–39 hours per week. Approximately half of respondents
reported using part-time staff at 29 hours per week or less.
“Fees and self-generated revenue” is the most common source of funds for local IDCs, appearing in the
budgets of 34 of the 41 respondents. Other income sources include:
•
•
•
•
LEDA (State)
County government
Municipal government
Lease/land sales
• Private sector contributions
• Interest
• Revolving loan funds
8
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table 5
Industrial/Economic Development Corporation Questionnaire
for 2007 PEDA Study
(Period Covered: January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006)
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association (PEDA) is conducting a survey to help determine the usage and effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s economic development assistance programs. All of
following information will be kept strictly confidential. All surveys will be returned and kept by our
consultant, Urban Research & Development Corporation of Bethlehem, for exclusive use in this study.
The few minutes you take to complete the survey will help all of the EDC/IDCs and the state improve
customer service to companies all across the state.
Thank you for participating!
ORGANIZATION NAME: ________________________________________________________________
PERSON RESPONDING: (NAME & TITLE): ___________________________________________________
Organizational Background:
1. Is your organization an Economic or Industrial Development Corporation? Yes __
No __
NOTE: If your answer is no, please do not complete the survey. Thank you for your time.
2. Are you a registered: a. 501(c) 4? ____ b. 501(c)3? _____
c. 501(c)6? ______
d. other? ____ Please describe_______________________
Are you also an IDA, Chamber of Commerce, council or other organization? Yes __ No __
Please note other formal designations_____________________________________
3. Does your organization have by-laws?
Yes __
4. Does your organization file an annual tax return with the IRS?
No __
Yes __ No __
5. Is your organization under direct control of a county or municipal government? Yes __ No __
If Yes, are you controlled by a county or municipal government?
_____________
6. Annual Budget: $________________
7. Number of full-time staff (40 hours/week +)
Number of part-time staff : 30 – 39 hours/week
20 – 29 hours/week
up to 20 hours/week
_______________
_______________
_______________
_______________
9
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
8. Sources of Revenue
LEDA (state)
County government
Municipal government
Private sector contributions
Fees & self-generated revenue
Other (explain)
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9. Does your organization have a Board of Directors?
Yes __
No __
10. If yes, how many directors are on your board? ___________
10a. Number of private sector board members ______________
10b. Number of public sector members (county, municipal, state or federal elected officials)
10c. Number of hours per year (total – rounded to full hours) volunteered by board members
Capacity & Programming
11. Does your organization’s service area cover more than one county? Yes __
No __
11a. If yes, how many counties do you serve? ______________
If no, what is your service area (one county, one municipality, several municipalities)
_________________
12a. Please rate your organization’s working relationship with the IDC/EDCs from adjoining counties as
follows: G = Good, A = Average, P = Poor, NE = No experience
12b. Please rate your organization’s working relationship with the IDC/EDCs within your county as
follows: G = Good, A = Average, P = Poor, NE = No experience
13. Would your organization be enhanced if your staff were to have cost effective access to professional
development opportunities and additional training?
Yes __ No __
13a. If so, what training would most benefit your staff? (Please check all that apply.)
Grant writing
Fundraising
Finance
Marketing/public relations
Technology
_________
_________
_________
_________
__________
Organizational management
Development & project management
Customer service
Other (please describe)
10
____________
____________
____________
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Activities
14. Assuming job creation is the primary emphasis of any IDC/EDC, please rank your organization’s
priorities, in order, from the selections below:
_____Job creation through expansion of local businesses
_____Job creation through starting new businesses
_____Job creation through attraction of business from outside our service area
_____ Job creation through other: (Please explain) _______________________________
_____Job retention
_____ Our organization’s primary emphasis is not job creation but rather
15. Please indicate the type and extent of the roles your IDC/EDC and other participants play in local and
regional economic development. Circle the most appropriate response where
E= Exclusive, J= Joint, S= Support or Facilitation, and N = None
Function
Recruitment
Retention
Loan packaging
Project financing
Land development
Spec building – rehab
or construction
Technical assistance
Economic planning
Other____________
Other ____________
Your Role
Other organization’s role
type of other organization
E
E
E
E
E
J
J
J
J
J
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
J
J
J
J
J
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
E
E
E
E
E
J
J
J
J
J
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
J
J
J
J
J
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
16. Has your organization identified any target industry clusters; i.e., those businesses and industries that
you would like to have expand or locate in your service area? Yes __
No __
16a.
If yes, please list:
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
16b. If you have not identified any target industry clusters, please briefly explain why not:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
11
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
17.
(If you answered “No” to question 16, please proceed to question 18.) Have you developed a strategy
to attract and grow these industry clusters? Yes __
No __
17a. If yes, how much is budgeted for this initiative? $_______________
18.
Has your organization utilized any of the findings of the Team PA Foundation’s Global
Competitiveness Initiative (IBM Global Report)? Yes __
No __
Why or why not? ___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
19. What are your current financing assistance capabilities? (check all that apply)
STATE / LOCAL PROGRAMS
___Low Interest Loans __Grants
__Tax exempt loans (& bonds) __Tax Credits
____Loan Guarantees ______Other (Explain) __________________________________
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
___Low Interest Loans __Grants
__Tax exempt loans (& bonds) __Tax Credits
____Loan Guarantees ______Other (Explain) __________________________________
20. Please list the commonwealth programs you have used the most in the past four years (2003 to 2006), in
order of the most utilized programs.
1. ________________________________________
2. ________________________________________
3. ________________________________________
4. ________________________________________
5. ________________________________________
21. Please list any federal programs you have used over the past four years (2003 to 2006), in order of the
most utilized programs.
1. _________________________________________
2. __________________________________________
3. __________________________________________
4. __________________________________________
5. __________________________________________
12
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Impact & Results
22. Jobs
Created
Retained
Total
2003
2004
2005
2006
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTALS
_____
_____
_____
23. Total funds provided (grants, loans, tax credits, other)
2003
2004
2005
2006
$ ______________
$ ______________
$ ______________
$ ______________
TOTALS
$ ______________
24. Funds leveraged (private equity, bank participation, sale of bonds)
2003
2004
2005
2006
$ ______________
$ ______________
$ ______________
$ ______________
TOTALS
$ ______________
25. Total Economic Impact
Total of #23 and #24: $ _____________________
Commentary
26. Please list suggestions to improve the economic development delivery system in Pennsylvania.
27. What do you believe Pennsylvania state government could do to make our state more business friendly?
28. Are there any gaps that you can identify in the Pennsylvania economic development system and
improvements you would recommend to fill those gaps? Yes
No
28.a. If yes, please list:
13
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
29. Please rate your working relationship with the following state agencies as follows:
G = Good, A = Average, P = Poor, NE = No experience
Auditor General
_________
Attorney General
_________
Treasury
_________
Dept. of State
_________
Dept. of Education
_________
DCNR
_________
PHFA
_________
Other
_________
(name) ___________________
DCED
_________
(incl. Governor’s Action Team)
DEP
________
Penn DOT
________
Agriculture
________
Labor & Industry
________
Revenue
________
Banking
________
30. Please rate your working relationship with the following economic development organizations as
follows: G = Good, A = Average, P = Poor, NE = No experience or not applicable
Small Business Development Centers
Industrial Resource Centers
Ben Franklin Partnership
Local Development Districts
Workforce Investment Boards/CareerLink
Area Loan Organizations
Local Chamber of Commerce
County or Municipal Economic Dev. Office
Team PA Foundation
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________ (check if you are the ALO __)
___________
___________
___________
31. Please rate your working relationship with local governments as follows:
G = Good, A = Average, P = Poor, NE = No experience or not applicable
Generally
_____
High growth municipalities
_____ (municipalities
near major highways with infrastructure that have
experienced significant industrial, commercial, and/or
residential growth in the past five years)
Townships of the Second Class
Townships of the First Class
Boroughs
Cities
Counties
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
32. Has local government ever caused a significant problem with one of your organization’s projects?
Yes __
No __
If yes, please answer questions 32a–h. If no, please continue to question 33.
32a.
32b.
32c.
32d.
Was the problem resolved to the satisfaction of the company?
Yes __
No __
Estimated staff time & volunteer (hours) dedicated to problem resolution? _______
Did the project go forward in your service area?
Yes __ No __
If no, did the project go forward elsewhere in Pennsylvania solely because of the municipal
issue?
Yes __ No __
14
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
32e.
32f.
32g.
32h.
Were you competing with another state?
Yes __ No __
If yes, what state? _________________________
Did you lose the project to another state? Yes __ No __
Please briefly explain the issue or problem:
33. Identify the one factor that has the greatest positive impact on your organization’s activities.
34. Identify the one factor that has the greatest negative impact on your organization’s activities.
35. What single change or event would most improve economic development opportunities…
…in your region?
…in Pennsylvania?
36. What type of programs are needed, but not currently offered by the commonwealth?
37. What one change to any current DCED program would have the most positive impact on your
organization and the area you serve?
Projects
38. Describe your organization’s top two success stories over the past four years (2003–2006 –– projects
where all funding is in place, client is committed, and action is imminent)
Project 1:
Project/Company name
Type of Project
Year
Total Assistance Provided $
Programs/Funding Sources Utilized
Jobs created
retained
Total Private Sector (Equity/additional financing) Investment $
Primary reasons for success
Principal current contact at project (so we may contact for additional survey information):
Name_____________________________________________
Title ______________________________________________
Mailing Address ____________________________________
__________________________________________________
15
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Phone (_______) ___________________________________
Fax (_______) ____________________________________
Email _____________________________________________
Other Comments:
Project 2:
Project/Company name
Type of Project
Year
Total Assistance Provided $
Programs/Funding Sources Utilized
retained
Jobs created
Total Private Sector (Equity/additional financing) Investment $
Primary reasons for success
Principal current contact at project (so we may contact for additional survey information):
Name_____________________________________________
Title ______________________________________________
Mailing Address ____________________________________
__________________________________________________
Phone (_______) ___________________________________
Fax (_______) ____________________________________
Email _____________________________________________
Other Comments:
Please use this space to offer any confidential comments that may be helpful to PEDA in the future. Include
additional paper, if needed.:
Thank you for completing the survey!
Please return the completed survey by 15 June 2007 to Urban Research & Development
Corporation in the envelope provided.
16
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
All responding agencies are governed by a board of directors. Almost half (45 percent) of
respondents have boards composed of 11–20 members.
Most board members of responding IDCs are from the private sector. Those respondents that
reported having public sector board members reported relatively few (1–10) public sector board
members.
The survey asked respondents to gauge the amount of hours volunteered per year by board
members. Almost half (47 percent) of respondents said that board members volunteer up to 100
hours per year. Another 30 percent of respondents credited board members with 101–500 hours
per year. Thirteen percent of respondents said board members put in 501 to 1,000 hours per year,
and 10 percent of respondents credited board members with more than 1,000 hours of volunteer
work per year.
Capacity and Programming
Four out of five respondents said the organization does not cover more than one county. Therefore, most responding IDCs serve a county or a portion of a county, such as a multimunicipal
region.
IDCs believe that they get along well with similar organizations. Eight out of nine (88 percent)
respondents ranked their relationship with IDCs from other counties as “good”. More than 70
percent ranked their relationship with IDCs from their own county as good. The lower incidence
of a “good” rating could be explained by the fact that many respondents are the only IDC in their
county.
Almost nine in ten (89 percent) of respondents agreed that the IDC would benefit from additional
training and professional development opportunities. Specific training requested, by the
percentage of responses on which the request appeared, include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development & project management
Finance
Marketing/public relations
Technology
Grant writing
Fundraising
Organizational management
Customer service
Economic infrastructure
GIS, economic impact, ROI
16 percent
15 percent
15 percent
15 percent
13 percent
12 percent
8 percent
5 percent
2 percent
2 percent
17
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Activities
The top method of job creation reported in the survey is expanding local business. More than
half of respondents (51 percent) cite local business expansion as the highest priority for job
creation. The two highest priorities for respondents are expanding local businesses and job
retention.
The IDCs throughout Pennsylvania serve in a variety of leadership and partnership roles (Table
6). Many IDCs are involved in financing and loan packaging, partnering with financial
institutions. Large proportions of IDCs also develop land, either exclusively or jointly, which
aids in the primary missions of job creation and retention. Collaboration with local colleges and
universities is also common, bringing the academic world and the resources of education to
practical application in the private sector.
Table 6
Type and Extent of IDC Role
Your Role
Other Organization’s Role
E
J
S
N
E
J
S
N
Retention
44%
53%
0%
3%
6%
75%
13%
6%
Loan packaging
38%
50%
6%
6%
10%
55%
20%
15%
Project financing
36%
55%
3%
6%
5%
68%
18%
9%
Land development
42%
42%
13%
3%
6%
56%
25%
13%
Spec building – rehab or construction
36%
25%
28%
11%
14%
44%
21%
21%
Technical assistance
11%
54%
26%
9%
5%
78%
17%
0%
Economic planning
29%
56%
15%
0%
0%
81%
13%
6%
12.5%
87.5%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
Other
•
County of xxxxx
•
xxxxx College
•
Entrepreneurial
•
Initiatives (KIZ, Ent. Zone)
•
Work Force Development
•
Leadership
•
Brownfields Development
•
Industry Partnership
Note: E = Exclusive; J = Joint; S = Support or Facilitation; and N = None
Source: URDC
Fifty-two of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are covered by seven Local Development Districts
(LDDs), the multicounty units established by the Appalachian Regional Commission to
administer federal aid programs in the Appalachian region. The LDD structure, by its nature,
requires coordination and communication. In addition to LDDs, other organizations with which
the IDCs cited coordination include:
18
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Area Loan Organizations (ALOs)
Colleges and universities
Economic Development Corporations (EDCs)
Industrial Resource Centers (IRCs)
Keystone Innovation Zones (KIZs)
Local and regional planning agencies
Municipalities
Private developers
Private industries
Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Small Business Development Corporations (SBDCs)
State legislators
Utilities
Almost four out of five (79%) of the responding IDCs have identified specific industry clusters
to target recruitment efforts. Budgets for industrial targeting, if any, range from a few thousand
dollars to several million. Target industries mentioned by more than one respondent include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biomedical
Health care
Information technology
Logistics
Manufacturing (including advanced manufacturing)
Powdered metals
Technology
Tool and die
Wood products
The survey asked about the helpfulness of the Team Pennsylvania Foundation’s Global
Competitiveness Initiative, also known as the IBM Global Report. Respondents were mixed in
reaction to the report, with 46 percent saying the organization had used some of the report
findings. Many reasons were cited, both for using and for not using the report. A complete list of
reasons is found with the full survey results in Appendix B.
The vast majority (85%) of responding IDCs have the capability to assist with state-sponsored
low-interest loans. Many of the IDCs provide a wide range of financial services, including loan
guarantees, grants, tax-exempt loans and bonds, and tax credits through both state and federal
sources. The financing programs through the state that were cited as most often used by
responding IDCs were:
•
•
•
•
•
Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority (PIDA)
Infrastructure Development Program (IDP)
Small Business First Fund (SBFF)
Business in Our Sites (BIOS) Fund
Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP)
19
53 percent of respondents
42
“
“
“
42
“
“
“
32
“ “
“
24
“
“
“
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
Machinery and Equipment Loan Fund (MELF)
PA Economic Development Financing Authority (PEDFA)
Industrial Sites Reuse Program (ISRP)
Local Economic Development Assistance (LEDA) Project
Opportunity Grant Program (OPP)
Enterprise Zone (EZ)
18 percent of respondents
18
“
“
“
16
“
“
“
13
“ “
“
13
“
“
“
13
“
“
“
The financing programs administered directly through the federal government that were cited as
most often used by responding IDCs were:
•
•
•
•
•
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Small Business Administration (SBA), 504
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Economic and
Community Development (HUD–OECD)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
47 percent of respondents
32
“
“
“
32
“
“
“
21
“
“
“
12
12
“
“
“
“
“
“
Impact and Results
The responding IDCs had a significant impact on the Pennsylvania economy from 2003 through
2006. During the four years from 2003 through 2006, the responding IDCs accounted for more
than 186,000 jobs in Pennsylvania (Table 7). According to the results reported by survey
respondents, the positive impact of the IDCs on employment in Pennsylvania increased steadily
from 2003 through 2005 (Table 7 and Figure 1). The number of jobs retained also rose in 2006,
but a general economic downturn slowed the number of jobs created, so that the total number of
jobs created and retained fell short of the 2005 figure. Nevertheless, the total number of jobs
created and retained in 2006 still exceeded the corresponding figure for 2003 and 2004.
Table 7
Jobs Created and Retained, 2003–2006
Jobs Created
Jobs Retained
2003
17,413
16,094
2004
22,557
23,711
2005
28,627
26,980
2006
22,682
28,193
Total
91,279
94,978
Total
33,507
46,268
55,607
50,875
186,257
Source: URDC
Funding provided through the IDCs involves both funds provided directly through the IDC, such
as grants, loans, and tax credits, and funds that are leveraged with IDC funds, such as private
equity, bank participation, or the sale of bonds. From 2003 through 2006, the responding IDCs
accounted for a total of more than $4.8 billion in economic activity (Table 8).
20
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Figure 1
Employment Impact of Responding IDCs
60,000
50,000
Jobs
40,000
Created
Retained
Total
30,000
20,000
10,000
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: URDC
Table 8
Total Economic Impact of Responding IDCs
2003
$
Funds Provided 220,832,874
$
Funds Leveraged 508,165,660
Total Funds
$728,998,534
2004
$
228,390,355
$
461,098,312
$689,488,667
2005
$
686,081,651
$
785,634,157
$1,471,715,808
2006
$
317,188,736
$
1,581,174,739
$1,898,363,475
Total
$ 1,452,493,616
$
3,352,663,3721
$4,805,156,9881
1
Includes one responding IDC that provided a single total for the four-year period without giving amounts
for the four individual years. Therefore, the horizontal total in Table 8 is higher than the sum of the four annual
amounts.
Source: URDC
Pennsylvania launched an economic stimulus package in 2005 that is clearly illustrated in Table
8. Funds provided directly through the responding IDCs, most of which are state funds, tripled
from $228.4 million in 2004 to $686.1 million in 2005. At the same time, the amount of funds
leveraged increased 70 percent from $461.1 million in 2004 to $785.6 million in 2005.
The effect of the 2005 stimulus package continued to be felt in 2006. Despite the fact that a
tighter state budget required funds provided directly by the responding IDCs to decrease by more
than half (from $686.1 million in 2005 to $317.2 million in 2006), funds leveraged more than
doubled, from $785.6 million in 2005 to $1.58 billion in 2006, resulting in an increase in total
economic impact for the responding IDCs of more than $426 million from 2005 to 2006.
21
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Commentary
The final section of the survey asked respondents to provide commentary on several topics. Each
topic is briefly summarized below. Complete lists of responses appear in the full tabulation of the
survey in Appendix B.
General Economic Development Improvements
Question 26 asked for general suggestions to improve the economic development delivery
system in Pennsylvania. Several respondents were complimentary:
• “Has been excellent”
• “I believe the ECED staff are exemplary…”
• “I believe it is fine…”
The primary recurring theme in the comments was the need for better coordination among state
departments. Specific items cited that relate to the theme of better coordination include:
•
•
•
•
“…better coordination with DEP, DOE and other departments!”
“Consolidate programs – simplify programs.”
“Get document turnaround time down…”
“Process takes too long and we penalize businesses in industries that are getting hit hard.”
Other recurring themes in the general comments include:
• More control should be given to the local level.
• Local officials need more training.
• Economic development services in Pennsylvania need more funding.
Actions to Create a More Business-Friendly Economic Climate
Question 27 asked what the state government could do to create an economic climate that is
more business-friendly. Clearly and loudly, the most frequently cited action to stimulate business
development in Pennsylvania, as reported in the survey, is to reduce the tax burden. Other
actions include:
• Streamlining permitting processes.
• Reforming unemployment compensation.
• Reduce the number of municipalities, or otherwise do more to encourage land use and zoning
decisions on a regional/multimunicipal basis.
22
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Gaps in the Pennsylvania Economic Development System
Question 28 asked for suggestions to improve any gaps that respondents could identify in the
state’s economic development delivery services. The primary action requested was additional
funding for infrastructure. Overall funding and local control were also cited as important issues.
Working Experience with Other Agencies
Questions 29–31 asked respondents about relationships with other agencies. Responding
agencies unanimously reported a good relationship with the Pennsylvania Department of
Community and Economic Development (DCED – Table 9). Other strongly positive
relationships (i.e., those with a good/average ratio of at least 2.0) were reported with the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR), the Auditor General, and the Attorney General. Agencies with which more
respondents classified the relationship as “average” compared to “good” include the Departments
of Revenue, State, and Education. The highest incidence of “poor” relationships occurs with the
Department of Environmental Protection.
Table 9
Working Experience with State Agencies
Agency
Community and Economic Development (DCED––
incl. Governor's Action Team)
Environmental Protection (DEP)
PennDOT
Agriculture
Labor & Industry
Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)
Banking
Revenue
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA)
Treasury
Department of State
Auditor General
Attorney General
Department of Education
Other (see comment sheet)
1
Good
Average Poor No Experience
Score1
100%
0%
0%
0%
39
63%
51%
35%
38%
40%
23%
20%
17%
13%
10%
6%
6%
9%
100%
26%
43%
22%
35%
20%
18%
34%
13%
3%
19%
0%
3%
16%
0%
8%
3%
0%
3%
6%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
3%
3%
43%
24%
34%
59%
40%
70%
84%
71%
94%
91%
72%
0%
21
18
13
13
12
8
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
Score is calculated by awarding +1 point for a “good” rating, 0 points for an
”average” rating, -1 point for a “poor” rating, and 0 points for “no experience”.
Source: URDC
Respondents were much more positive about relationships with other economic development
organizations. The positive attitude may be a result of more experience in collaborative relationships with the agencies cited. More than 80 percent of respondents classified the relationship
23
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
with the local chamber of commerce, the local (county or municipal) economic development
office, and/or the local area local organization (ALO) as “good” (Table 10). Other strongly positive relationships (i.e., those with a good/average ratio of at least 2.0) were reported with the:
• Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). • Team Pennsylvania Foundation.
• Local Development Districts (LDDs).
• Industrial Resource Centers (IRCs).
• Workforce Investment Boards/CareerLink.
• Ben Franklin Partnership.
Table 10
Working Experience with Economic Development Organizations
Organization/Agency
Local Chamber of Commerce
County Or Municipal Economic Dev. Office
Small Business Dev. Centers (SBDCs)
Area Loan Organizations (ALOs)
Local Development Districts (LDDs)
Team PA Foundation
Workforce Investment Boards/ CareerLink
Industrial Resource Centers (IRCs)
Ben Franklin Partnership
1
Good Average Poor No Experience Score1
84%
82%
79%
82%
71%
64%
68%
54%
53%
10%
7%
13%
12%
9%
19%
18%
27%
21%
3%
0%
3%
3%
2%
0%
11%
8%
8%
3%
11%
5%
3%
18%
17%
3%
11%
18%
31
31
29
26
23
23
21
17
17
Score is calculated by awarding +1 point for a “good” rating, 0 points for an
”average” rating, -1 point for a “poor” rating, and 0 points for “no experience”.
Source: URDC
The incidence of poor relationships with the Workforce Investment Boards/CareerLink is the
highest reported of any agency at 11 percent. Other relatively high “poor” relationships reported
were with the Industrial Resource Centers and Ben Franklin Partnership, at eight percent each.
While the absolute numbers of respondents (and percentages) is not high, the relatively high
proportion of reportedly working experiences with the three agencies may warrant some further
investigation by the agencies themselves in an attempt to improve client relations.
Respondents were also asked about relationships with local governments (Table 11). Once again,
respondents were positive about relationships. In general, more than nine out of 10 respondents
(92 percent) rated relationships with local governments at “good”. Relationships were especially
positive with county governments, although the ratio of good/average was greater than 2.0 for
every level of local government.
The survey asked if the IDC ever had a problem with local government on a project. One in three
(33 percent) reported a problem with local government. In most cases, the problems were
resolved to the satisfaction of the customer, and the project moved forward within the IDC
service area.
24
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table 11
Working Experience with Local Governments
Local Government
Good Average Poor No Experience Score
92%
8%
0%
0%
Generally
35
Counties
86%
11%
0%
3%
31
Boroughs
68%
30%
0%
2%
25
Townships of the Second Class 68%
26%
0%
6%
23
High growth municipalities
69%
9%
0%
22%
22
Townships of the First Class
62%
21%
0%
17%
18
Cities
66%
10%
7%
17%
17
1
Score is calculated by awarding +1 point for a “good” rating, 0 points for an
”average” rating, -1 point for a “poor” rating, and 0 points for “no experience”.
Source: URDC
Impacts on IDCs
IDCs were asked to identify the single factors with the greatest impacts on the organization ––
one positive and one negative. Responses for both varied, but recurring themes for the positive
impact included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partnerships.
Support from the community.
Support from the private sector.
Funding.
Strong leadership.
Strong economy.
Negative items mentioned more than once include:
•
•
•
•
Condition of infrastructure
Lack of funding
Permitting processes
Bureaucracy
Most Important Improvements Needed
Respondents were asked in question 35 to provide one single change or event that would most
improve economic development opportunities in the region the IDC serves. Frequent themes
include:
• More local control.
• More funding.
• Highway improvements.
• Less regulation.
• Consolidation of organizations/less duplication of effort.
25
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Question 36 posed the same idea –– a single change or event that would most improve economic
development opportunities –– in Pennsylvania. Again, responses varied, but recurring themes
included:
• Lower taxes.
• Consolidation of municipal governments.
• Less regulation/faster permitting.
Other Suggested Changes
Question 37 asked about specific programs needed but not currently offered by the commonwealth. Several respondents felt that the state has the right tools already in place. In many cases,
respondents see the issue as simply providing the funding for the current programs. Several
respondents cited the range of programs as being too complex and confusing and called for more
simplicity rather than more programs.
Other respondents cited specific programs or functions for additional funding, such as the Business in Our Sites program, county revolving loan funds, and working capital/operating costs.
Several respondents cited the need for grants instead of loans.
Respondents were also asked to cite a single change to the Department of Community and
Economic Development (DCED) that would have the most positive impact on the local IDC and
the area served. The most common response was more funding for a specific program––presumably the program that the IDC and local area have used most often, most frequently, and/or
most recently. Programs mentioned for additional funding are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority (PIDA)
Infrastructure Development Program (IDP)
Business in Our Sites (BIOS)
Enterprise Zone (EZ)
Industrial Sites Reuse Program (ISRP)
Keystone Innovation Zone (KIZ)
Business Retention and Expansion Program (BREP)
26
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Appendix A
CLIENT SURVEY RESULTS
Note: “xxxxx” denotes specific reference deleted to preserve confidentiality
Table A–1
Number of Employees
0-50 People
51-100 People
101-500 People
n
Full Time Employees
23
57%
13%
21%
Part Time Employees
22
100%
0%
0%
Note: 95% of all respondents with part time employees have 10 or fewer people
500+ People
5%
0%
YOUR EXPERIENCE
Table A–2
1. What was the primary business situation that resulted in your initial contact with the IDC/EDC?
n = 29
Percentage of
Respondents
A. Expand/modernize facilities and/or equipment at current facility
8
28%
B. Develop new facility to expand production in same general area
C. Relocate or add facility here from outside the area but within Pennsylvania
D. Relocate or add facility here from outside the area and outside Pennsylvania
E. Start a new business here
F. Other
6
3
4
5
21%
10%
14%
17%
3
10%
• Attract companies to xxxxx
• Establish another multi-tenant building in the xxxxx
• Purchase and reopen an existing paper mill that had been closed
A–1
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table A–3
2. How did your organization discover the EDC/IDC?
n = 26
Percentage of
Respondents
A. EDC/IDC made initial contact.
4
15%
B. We knew about the EDC/IDC and made contact.
C. EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a business contact.
D. EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a government agency or other
economic development organization.
E. EDC/IDC and we became acquainted through a financial institution.
F. A brochure, newspaper, article, media coverage, etc.
G. Other
11
1
43%
4%
5
4
0
15%
15%
0%
2
8%
• xxxxx had the building for sale that we purchased.
• We are the EDC that accomplished the project.
Table A–4
3. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the EDC/IDC?
n
Percentage of Respondents
Satisfactory to
Exceptional
Insufficient
complete project
75%
25%
0%
67%
33%
0%
71%
29%
0%
A. Understanding your needs
B. Frequency of communications
C. Responsiveness to your needs
D. Contacts and relationships with the state, other agencies,
county and local governments
24
24
24
24
75%
25%
0%
E. Knowledge of funding programs and financing techniques
F. Relationships with local financial institutions
G. Professionalism
H. Confidentiality
I. Overall rating of EDC/IDC
25
22
24
23
24
76%
77%
83%
70%
75%
20%
23%
17%
30%
25%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Comments
• xxxxx has been critical to the project’s success thus far and will continue to be a key partner
• Exceptional all around model of excellence in supporting economic development and partnership;
outstanding – both executive director xxxxx and staff and xxxxx. Project success result of xxxxx!
• xxxxx did a great job!
• xxxxx is an amazing company and they really helped us get started!
• xxxxx has given us outstanding service. xxxxx is by far the best redevelopment agency we have worked
for!
• xxxxx and xxxxx worked tirelessly to attract our business, fabulous focus!
• Very helpful in getting us started.
A–2
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table A–5
4. How would you rate the quality of assistance you received from the state?
Percentage of Respondents
Satisfactory to
Exceptional
Insufficient
complete project
61%
39%
0%
57%
35%
8%
70%
30%
0%
68%
32%
0%
70%
30%
0%
64%
36%
0%
n
A. Understanding your needs
B. Responsiveness to your needs
C. Relationships with EDC/IDC
D. Professionalism
E. Confidentiality
F. Overall rating of experience with state
23
23
23
22
20
22
Comments
• There should be more meetings of committee; 2 times a month would be better.
• Had very little contact with State
• DCED and staff such as Scott Dunkelberger are excellent; responsive to our needs; PIDA is also very
good to work with.
• DCED has also been instrumental for this project and will continue to be a key partner
• The Governor’s leadership and bold vision brought us to state; GAT, DCED and DEP outstanding
support!
• A, b, and c are exceptional; locally great state of PA is all PR and NO follow-through! E and f are
insufficient; supposedly we got a $50,000 grant from the state – still haven’t seen the money!
• What assistance?
• The state has really helped us expand our capacities and create new, high-paying jobs (40,000+ per year).
• Promised incentives have been difficult to acquire – training funds, single point application, etc.
• Very cooperative!
A–3
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
This page intentionally blank.
A–4
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Appendix B
IDC SURVEY RESULTS
Note: “xxxxx” denotes specific reference deleted to preserve confidentiality
Organizational Background
Table B–1
Is your organization an Economic or
Industrial Development Corporation?
n
42
Yes
93%
No
7%
Table B–2A
Is your company a registered…
n
501(c)4
501(c)3
501(c)6
Other
40
8%
22%
70%
0%
Table 2B
Is your company an IDA, Chamber of Commerce, council or other organization?
2.
n
Yes
No
Other
38
26%
48%
26%
Are you a registered: Please describe:
• Combination Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development
• 501(c)3 – EDC; 501(c)6 – Chamber
Please note other formal designations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IDA, County Economic Development Dept.
MCIDA
IDA
Chamber / Tourist Promotion Agency
Chamber of Commerce (2)
Exec. Dir., Jefferson County EDA
Butler Economic Development Corp. – 501(c)(3); Spec building, CDC Environmental – 501(c)(3);
Brownfield Red.
B–1
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IDA and a Municipal Authority
IDA and Chamber
IDA – Enterprise Zone Admin., certified Development Corp.
IDA, RDA, ALO
Adams County Industrial Development Authority
Council of Governments (COG)
Industrial Development Authority
Umbrella group for two 501(c)3's and several authorities
IDA, Redevelopment Authority
CCIDA affiliated with CCEDC
Table B–3
Does your organization have by-laws?
n
Yes
No
39
100%
0%
Table B– 4
Does your organization file an annual tax return with the IRS?
n
Yes
No
39
95%
5%
Table B–5
Is your organization under direct control of a county or municipal government?
n
Yes
No
39
8%
92%
5.
If yes, are you controlled by a county or municipal government?
• County (3)
• Our IDA is controlled by County government; EDC – No
6.
Annual Budget:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
None
$5,000
$40,000
$70,800
$110,000
$145,000
$150,000
$180,000
~$180,000 IDC only
$200,000 (salaries and office, legal, etc.) (2)
approx. $350,000 (minus the ins and outs)
B–2
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
$350,000 Admin. only
$380,000
$400,000
$481,000
$500,000 (2)
$524,000 operating
$600,000 (2)
$700,000
$725,000
$800,000 (2)
$1,000,000 +/- across the three organizations
Approx. $1 million, depending on rental income, land sales, etc. In some years we can have several
million dollars of income.
$1.2 million
$1,250,000
$1.8 million (2)
$2,000,000
$2,400,000
$2.75 million
$3.425 million
$7 million
$30 million
Table B–6A
Number of full-time staff
n
1-4 people
5-9 people
10+ people
35
54%
29%
17%
Table B–6B
Number of part-time staff
30 - 39 hours/week
20 - 29 hours/week
Up to 20 hours/week
n
1-2 people
3-4 people
5+ people
39
8
12
96%
50%
92%
0%
13%
0%
4%
37%
8%
B–3
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–7
Sources of Revenue
LEDA
(State)
County
Government
Municipal
Government
Private
Sector
Contributions
Fees & SelfGenerated
Revenue
Other
(Explain)
TOTAL
1
56K
0
0
0
66K
280K Lease/Land Sales
400K
4
35K
35
0
0
5K
100K Lease/Land Sales
180K
5
0
5K
0
0
550K Rents
45K
600K
6
32K
110K
0
0
0
0
142K
7
25K
0
0
0
1,175K
8
38,823
175K
0
18K
167K
9
10
26K
125K
25K
100K
11
1,200K
391K RLFs
807,823
145K
145K
80K
356K
75K
125K Land Sales
200K
0
62K
50K
1,286K
720K
679K Events, Publications, Investment Income
2,797K
13
27,640
73,500
0
27,300
47,600
56,200
232,240
15
28K
30K
0
36K
5K
100K KIZ Grants
199K
16
28K
18K
0
0
100K
12
17
18
0
0
0
0
2.1mil
19
11%
54%
0
11%
24%
20
53K
365K
0
0
50K +/-
21
100%
22
100% Rental/
land sales
23
52K
20K
24
160K
560K
25
40,949
50K
40K
0
Rental from bldgs/sales
from lands
600K
360K Interest
2.46mil
100%
600K Rent, sewage
income & sales
1,068K
150K Special Programs
1.8 mil
720K
2,495
26
27
1,500K
156K
6,250
55,461 Loan
500K
25K
20K
0
17K
B–4
20K BREP
100K Real Estate Sales
182K
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Private
Sector
Contributions
Fees & SelfGenerated
Revenue
Other
(Explain)
25K
52K
10K
105K+/- state funds/EZ
70K
70K
500K
60K
700K
30
20,800
13K
37K
70,800
31
40,700
3,500
1,955,800
2 mil
32
51,165
90K
LEDA
(State)
County
Government
28
27,535
29
Municipal
Government
0
60K
104,750
944,085 Administrative/
Development Income
33
1,250K
225K
34
500K
35
36
TOTAL
119K
500K
60K
37
130K
75K
85K
2,110K
60K
551K Grants
3.425 mil
290K
38
1,600K
200K
39
3K
2K Investment
5K
500K
27K
30K
40
2.5K
41
132K
2.5K
300K
1,250K
5,318K
7,000K
Note: Each line represents one respondent.
Table B–8
Does your organization have a Board of Directors?
n
Yes
No
40
100%
0%
Table B–9A
If, yes how many directors are on your board
n
up to 10 people
11-20 people
21-30 people
31+ people
40
10%
45%
30%
15%
B–5
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–9B
Number of private sector board members
n
up to 10 people
11-20 people
21-30 people
31+ people
37
23%
36%
27%
14%
Table B–9C
Number of public sector members (county, municipal, state or federal elected officials
n
up to 10 people
11-20 people
21-30 people
31+ people
33
97%
3%
0%
0%
Table B–9D
Number of hours per year (total-rounded to full hours) volunteered by board members
n
0-100 hours
101-500 hours
501-1,000 hours
1,000+ hours
36
47%
30%
13%
10%
Capacity & Programming
Table B–10
Does your organization’s service area cover more than one county?
n
Yes
No
40
20%
80%
11a.If yes, how many counties do you serve?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 County
2 (not 2 counties, but areas of 2 counties)
2 (2)
3
One county – Huntingdon
Primary is one county – depending on the program and activity (1-17 counties)
Three partial
Nine (effectively l for 95% of efforts)
Up to 18 (for some projects)
If no, what is your service area (one county, one municipality, several municipalities)
•
•
•
•
•
23 municipalities – 2 in Centre County, 21 in Clearfield County
Mifflin
Clearfield County
2 municipalities
Clinton County
B–6
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lackawanna County
Butler County – one grant contract covers Armstrong County, set to expire 01/08
Monroe County
Several municipalities
One county (2)
One county – Adams
One county – Union
Franklin County
Bedford County
Primarily one county, but service an adjoining county for one special project
One municipality
Several municipalities
Table B–11A
Please rate your organization’s working relationship with the IDC/EDCs from adjoining counties.
n
Good
Average
Poor
No Experience
40
88%
12%
0%
0%
Table B–11B
What is your organization’s working relationship with the IDC/EDCs within your county?
n
Good
Average
Poor
No Experience
34
71%
20%
0%
9%
Table B–12A
Would your organization be enhanced if your staff were to have cost effective access to professional
development opportunities and additional training?
n
38
Yes
89%
No
11%
Table B–12B
If so, what training would most benefit your staff?
Percentage
13%
12%
15%
15%
15%
8%
16%
Grant Writing
Fundraising
Finance
Marketing/public relations
Technology
Organizational management
Development & project management
Customer Service
Other – economic infrastructure
Other – GIS, economic impact, ROI
Note: n=131
5%
2%
B–7
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Activities
Table B–13
Organizational Priority Ranking
Priority
1
2 3
44
47% % 6%
46
11% 9% %
14 32
11% % %
Job creation through expansion of local businesses
Job creation through starting new businesses
Job creation through attraction of business from outside our service area
Job creation through other:
4
5
3% 0%
34
% 0%
43
% 0%
• Acquisitions
• Building the workforce of the future creation of identity for
region/marketing quality of life
29
71
0%
0% 0%
• Building capacity via infrastructure
%
%
• Job retention / expansion / attraction through providing land
and/or buildings; providing land sites ready for development by xxxxx or
others – building development / ownership / operation of flex buildings for
businesses
39
42% %
Job retention
Note: Ranking 1 (highest importance) to 5 (lowest importance)
10
% 6% 3%
Total
Score1
100%
157
100%
104
100%
103
100%
13
100%
152
1
Score determined by awarding 5 points for top priority, 4 points for 2nd priority, 3 points for 3rd priority, 2
points for 4th priority, and 1 point for 5th priority.
Table B–14
Indicate the type and extent of the roles of your IDC/EDC
Your Role
Other Organization’s Role
n
E
J
S
N
E
J
S
N
Retention
36
44%
53%
0%
3%
6%
75%
13%
6%
Loan packaging
36
38%
50%
6%
6%
10%
55%
20%
15%
Project financing
36
36%
55%
3%
6%
5%
68%
18%
9%
Land development
36
42%
42%
13%
3%
6%
56%
25%
13%
Spec building – rehab or construction
36
36%
25%
28%
11%
14%
44%
21%
21%
Technical assistance
35
11%
54%
26%
9%
5%
78%
17%
0%
Economic planning
34
29%
56%
15%
0%
0%
81%
13%
6%
B–8
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Other
•
County of xxxxx
•
xxxxx College
•
Entrepreneurial
•
Initiatives (KIZ, Ent. Zone)
•
Work Force Development
•
Leadership
•
Brownfields Development
•
Industry Partnership
8
12.5%
87.5%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
Note: E = Exclusive; J = Joint; S = Support or Facilitation; and N = None
15. Type of other organization:
• Loan packaging, project financing and technical assistance – xxxxx; land development – xxxxx Planning
Department
• xxxxx for: retention; loan packaging; project financing; technical assistance; and economic planning
• xxxxx for loan packaging and project financing
• xxxxx for: recruitment; retention; loan packaging; project financing and land development; xxxxx for:
spec building and technical assistance; PRA / Horizon Properties for: economic planning; County of
Greene for other; and Waynesburg College for other
• County EDCs – recruitment; EDCs – retention; IRBs only – EDCs – loan packaging; IRBs – County
EDCs – project financing; Private Sector Generally lead – land development; Project by project – differs
– spec building; SBDC, Bioframe, IRC – technical assistance; County planning – economic planning;
SBDC, Co. College – other entrepreneural dev.; We are lead but collaborate – other initiatives KIZ,
ENT Zone.
• GAT, LDD, Utility – recruitment; GAT, LDD, SBDC, IRC – retention; GAT, LDD, SBDC – loan
packaging; GAT, LDD, CDD, Bank – project financing; DCED, Private – land development and spec
building - rehab or construction; PennTAP – technical assistance; LDD, County – economic planning.
• County government – recruitment
• County IDA for recruitment, retention, loan packaging, project financing; land development and
economic planning; career center – technical assistance
• Regional marketing group – recruitment; ALO – loan packaging, project financing and technical
assistance
• Regional marketing – recruitment; IDA, SBA 504 – project financing; Private partners – land
development and spec building - rehab or construction; All other providers – technical assistance; and
County / Regional Planning – economic planning
• Regional ED Group and municipal – recruitment; municipalities, GAT, State legislators – retention;
xxxxx (LDD) – loan packaging; State and local banks – project financing; Private sector developers –
land development and spec building - rehab or construction; KIZ, SBDC, LDD, Score Other Services –
technical assistance; and County Planning Comm. – economic planning
• Countywide IDC – recruitment
• xxxxx – recruitment; xxxxx, SBDC – technical assistance; County planning - economic planning
• SCTPA – recruitment; CareerLink, Comm. College – retention; Commercial lenders – loan packaging
and project financing; Commercial real estate, private developer – land development; help with private
industrial needs – spec building - rehab or construction; Consultants, county, municipal – economic
planning
• Other IDCs/LDD – recruitment and retention; LDDs – loan packaging, project financing and economic
planning; WIB/MV/PennCollege/TRC/ BF – technical assistance; WIB – work force dev. – other; and
leadership – other.
• Redevelopment – recruitment, retention, land development and spec building – rehab or construction;
xxxxx County Council – loan packaging; xxxxx County Council and redevelopment – project financing;
Redevelopment, SBA – technical assistance; xxxxx Council Council and SBA – economic planning.
B–9
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Loan packaging and project financing – St. Francis / SAPDC; Spec building – developers as partners.
Planning Commission – recruitment, retention, loan packaging, project financing and technical assistance.
Community-based development corporations – land development; SBDC, SCORE – technical assistance.
First Energy – recruitment; Depends – retention; LDD / SBA – loan packaging; Whomever – project
financing; State / Feds / Private Sector – spec building; Penntap / IRC – technical assistance; LDD –
economic planning.
IDC – recruitment, retention, land development and spec building; DCED / SBDC – project financing;
IDC / SBDC / SCORE, etc. – technical assistance.
Various – for loan packaging, project financing, land development, spec building and technical assistance.
LDD, IDC – recruitment; LDD – project financing and technical assistance.
Municipal organizations – recruitment, retention, land development and economic planning; private /
municipal organizations – loan packaging, project financing, spec building and technical assistance.
Career Link PA – recruitment; Chambers of Commerce – retention; SBA – loan packaging; banks –
project financing; private developers – land development; developers and xxxxx County – spec
building; partners (xxxxx, BFTP, eg.) – technical assistance; various – economic planning and
workforce development; developers and municipalities – brownfields development; corporations
(private) – industry partnerships.
Table B–15
Has your organization identified any target industry clusters?
n
39
Yes
79%
No
21%
16a.If yes, please list:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Electro-optics
Powdered metal parts manufacturers
Plastics; metals
Alternative energy; powdered metals; hardwoods
Wood products; metal fabrication; warehousing
Health care; wood industry
Coal mining support companies; data storage; heavy fiber users
Life sciences; advanced manufacturing; technology solutions
Manufactured housing; hardwood; bio-tech
Tourism; wood products; active retirement; manufacturing; IT; life sciences
Powder metal; wood products; warehouse / distribution; light manufacturing
lumber related; tubing; metal fabrication
Back offices; plastics; warehouse / distribution; medical
Financial services; general manufacturing; logistics / transportation
Tool and die
State clusters for area; focused on manufacturing and logistics, mainly
Advanced manufacturing / materials; support services; logistics / distribution
Manufacturing; building trades / construction; transportation / logistics; health care
Manufacturing; technology; office
Wood, medical, education; agriculture-based
Construction; health care; diversified manufacturing; lumber and wood
Machining, plastics, tool and die
Health care; small manufacturing; suppliers to hospital / light manufacturing
Food / beverage processing; pre-fab metals; plastics
Technology; logistics; health care; advanced manufacturing; agriculture
B–10
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
• Advanced manufacturing; biotechnology; transportation and logistics
• Manufacturers, advanced materials; biomed, renewable / sustainable energy
• Advanced manufacturing; food science / manufacturing; life sciences; information technology; trans. /
logistics
• IT related
• Technology – BioScience / Advance Mfg. / Design / Robotics; Energy – R & D / Design; Incubation –
various types
• Biomed (research, pharma, devices); energy (providers and suppliers); innovations
B–11
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
16b. If you have not identified any target industry clusters, please briefly explain why not:
•
•
•
•
•
Will work with whomever is hot at the time
Being a volunteer group with people working at jobs; hard to get a handle on this!
Prefer complete diversification
Too rural
Goal is to diversify reuse of Brownfields
Table B–16
Have you developed a strategy to attract and grow these industry clusters?
n
26
Yes
73%
No
27%
17a.If yes, how much is budgeted for this initiative?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unknown
$30,000
$10,000 (2)
$25,000 (3)
My time as staff time
$7.5 million spent including what was leveraged from Feds and State for research park
$5,000 to develop website, etc.
$5,000 (2)
$2,000 / year
$6,000
$1.5 million
$58,000,000+ (total approved commitment from the State)
• Portion of EZ Grant – $5,000
• $20,000 / year
• Land and buildings and marketing
Table B–17
Has your organization utilized any of the findings of the Team PA Foundation’s Global Competitiveness
Initiative (IBM Global Report)?
n
39
Yes
46%
No
54%
18. Has your organization utilized any of the findings of the Team PA Foundation’s Global
Competitiveness Initiative (IBM Global Report)? Why or why not?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yes – footprint of the report is too large; not specific to our county
Yes – for a mail campaign; utilized the study to target an industry
Yes – demonstrates what is cutting edge and likely to expand
Yes – we have reviewed
Yes – as support and background for disseminating information
Yes – third party reinforcement of emerging industry clusters
No – not relevant to small, rural communities
B–12
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No – not familiar with them
No – Never got a copy
No – worthless
Yes – minimal to lead strategic discussion at Board level
Yes – one of their recommended targets was consistent with our own analysis. Their information was
more detailed.
No – not available
Yes – working on a plan
No – have not had time
No – this report wasn’t consistent in its findings for our region; our county wasn’t identified properly.
No – xxxxx County was essentially excluded from the IBM Global Report.
No – don’t know enough specifics about it
Yes – helps target resources
No – too general; not related to our area and we do not concur with their protections
Yes – market research to start program work; knowledge of what is in demand or future forecast
Table B–18
What are your current financing assistance capabilities?
Low Interest Loans
Grants
Tax Exempt Loans (& Bonds)
Tax Credits
Loan Guarantees
Other
Note: n=41
State/Local Federal
Programs Programs
85%
46%
41%
32%
68%
49%
61%
20%
46%
7%
7%
2%
19. State / Local Programs, Other:
•
•
•
•
Property tax abatement
K0Z designation
Done at County level
xxxxx is a PIDA loan sponsor; xxxxx receives state and local grants in turn used for projects for its
tenants
Federal Programs, Other:
•
xxxxx is a PIDA loan sponsor; xxxxx receives state and local grants in turn used for projects for its
tenants
B–13
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–19
Local / State Funding Programs
Program
PIDA
IDP
SBFF
BIOS
RCAP
PEDFA
MELF
ISRP
LEDA
OPP Grant
EZ
WEDNET
KIZ
PennWorks
CRP
PennTap
Ben Franklin
ARC
First Industries
BREP
CJT
PennVest
IRL
DCED
PennDOT
PEDA
Building PA
OGP
KOEZ
TIF
Note: n=38
Table B–20
Federal Funding Programs
Total
20
16
12
12
9
7
7
6
5
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Program
EDA
USDA
ARC
SBA 504
OECD-HUD
EPA
Dept. of Labor
Bonds
EDI
WIA
Federal Highway
UCFP
OVR
CDBG
TEA-21
Note: n=34
B–14
Total
16
11
11
7
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Impact & Results
Table B–21
Jobs Created and Retained, 2003–2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
Created Retained Total Created Retained Total Created Retained Total Created Retained Total
10
16
26
12
10
22
850
850
850
850
100
850
950
25
950
975
50
50
50
50
100
1,370
376
1,746
455
456
911
217
724
941
900
742
1,642
175
175
8
8
60
36
96
25
97
122
42
204
246
11
28
39
15
10
25
28
28
62
15
77
110
20
130
1,042
673
1,715
739
887
1,626
1,159
1,343
2,502
2,143
86
2,229
275
125
400
75
150
225
325
125
500
500
55
555
72
40
112
548
53
601
4,833
4,091
8,924
1,350
1,350
550
726
1,276
486
1,386
1,872
533
639
1,172
434
1,472
1,906
400
625
1,025
350
200
550
1,500
800
2,300
2,300
100
2,400
132
210
342
50
50
1,176
50
1,226
500
500
73
690
763
11
127
138
28
238
266
6
32
38
27
325
355
31
148
179
103
425
528
151
1,438
1,589
370
533
903
805
883
1,688
404
1,361
1,765
377
2,093
2,470
1,075
1,075
665
665
154
154
147
147
34
310
344
779
3,908
4,687
617
2,965
3,582
1,658
699
2,357
2,200
1,200
650
12,000
10,600 22,600 17,500
14,500 32,000 18,500
13,200 31,700 10,750
20,200 30,950
17,413
16,094
35,710 22,557
23,711
47,468 28,627
Note: n=22
B–15
26,980
55,657 22,682
28,193
51,525
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–22
Total Funds Provided
(Grants, Loans, Tax Credits, Other)
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
$750,000
$1,000,000
$12,330,217
$100,000
$1,462,000
$10,000
$5,500,000
$3,500,000
$1,353,464
$27,094,568
$25,000,000
2004
$415,000
$1,135,666
$500,000
$2,391,700
$2,000,000
$538,000
$100,000
$4,411,778
$750,000
$9,769,030
$31,865,416
$16,000,000
2005
$11,215,000
$3,000,000
$7,900,000
$1,400,199
$1,980,000
$75,000
$15,233,517
$2,000,000
$15,483,733
$16,202,568
$250,000,000
2006
$590,000
$100,000
$5,739,388
$2,616,000
$50,000
$11,947,500
$3,750,000
$8,470,833
$28,191,500
$85,000,000
$4,440,198
$29,704,206
$5,772,000
$1,075,000
$1,308,000
$20,000
$8,585,450
$55,000
$3,100,000
$86,870,000
$7,759,146
$55,000
$35,328,563
$25,391,250
$5,700,000
$32,650,175
$3,500,000
$55,700,600
$11,265,275
$55,000
$9,702,809
$281,140,050
$1,900,000
$6,300,000
$49,900,500
$2,000,000
$675,000
$6,000,000
$22,437,000
$4,591,380
$55,000
$29,566,870
$29,218,067
$500,000
$2,500,000
$68,750,000
Total
$1,005,000
$12,350,666
$3,750,000
$9,500,000
$21,861,504
$2,100,000
$6,596,000
$235,000
$37,092,795
$10,000,000
$35,077,060
$103,354,052
$376,000,000
$4,440,198
$29,704,206
$2,000,000
$8,830,000
$6,020,000
$22,437,000
$32,201,251
$220,000
$77,698,242
$422,619,367
$2,400,000
$18,000,000
$207,001,275
Total $220,832,874 $228,390,355 $686,081,651 $317,188,736 $1,452,493,616
Note: n=26
B–16
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–23
Funds Leveraged
(Private Equity, Bank Participation, Sale of Bonds)
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
2004
2005
2006
Total
$21,000,000
$25,673,597
$193,550,856
$35,689,343
$167,850,750
$320,000
$4,102,000
$2,100,000
$10,800,000
$124,355,884
$500,000
$11,234,000
$500,000
$471,628,131
$79,000,000
$348,678,254
$144,651,091
$779,000,000
$16,590,504
$75,000,000
$116,000,000
$22,447,188
$10,000
$21,000,000
$156,144,791
$267,965,936
$131,134,343
$569,501,250
$508,165,660 $461,098,312 $785,634,157 $1,581,174,739
$3,352,663,372
$150,000
$4,000,000
$1,100,000
$500,000
$17,842,596
$3,372,000
$81,667,225
$31,000,000
$1,377,794
$21,314,393
$65,000,000
$170,000
$1,000,000
$12,667,036
$102,000
$1,000,000
$4,300,000
$37,949,676
$2,862,000
$50,000
$44,270,589
$6,000,000
$91,040,354
$51,064,922
$14,000,000
$2,000,000
$250,000
$109,943,517
$10,500,000
$135,230,939
$38,979,126
$200,000,000
$40,000,000
$12,817,700
$5,400,000
$4,154,488
$10,000
$54,037,952
$1,941,000
$95,445,000
$120,750,000
$44,417,004
$52,175,907
$32,016,238
$20,298,173
$132,000,500
$148,900,000
$5,000,000
$55,896,576
$500,000
$3,000,000
$200,000
$235,746,800
$31,500,000
$121,029,167
$33,292,650
$500,000,000
$35,000,000
$116,000,000
$75,000
Note: n-23
Table B–24
Total Economic Impact
2003
$728,998,534
2004
$689,488,667
2005
$1,471,715,808
2006
$1,898,363,475
TOTAL
$4,788,566,484
Note: Total Economic Impact (Table B–25) equals Total Funds Provided (Table B–23) plus Total Funds Leveraged (Table
B–24).
B–17
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Commentary
26. Please list suggestions to improve the economic development delivery system in
Pennsylvania.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Programs need to be friendlier to job retention projects
Has been excellent
I believe the DCED staff are exemplary; if anything, better coordination with DEP, DOE and other
departments!
Increase the appropriation for Business In Our Sites program.
I believe it is fine, a little cumbersome
Certified provider through PEDA and DCED (goal less vs. too much) county local politics
Consolidate programs – simplify programs
More operational dollars to rural county ED organizations
Eliminate the LDDs and go to county level
Get rid of DEP!; reduce all business taxes
Need PennDOT and DEP to expedite permits and approvals for economic development projects
Funding for soft costs / institutionalize and use Keystone principals
Require mandatory training for local agencies and state bureaus
Better fund more useful programs; increase capacity in legal department
Address the issue of Prevailing Wage for grant programs so that utilization does not trigger PW for the
entire project
Abolish the Commonwealth Financing Agency
Provide additional BOS funding
Get document turnaround time down – it is way too long
Convince DCED locals do the work and get projects done
Providing funding to agencies in rural areas that do not have a lot of PIDA loans to fall on, or large
business base for donations!
ALO’s should not be in charge of SBF-FIF, duplicative and fragmented service for customers.
Establish semi-annual meetings between ALO’s / EDC’s / LDD’s and DCED program administrators; all
program financing should require ALO EDC sponsorship.
Better sharing of best practices
Process takes too long and we penalize businesses in industries that are getting hit hard.
Increase funding support for local EDC operations
Stay more in touch with grass roots ED professionals for delivery and input
Create single point of contact
Consolidate and eliminate inactive organizations; eliminate many duplicate organizations in regions
Cut red tape on accessing grants and loans; stop trying to “spread the wealth” and focus more on “who
can get the job done;” provide more ED funds to EDCs/IDAs that can be used on a discretionary basis;
allow operating (up-front) funds in current “reimbursement” basis grants (such as RACP, BOS and
Growing Greener)
27. What do you believe PA state government could do to make our state more business
friendly?
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce tax burden
Permitting process faster
Taxes, taxes, taxes!
Less taxes
Eliminate all property taxes!
B–18
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I believe the state is doing a good job in economic development areas
Corporate taxes – but then who covers the shortfall
Tax climate – lower CNI, eliminate CSFT, consolidate local nuisance taxes
Reduce / eliminate employee bias in workers compensation and unemployment compensation. Reform
the UCC.
Lower corporate taxes
Reduce NCI and lower stock franchise tax
Get rid of DEP!; reduce all business taxes
Expedite permits and approvals
Lower business taxes, business tax credits geared to existing company growth
Reduce the number of municipalities. Change the PA Constitution so land use decisions can be made
regional
Reform tax structure
Encourage and make it easier – possibly incentivize – local governments to voluntary collaborate – this
will better serve development efforts in PA
Lower taxes, countywide zoning
Workman’s comp rates lowered; tax reductions; worker training to all people who have lost their jobs
regardless of family income
Continue to reduce business taxes; reduce regulations; streamline regulation permitting
Environmental Permitting; consistency across the state!!!
Reduce corporate taxes, more incentives for service oriented businesses.
Reduce corporate net income tax; implementation of more effective health care cost containment;
restructure local government...until we are able to effectively change our system of local government,
which will require a constitutional amendment. PA will continue to churn near the bottom of all states
relative to real economic growth.
Lower business taxes; reduce permitting time.
Simplify business tax structure, phase out CSFT and reduce CNIT
Keep taxes low, reduce regulatory hassles, dump union stigma
Reduce business taxes
Reduce business taxes; provide more programs to retain existing businesses and less on attracting; reduce
size and cost of state government
Use “compulsive comparison” approach to diffusing availability of assistance to private sector; require
greater interdepartmental collaboration on project implementation that involves multi-department
cooperation; make industry cluster partnerships #1 priority for governmental assistance – focus on
workforce development; help state grantees access federal funding thereby reducing reliance on state
funding; since taxes are relatively high in PA, push tax-abatement and tax-reduction assistance programs
as the “deal makers” for in-migrating companies; do a much better job of providing requisite agricultural
economic development services – what do farmers, producers and ag suppliers really want?
Table B–25
Are there gaps that you can identify in the Pennsylvania economic development system and
improvements you would recommend to fill those gaps?
n
24
Yes
75%
No
25%
B–19
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
28a.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If yes, please list:
Incentive packages from the GAT to a new or existing company should be better coordinated and
supervised (budget formulation / expenditures) by local IDC / EDC sponsor.
Since IDCs are delivery system for state, lack of capacity in counties or county-based IDCs. More
regional support and reliance on regions by small IDCs.
Operational dollars to rural county economic development organizations
Infrastructural funding
Permits and approvals by PennDOT and DEP
Transition in administrations overlays projects – initiatives change mid stream
Inadequate programs to expand utility service
Eliminate Prevailing Wage issue from grant programs; redefine public work or public body
Additional BOS funding and IDP funding for infrastructure construction
Make local economic groups (IDCs, etc.) true partner in the State’s delivery system
Some type of program to help small business grow; i.e. some type of micro loan program to help all
businesses with low interest
Opportunity grants should be restructures to be “Opportunity Loans” by making the program a loan
program. It creates a financial return to the community and allows the borrowers to more effectively use
the monies. (A 0% to 2% loan is as effective an economic development incentive as a grant.)
Give greater consideration on projects that retain jobs as well as creates
Check first with ED professionals to get the lay of the land before responding to local elected officials
Time of funding sources (fiscal year)
LEDA program for all IDC’s; direct dealing with state for IDC’s rather than through municipal agencies
that take off fees
Need encouragement at regional level to establish energy industry cluster projects consistent with
Governor’s Energy Initiative; agriculture is #1 industry – we need high-powered ED tools to keep it that
way; bring back the KOZ; urbanized boroughs need bona fide approach to filling empty store fronts –
outdated infrastructure is major impediment – need special program for ID in boroughs – benefits accrue
to business development, workplace housing, shored-up tax ratables; address the issue of moving from
“dirty” industry economic base – if steel plants are shutting down all over PA, fund a “rifle approach” to
remediation (no “blunderbuss” approaches here); major impediments to companies considering moving
to PA include unavailability of appropriate labor force and poor arterial traffic / transportation systems –
need to address them.
B–20
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–26
What is your working experience with the following state agencies?
Agency
DCED (incl. Governor's Action Team)
DEP
PennDOT
Agriculture
Labor & Industry
Revenue
Banking
Auditor General
Attorney General
Treasury
Department of State
Department of Education
DCNR
PHFA
Other (see comment sheet)
n
Good
Average
Poor
No Experience
Score
34
100%
0%
0%
0%
38
37
37
37
35
34
32
31
31
31
32
35
30
1
63%
51%
35%
38%
20%
23%
6%
6%
13%
10%
9%
40%
17%
100%
26%
43%
22%
35%
34%
18%
0%
3%
3%
19%
16%
20%
13%
0%
8%
3%
0%
3%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
6%
0%
0%
3%
3%
43%
24%
40%
59%
94%
91%
84%
71%
72%
34%
70%
0%
39
21
18
13
13
5
8
2
2
4
3
2
12
5
1
Table B–27
What is your working experience with the following economic development organizations?
Small Business Dev. Centers
Industrial Resource Centers
Ben Franklin Partnership
Local Development Districts
Workforce Investment Boards/ CareerLink
Area Loan Organization
Local Chamber of Commerce
County Or Municipal Economic Dev. Office
Team PA Foundation
n
Good
Average
Poor
No Experience
Score
38
37
38
34
38
33
38
38
36
79%
54%
53%
71%
68%
82%
84%
82%
64%
13%
27%
21%
9%
18%
12%
10%
7%
19%
3%
8%
8%
2%
11%
3%
3%
0%
0%
5%
11%
18%
18%
3%
3%
3%
11%
17%
29
17
17
23
21
26
31
31
23
Table B–28
What is your working experience with local governments?
Generally
High growth municipalities
Townships of the Second Class
Townships of the First Class
Boroughs
Cities
Counties
n
Good
Average
Poor
No Experience
Score
38
32
34
29
37
29
36
92%
69%
68%
62%
68%
66%
86%
8%
9%
26%
21%
30%
10%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
22%
6%
17%
2%
17%
3%
35
22
23
18
25
17
31
B–21
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
Table B–29
Has local government ever caused a significant problem with one of your organization’s projects?
A. Was the problem resolved to the satisfaction of the company?
C. Did the project of forward in your service area?
D. If no, did the project go forward elsewhere in Pennsylvania solely
because of the municipal issue?
E. Were you competing with another state?
G. Did you lose the project to another state?
n
36
13
12
Yes
33%
46%
75%
No
67%
54%
25%
3
0%
100%
11
12
45%
0%
55%
100%
32. Has local government ever caused a significant problem with one of your organization’s
projects?
•
No – we avoid development in troublesome townships; we do a lot of homework, education to prevent
32b. Estimated staff time and volunteer (hours) dedicated to problem resolution?
•
•
•
•
•
•
32f.
•
•
•
•
100 (2)
10
16
20 (2)
80
100+
If yes, what state?
Unknown
Virginia (3)
North Carolina
West Virginia (2)
32h. Please briefly explain the issue or problem?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEP Permit
Perceived jurisdiction by county operated office. Frustrated company, made all look unprofessional
Township supervisor wanted a road to be paid for with State funds to benefit him, not company
Had to do with the UCC and inspection fees
Denial of LERTA
Refusal to keep traffic light or practical
Funding and Financial Incentives needed
33. Identify the one factor that has the greatest positive impact on your organization’s activities.
•
•
•
•
•
Municipal cooperation, including school districts
Good public support from County government
Market demand for low cost space and DCEDs commitment to the xxxxx
Low interest loans to assist businesses
Grant and loan availability
B–22
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exclusively private sector membership
Funds to operate
Business In Our Sites
Private sector support
Strong community support
KIZ
Great State Senator and State Rep.
Good economy
Community support and partnerships
Board of Directors investment of time, talent and money
Programs that support infrastructure development (i.e. IDP and BOS)
Strong local economy, positive local environment for department, cooperation with xxxxx
Involvement and commitment of Board and Committee members
Teamwork with elected officials
Local support and partnerships
Availability of land; availability of infrastructure financing
Partnerships
Private sector investments in our county
Coordination and reduced duplication of services
Partnerships
Business owner perception
Operationally: the xxxxx is a one-stop shop that can deliver the full range of DCED funded incentives;
Location: xxxxx County is situated at the right place at the right time.
Great Board Members – and term limits
Support of the business community
Funding
Community image for quality of life
Collaboration
Development of Business Parks in Greenfield and Brownfields
34. Identify the one factor that has the greatest negative impact on your organization’s activities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental permitting local and state level
Generally poor PA business climate
Too many municipalities, weak tax bases, no funds for projects
Building code and development issues
Funds
Rural
Local politics
Lack of operational dollars
County Commissioners
DEP
Delays in approving HOP and NPDES permits
Volatility of state funding
The Special Protections Handbook
Land development regulations – wetlands and architectural
DCED budget is always the first cut
Medial perception of unwanted growth
Perception of being a Government Agency
Institutionalized programs and “we always did that” mentality
Lack of infrastructure but we are working with local officials on the issues
B–23
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public perception
Labor availability: the lack of an available workforce is beginning to hamper business development.
Bureaucratic paperwork
Lack of funding (2)
Community image of over regulated and taxed
County and Local Funding support needed
Other competition from IDA within service area
Private real estate industry perception of competition (when in fact xxxxx pays real estate taxes and
municipal groups do not)
xxxxx is the “go-to” organization in the opinion of companies that need ED services, not in the opinion of
state and federal governments
35. What single change or event would most improve economic development opportunities in
your region?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allow for more local governance on environmental permitting
Reduce property taxes
Municipal consolidation
Highway infrastructure – more access to major highway
Brownfield development
Real collaboration
More grants for water/sewer infrastructure
Less regulation (DEP and UCC)
KOEZ extension
County level public money for lending
Funds for regional economic development marketing
I-81 expansion
Completion of I-99
Better (real) regional marketing
Work together as a “Region”
Reduction of organizations
Infrastructure
The opportunity grant program back for summer business
Development of CSX Intermodal Terminal, Redevelopment of xxxxx, and construction of a new
interchange on I-81
Funding for marketing
Venture capital
Transportation; i.e. xxxxx
Consolidation of economic development organizations
Reduction in duplicative efforts by competing organizations
What single change or event would most improve economic development opportunities in
PA?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminate property taxes for funding economic development
Reduce taxes
Less local government
Brownfield development
Overhaul the tax structure
Elimination of school taxes paid directly by home or business owner
Professional certification
B–24
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lower taxes
Less regulation (DEP and UCC)
Financial incentives
Business tax cuts
Changes to the Special Protections Handbook relative to wastewater
Tax climate
Consolidation of the municipal structure
Additional DCED funding
Tax reductions for industry
Reduction of organizations
DEP / DCNR needs to understand development if PA wants to grow
A faster permitting process with DEP
Restructuring of local government
Enabling legislation to permit alternative / stable local economic development funding
Business friendly image
Corporate tax relief
Provide programs for expansion and retention in better proportion than to attraction
Long-term financial commitment to successful ED initiatives / not massive changes with each governor)
36. What type of programs are needed, but not currently offered by the commonwealth?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
Too many are offered; it’s confusing; consolidate and simplify
Working capital funding
They got it covered!
An annual appropriation to the Business In Our Sites Program
I believe they are there
Plenty of programs, more dollars: Business In Our Sites, Opportunity Grant, ISRP, Enterprise Zone
More funding period!
Infrastructure grants
County revolving loan fund assistance
Funding for soft costs / certification of agencies to fast track consideration for investment / some “brains”
with common sense in PennDOT
Programs that would fund natural gas and utilities that would extend lives for economic development
Under selection for start-up and non-manufacturing companies
Ones that benefit commercial and retail businesses; more agricultural and tourism programs
Service oriented companies have very little capital programs to assist with expansion or start-up costs
Loans and/or grants to services, professional services and start-up retailers
Additional infrastructure development and land development monies
Better venture capital
More grants and tax credits
They have enough – but must be funded
Greater access to companion projects; i.e. machinery equipment loan
Programs for business expansion / retention vs. attraction emphasis
Energy industry cluster workforce development, workplace housing initiatives, large gap revolving loan
regional fund, ag economic development
B–25
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
37. What one change to any current DCED program would have the most positive impact on
your organization and the area you serve?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
Too many are offered; it’s confusing; consolidate and simplify
PIDA
Double or triple the annual appropriation for the Infrastructure Development Program
Can’t think of any
More BIOS funding
Rededication to Enterprise Zone Program funding; funding for ISRP (all right, that’s 2!)
Extend KIZ funding
Eliminate xxxxx as an BREP Coordinator and assign it to us!
Grant dollars for assessment studies
KOEZ extension or a new round
Funding for ISRP – Brownfield redevelopment demands it
BREP – Allow us to visit companies outside the specifications codes and companies with less than 5
employees
Relaxing the eligibility for manufacturing only when some of the programs would assist successful
service companies
Flexibility of programs – adequate funding for existing programs
Additional rounds of BOS financing
Re-fund “Business In Our Sites”
Give equal status and funding to enterprise program in conjunction to Main Street and Elm Street
Micro loans at low interest
Bringing all programs back under the authority of DCED and releasing the CFA
Increasing the participation rates for PIDA
Allow refinancing as PIDA eligible cost on expansion projects – increase job cost or PIDA to $50,000 /
job and reduce penalties for companies that fail to hit job projections.
Dedicated / reliable funding line item for local economic development
Allow former EZ areas to retain eligibility
Local flexibility / response time
Bidding requirements for development projects funding with State loans / grants create additional costs
and time delays
More ISR funding at higher levels of funds allocation; also, need to deal with negative impact of
prevailing wage requirement
General Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Don’t have the time to do this research which is indicative of the reason for tech. trg. to track our
accomplishments. It is in our self interest but difficult to routinely do. (xxxxx Co.)
No questions asked on professional development? PEDA has to become our speaker to the legislature (xxxxx
Co.)
PEDA is valuable to the professional development of our members. It is valuable to improving our
relationships with the state and financial support from the state. Need to stick to game plan with adjustments,
rather than concerns of the loudest members.
PEDA needs to lobby PennDOT and DEP to expedite permits and approvals for economic development
projects that will create good jobs.
Impact and Results section – Done through BREP referrals–as information only–results not readily available.
Our organization has been reduced to very part-time over the past five years due to funding constraints.
Impact and Results section – Statistics kept at County by xxxxx County Area Development Corp.
B–26
The Pennsylvania Economic Development Association’s
2007 Economic Development Corporation Impact and Client Satisfaction Study
This page intentionally blank.
B–27