Post on 07-Feb-2017
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
STRATEGY
FEBRUARY 6, 2012
TODAY’S MEETING WILL INCLUDE PRESENTATIONS & GROUP DISCUSSION
Agenda1:00‐1:30 TeamNEO Board Business1:30‐2:00 NEO Regional Economic Competitiveness Strategy Introduction2:00‐3:00 NEO Economy Overview3:00‐3:15 Break3:15‐3:45 NEO Regional Competitiveness3:45‐4:30 NEO Initiatives & Interventions Impact4:45‐5:00 Next Steps & Wrap Up
1
A NUMBER OF FORCES CAME TOGETHER TO DRIVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL STRATEGY
Northeast Ohio Economic Competitiveness Strategy
Initiative
Fund For Our Economic Future
& Advance Northeast Ohio
ProgressJobsOhio
ExpectationsNEO77
Momentum
Current NEO Economic
Development Strategies & Momentum
Extended Period of NEO Economy Underperforming the National Averages
2
THE JOBSOHIO NETWORK DEFINES THE REGIONAL SCOPE OF OUR STRATEGY
3
THE STRATEGY DEVELOPS REGIONAL INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE LOCAL EFFORTS & DRIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH…
Objective of the Northeast Ohio Regional Economic Competitiveness StrategyCraft a market‐based, regionally shared vision and actionable plan for Northeast Ohio’s economy that aligns and advances key local and regional efforts to measurably impact
economic competitiveness and growth
4
THE STRATEGY DEVELOPS REGIONAL INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE LOCAL EFFORTS & DRIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH…
Objective of the Northeast Ohio Regional Economic Competitiveness StrategyCraft a market‐based, regionally shared vision and actionable plan for Northeast Ohio’s economy that aligns and advances key local and regional efforts to measurably impact
economic competitiveness and growth
Guiding Principles of the Regional Strategy
1. Improves Northeast Ohio’s potential to out‐perform the national economy
2. Connects and strengthens local growth and competitiveness initiatives – it is not a replacement for nor should it override local strategies and initiatives
3. Developing and executing an effective strategy requires engagement with and commitment from diverse sectors and stakeholders
4. Interventions supported by the strategy must be economically inclusive
5. The diversity of Northeast Ohio’s multiple urban centers , communities and rich rural assets are a regional competitive strength and should be enhanced by the strategy
5
…WE'RE PURSUING A PHASED APPROACH TO DEVELOP AN INITIAL POINT OF VIEW AND DRIVE BROADER ENGAGEMENT
Version 1.0 Version 2.0November
2011June2012
July2012
Develop a strategic framework and initial point of view from the
business and philanthropic
community to improve the overall
competitiveness of the region
Refine the initial plan with the engagement of appropriate audiences, validating major Phase 1 assumptions and at a depth of detail that is actionable. Develop a framework for regional collaboration in execution and for sustaining
and refining the strategy over time
Objective of the Northeast Ohio Regional Economic Competitiveness StrategyCraft a market‐based, regionally shared vision and actionable plan for Northeast Ohio’s economy that aligns and advances key local and regional efforts to measurably impact
economic competitiveness and growth
6
THE APPROACH TO DEVELOP VERSION 1.0 IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Strategy Task Force
Bill Christopher, Task Force Chair, Team NEO & GCP Boards
Tom Waltermire, Team NEO
Brad Whitehead, The Fund For Our Economic Future (FFEF)
Shilpa Kedar, The Cleveland Foundation & FFEF Member
Bob Smith, Team NEO & GCP Boards
Tom Strauss, Team NEO & GAC Boards & FFEF Member
Virginia Albanese, Team NEO & GAC Boards
Bob Joyce, Team NEO Board & FFEF Member
Mark Williams, JumpStart Board
Bill Seelbach, FFEF Board
Christine Mayer, FFEF Board
Joe Roman, Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP)
Dan Colantone, Greater Akron Chamber (GAC)
Tom Humphries, Youngstown‐Warren Regional Chamber
Rebecca Bagley, NorTech
Ned Hill, CSU
Funders
Economic Research Support
7
FOR VERSION 1.0, THE TASK FORCE WORKED TO ANSWER FIVE KEY QUESTIONS
1. What is success and how will it be measured?
2. What is the historical and current state of the regional economy?
3. How competitive is the region – what are our assets and gaps?
4. What are the current economic development interventions and what is the potential impact?
5. What are our initial conclusions and recommendations?
8
OUR FRAMEWORK FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES USEFUL CONTEXT ABOUT THE STRATEGY
SHORT TERM1 – 2 Years
INTERMEDIATE TERM2 – 10 Years
LONG TERM10 – 20 Years
Focus Transactions
Marketing Current Assets
InterventionsStrengthening Regional Competitiveness & Industry Dynamics
InvestmentsChanging the Quality of the
Assets
Econ
omic
Growth
Driv
ers Retention, expansion and
attraction of companies based on the region’s current assets
The success of a regional portfolio of companies and products, people and places
Improved quality of assets including people, place and
knowledge
Objectiv
e of th
e Strategy
TRANSACTIONAL EXCELLENCE:
Leverage existing assets and incentives to maximize thesuccess of each retention, expansion and attraction
transaction
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT:
Invest in interventions that improve and sustain the diversity or quality of the
region’s companies, products, people and places
Coordinate, augment and/or collaborate to enhance public
sector efforts
STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE:
Invest in interventions that improve the quality of the
region's assets
Advocate to influence and innovate public policy
Source: Edward Hill, Dean, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University 9
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
THE NORTHEAST OHIO ECONOMY HISTORICALLY UNDERPERFORMED GDP…
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
U.S.
NEO
10
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
THE NORTHEAST OHIO ECONOMY HISTORICALLY UNDERPERFORMED GDP…
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
U.S.
NEO
1. Sustained decline driven by product life cycle and manufacturing competitiveness
2. NEO economy drivers shift
11
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
…BUT HAS RECENTLY IMPROVED AND IS POSITIONED TO RECOVER…
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
U.S.
NEO
1. Core industries perform well in downturn and recovery
2. Manufacturing base drives recovery3. Assumes no constraints 4. No impact from shale gas or other
local initiatives
1. Sustained decline driven by product life cycle and manufacturing competitiveness
2. NEO economy drivers shift
12
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
…AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ENHANCE THEPOTENTIAL FOR SUSTAINED GROWTH
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
U.S.
NEO
Strategic Initiatives Change Projections
1.Strategic initiatives improve competitiveness
2.EDOs deliver job impact3.Shale gas materializes
1. Core industries perform well in downturn and recovery
2. Manufacturing base drives recovery3. Assumes no constraints 4. No impact from shale gas or other
local initiatives
1. Sustained decline driven by product life cycle and manufacturing competitiveness
2. NEO economy drivers shift
13
2006‐2010 Change
Per Capita Income(Quartile)
GMP(Quartile)
Employment(Quartile)
GMP/Job(Quartile)
Per Capita Income v. National Average
Akron, OH 2 3 3 2 ‐10%Canton‐Massillon, OH 2 4 4 4 ‐21%Cleveland‐Elyria‐Mentor, OH 2 4 4 4 ‐3%Youngstown‐Warren‐Boardman, OH‐PA 2 4 4 4 ‐22%
Cincinnati‐Middletown, OH‐KY‐IN 4 3 3 3 ‐6%Columbus, OH 3 3 2 4 ‐9%Dayton, OH 2 4 4 4 ‐15%Toledo, OH 3 4 4 4 ‐17%
Baltimore‐Towson, MD 1 1 2 1 17%Harrisburg‐Carlisle, PA 1 2 2 2 ‐6%Madison, WI 3 2 1 3 5%Pittsburgh, PA 3 1 1 2 4%Wichita, KS 4 2 2 2 ‐8%
OUR MSAs CAN BE COMPARED TO OTHERS – WHILE IMPROVING, STILL LAG IN OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Akron is the best performing NEO MSAOhio MSAs have underperformedThere are a number of MSAs that have performed well through the recovery
Source: FFEF Dashboard; CSU Center for Economic Development 14
Strategic Drivers
1. Help companies take advantage of immediate growth opportunities through transactional excellence and effective marketing
2. Drive private sector job growth by strengthening the region’s driver industries –with a specific focus on manufacturing
3. Strengthen and connect the region’s innovation, research and commercialization capacity to increase product development in driver and emerging industries
4. Build coalitions that accelerate growth of more emerging industries –leveraging our current and targeted regional advantages
5. Continue to foster and grow the region’s entrepreneurial environment
FOR NEO TO OUTPERFORM THE NATIONAL AVERAGE,WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIC DRIVERS?
15
Strategic Drivers
6. Develop workforce to meet short‐term employer needs; elevate educational attainment and attract high‐skilled people to maximize long‐term competitiveness
7. Align local and regional initiatives that will improve our Quality of Place competitiveness to appeal to growing companies and talented people
8. Strengthen and connect the region’s transportation assets (hub air service, highways, rail and ports) to improve access for people and products to markets near and far
9. Advocate for public policies that lower the cost of living and of doing business in the region, including more efficient government, effective land use and legislation that fosters business growth
10.Develop the coalition(s) of business, philanthropic, education and government leaders to monitor, refine and deliver on the Strategy
FOR NEO TO OUTPERFORM THE NATIONAL AVERAGE,WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIC DRIVERS?
16
What is success & how will it be measured?
17
THERE IS POTENTIAL TO REPOSITION THE ECONOMY WITH THE RECOVERY & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
Region outperforms the national average in key metricsChange in Per Capita Income Change in GRP
MSAs consistently achieve 1st/2nd quartile performance* in key metrics:Change in Per Capita IncomeChange in Employment
Long TermAspiration:
Note: As measured by The Fund For Our Economic Future’s Regional Dashboard of Economic Indicators. There are 136 MSAs that are compared along the metrics above (and additional metrics). The four MSAs in Northeast are among the 136 MSAs in the model.
Change in EmploymentChange in GRP per Job
Change in GMPChange in GMP per Job
Per capita income v. National Average
Per Capita Income v. National Average
18
SHORT TERM1 – 2 Years
INTERMEDIATE TERM2 – 10 Years
LONG TERM10 – 20 Years
REVERSE THE TRENDTake advantage of economic recovery driving “demand” while improving
transaction efficiency
BUILD CAPABILITIESStrategic initiatives
enhance “supply” side, focus on core &
emerging industries, and driving quality of place initiatives at the local and regional level
SUSTAINED GROWTHRegional “supply” of
workforce, high quality of place, transactional efficiency & strong
industry clusters drive sustained growth.
NEO Targets
Change in NEO GRP = the National Average
Change in NEO GRP > the National Average
Change in NEO GRP >the National Average
MSA Targets 2nd ‐3rd Quartile 2nd Quartile 1st ‐2nd Quartile
SUCCESS REQUIRES REVERSING TRENDS & DEVELOPING ABILITY FOR TOP QUARTILE PERFORMANCE
19
What is the historical and current state
of our economy?
20
The Northeast Ohio economy performed worse that the US economy for decades , but current data suggests th is i s changing
Whi le there have been changes in major elements of the economy over t ime, our legacy industr ies remain important ; for example s ince 1995, we have increased indust ry breadth, yet manufactur ing remains the biggest sector at 17% of GRP
The Northeast Ohio economy dec l ined by $9.7B 2006 ‐2010; the biggest contr ibut ion to dec l ine i s the “ loca l compet i t iveness factor ” of the reg ion – populat ion serv ing indust r ies compr ised the major i ty of the dec l ine
NEO’s dr iver industr ies , which compr ise 35% of the reg iona l economy, performed re lat ive ly wel l dur ing the recess ion – GRP dec l ined by less than $400M between 2006 and 2010, but the i r employment dec l ined by 50%− There a re “b r i ght ” spot s emerg ing i n energy, chemica l s and manufac tu r ing segment s that a re benef i t i ng
f rom i nnovat ion
Moody ’s economy.com forecasts NEO’s economy to growth with the nat iona l economy through 2015, but those project ions do not inc lude the sha le gas boom or potent ia l l abor constra ints
The reg ion’s employment cha l lenge for the next decade wi l l ensur ing suff i c ient workers are prepared to compete for the jobs that wi l l be created
There are key r i sk factors that need to be better understood, inc lud ing the impact of heal thcare reform, natura l gas pr ices and the other aspects of the potent ia l sha le oi l boom
NEO ECONOMY IS WELL‐POSITIONED TO OUTPERFORM HISTORY & THE US ECONOMY
21
NEO UNDERPERFORMED THE US ECONOMY FOR DECADES, BUT RECENT PERFORMANCE IS IMPROVED
Source: Moody’s economy.com ; Team NEO
2009‐2010 GRP tracked closely
with GDP22
‐8%
‐6%
‐4%
‐2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
U.S.
NEO
1979‐2010 Annual Change in GRP v. GDP
NEO’S PER CAPITAL INCOME HAS RISEN, BUT NOT AT THE PACE OF THE US
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Per Capita Personal Income
NEO > US
NEO = US
NEO < US
Source: Team NEO; Moody’s economy.com; Data adjusted for inflation
NEOUS
THE NEO ECONOMY EVOLVED 1995‐2006; INDUSTRY BREADTH WILL BETTER WEATHER DOWNTURNS
0
50
100
150
200
1995 2006 2010
NEO GRP By Industry$B
Manufacturing15%
Real Estate &Leasing 11%
Health Care &Social Asst 9%
All Other34%
Retail Trade 7%
Finance & Ins 8%
Source: Moody’s economy.com; Team NEO
Wholesale Trade 7%
24
Local Government7%
Construction 3%
Manufacturing17%
Real Estate &Leasing 12%
Health Care &Social Asst 10%
All Other29%
Retail Trade 7%
Finance & Ins 9%
Wholesale Trade 8%
Local Government7%
Construction 3%
Manufacturing23%
Real Estate &Leasing 11%
Health Care &Social Asst 8%
All Other28%
Retail Trade 6%
Finance & Ins 7%
Wholesale Trade 4%
Local Government7%
Construction 5%
$159B
$186B$178B
Wholesale Trade and Other Non‐Manufacturing Industries Have Gradually Increased Their Share Of GRP, Offsetting Declines In Manufacturing & Construction
184.8
175.1
1.5 (1.4)(9.8)
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE 2006‐2010 ECONOMIC DECLINE WAS DRIVEN BY A LOCAL COMPETITIVENESS EFFECT OF ‐$9.8B
2006‐2010 Changes in GRP$B
GRP
Export Industry Performance (Driver & Other Export Industries)
Population Serving Industry Performance
National Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the growth of the national economy
Mix Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the change in the
national trajectory of individual industries
Local Competitiveness
Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the competitiveness
of the region’s companies and
industries
Population Serving Industries Comprised ~60% of the Local Competitiveness
Effect
25
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2
THE LOCAL EFFECT DECLINED BY $9.8B, DRIVEN BY DECLINES IN SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES
Other Decliners (n=47)Machinery ManufacturingSpecialty Trade ContractorsReal EstateComputer and Electronic Product ManufacturingFederal GovernmentHospitalsFabricated Metal Product ManufacturingProfessional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesAmbulatory Health Care ServicesTransportation Equipment ManufacturingLocal GovernmentPrimary Metal ManufacturingCredit Intermediation and Related Activities
Chemical ManufacturingManagement of Companies and EnterprisesPetroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
UtilitiesElectrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component
Other Gainers (n=23)
2006‐2010 Changes in Local Effect$B
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com; 3 digit NAICS level
Population Serving Industry Performance
Export Industry Performance (Driver & Other Export Industries)
Large Declines In Population Serving Industries Impacted
The Economy
26
NEO’S ECONOMY DRIVERS COMPRISE NEARLY $60B, 33% OF 2010 GRP
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10
Agents and Managers for Public Figures
Water, Sewage and Other Systems
Coal Mining
Other Investment Pools and Funds
Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Other Information Services
Oil and Gas Extraction
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Leasing
Natural Gas Distribution
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
Management of Companies and Enterprises*
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals*
Lessors of Real Estate
Activities Related to Real Estate
Securities and Commodity ExchangesMonetary Authorities‐Central BankCutlery and Handtool ManufacturingVending Machine OperatorsClay Product and Refractory ManufacturingHousehold Appliance ManufacturingNonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and ProcessingCoating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied ActivitiesFoundriesIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy ManufacturingBoiler, Tank, and Shipping Container ManufacturingSteel Product Manufacturing from Purchased SteelMetalworking Machinery ManufacturingForging and StampingMetal and Mineral (except Petroleum) Merchant WholesalersResin and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments ManufacturingPaint, Coating, and Adhesive ManufacturingMotor Vehicle ManufacturingOther General Purpose Machinery ManufacturingElectrical Equipment ManufacturingBasic Chemical ManufacturingMachine Shops; Turned Product ManufacturingPlastics Product ManufacturingMotor Vehicle Parts ManufacturingOther Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
2010 Growth Drivers: $36.9B 2010 Traditional Base $20.2B
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com; *Industries are both Growth Drivers and Economic Base industries 27
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10
Agents and Managers for Public Figures
Water, Sewage and Other Systems
Coal Mining
Other Investment Pools and Funds
Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
Other Information Services
Oil and Gas Extraction
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Leasing
Natural Gas Distribution
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
Management of Companies and Enterprises*
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals*
Lessors of Real Estate
Activities Related to Real Estate
Securities and Commodity ExchangesMonetary Authorities‐Central BankCutlery and Handtool ManufacturingVending Machine OperatorsClay Product and Refractory ManufacturingHousehold Appliance ManufacturingNonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and ProcessingCoating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied ActivitiesFoundriesIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy ManufacturingBoiler, Tank, and Shipping Container ManufacturingSteel Product Manufacturing from Purchased SteelMetalworking Machinery ManufacturingForging and StampingMetal and Mineral (except Petroleum) Merchant WholesalersResin and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments ManufacturingPaint, Coating, and Adhesive ManufacturingMotor Vehicle ManufacturingOther General Purpose Machinery ManufacturingElectrical Equipment ManufacturingBasic Chemical ManufacturingMachine Shops; Turned Product ManufacturingPlastics Product ManufacturingMotor Vehicle Parts ManufacturingOther Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
2010 Growth Drivers: $36.9B 2010 Traditional Base $20.2B
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com; *Industries are both Growth Drivers and Economic Base industries
Real Estate Activities Benefiting from Recession
Large, National Real Estate Companies
Hospitals
Corporate Management
Energy Generation & Distribution & Manufacturing of Related
Products
…
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Chemicals
NEO’S ECONOMY DRIVERS COMPRISE NEARLY $60B, 33% OF 2010 GRP
28
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
LOCAL COMPETITIVENESS OF DRIVER INDUSTRIES PERFORMED RELATIVELY WELL 2006‐2010
2006‐2010 Changes in GRP for Economy Driving Industries$B
57.757.1
0.5
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
GRP of Economy Driving Industries
(0.4)(0.7)
Driver Industries’ GRP & Local Competitiveness Were Relatively Flat 2006‐2010
Traditional Base
Growth Drivers
National Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the growth of the national economy
Mix Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the change in the
national trajectory of individual industries
Local Competitiveness
Effect:The change in GRP that is attributed to the competitiveness
of the region’s companies and
industries
29
‐20,000 ‐15,000 ‐10,000 ‐5,000 0 5,000 10,000
EMPLOYMENT DECLINED BY 50% INDRIVER INDUSTRIES BETWEEN 2006 AND 2010
2006‐2010 Changes in Employment For Economy Driving Industries
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
General Medical and Surgical HospitalsBoiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing
Activities Related to Real EstateNatural Gas DistributionOil and Gas Extraction
Other Decliners (n=18)Clay Product and Refractory ManufacturingOther Metal and Mineral Merchant WholesalersManagement of Companies and EnterprisesIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy ManufacturingOther General Purpose Machinery ManufacturingCoating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied ActivitiesOther Fabricated Metal Product ManufacturingForging and StampingMetalworking Machinery ManufacturingFoundriesMachine Shops; etcOther Nonferrous Metal Production and ProcessingMotor Vehicle ManufacturingPlastics Product ManufacturingMotor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Auto Industry Drove The Employment
Decline
30
NEO’S GRP IS PROJECTED TO IMPROVE WITH THE NATIONAL ECONOMY UNTIL 2015…
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com; dashed lines indicate projections
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
U.S.
NEO
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Annual Change In Employment
U.S.
NEO
2009‐2015: Projected to recover with the National Economy
31
…THEN REPEAT HISTORY AND UNDERPERFORM THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Annual Change In GRP v. GDP
U.S.
NEO
‐10.0%
‐5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Annual Change In Employment
U.S.
NEO
2016‐2019: Projected to lose our strong position –outperformance required improving the quality of
our assets32
EMPLOYMENT IN THE REGION IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO 2.1M BY 2019…
33
1,750
1,850
1,950
2,050
2,150
2,250
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
NEO is projected to add nearly 200K jobs and achieve
pre‐recession levels by 2015…
Northeast Ohio Employment000
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
EMPLOYMENT IN THE REGION IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO 2.1M BY 2019…
34
1,750
1,850
1,950
2,050
2,150
2,250
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
NEO is projected to add nearly 200K jobs and achieve
pre‐recession levels by 2015…
Northeast Ohio Employment000
…and that does not include the shale boom and the impact of
other interventions…
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
EMPLOYMENT IN THE REGION IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO 2.1M BY 2019…
35
1,750
1,850
1,950
2,050
2,150
2,250
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
NEO is projected to add nearly 200K jobs and achieve
pre‐recession levels by 2015…
Northeast Ohio Employment000
…and that does not include the shale boom and the impact of
other interventions…
…currently, there are only ~170K unemployed people
in the NEO workforce
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
…REVEALING NEW WORKFORCE CHALLENGES FOR THE COMING DECADE
36
1,750
1,850
1,950
2,050
2,150
2,250
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Northeast Ohio Employment000
NEO’s NEW WORKFORCE CHALLENGE
Through 2019, Northeast Ohio will be challenged to supply sufficient workers who are prepared to compete for the jobs that will be required to fuel the projected GRP
growth
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
MAKING THE DATA ACTIONABLE & ALIGNING INTERVENTIONS
% Growth GRP
2006‐20
10
2010 Location Quotient
Location Quotient:Measure of the regional share of economic activity in an industry
to the national share of economic activity in that industry.
37
% Growth GRP
2006‐20
10
2010 Location Quotient
Growth Opportunity BaseInvest In Efforts To improve The LQ
Other Industry BaseAllow natural evolution
of the industries
Strong Economic BaseSafeguard continued
good health of the industry
Traditionally Competitive BaseInvest In Efforts To
innovate the product portfolio
MAKING THE DATA ACTIONABLE & ALIGNING INTERVENTIONS
38
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GROWTH DRIVERS ARELARGE WITH MODEST LQs AND GROWTH
Growth Drivers – GRP Growth v. LQ
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Cha
nge GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
39
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GROWTH DRIVERS ARELARGE WITH MODEST LQs AND GROWTH
Growth Drivers – GRP Growth v. LQ
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Cha
nge GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
High LQ and Low‐Moderate Growth
What can we do to encourage or support product innovation and
increased attraction and expansion of companies?
40
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GROWTH DRIVERS ARELARGE WITH MODEST LQs AND GROWTH
Growth Drivers – GRP Growth v. LQ
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Cha
nge GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
LQ of ~1 and Moderate‐High GrowthHow do we increase NEO’s
competitiveness?
41
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GROWTH DRIVERS ARELARGE WITH MODEST LQs AND GROWTH
Growth Drivers – GRP Growth v. LQ
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Cha
nge GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
High Growth and Low LQCould we improve the
attractiveness of NEO? How?
42
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
THE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GROWTH DRIVERS ARELARGE WITH MODEST LQs AND GROWTH
Growth Drivers – GRP Growth v. LQ
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Cha
nge GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
Low LQ and Low GrowthFocus interventions in other industries where either growth or LQ is
promising
43
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
OUR TRADITIONAL BASE INDUSTRIES HAVE VERY HIGH LQs AND ARE PROJECTED TO GROW
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Growth GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
Traditional Base – GRP Growth v. LQ
44
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.comSource: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Growth GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
Traditional Base – GRP Growth v. LQ
Very High LQ and GrowthHow do we safeguard our success?
OUR TRADITIONAL BASE INDUSTRIES HAVE VERY HIGH LQs AND ARE PROJECTED TO GROW
45
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Source: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.comSource: CSU Center for Economic Development; Moody’s economy.com
% Growth GRP
2010‐20
19
2010 Location Quotient
Traditional Base – GRP Growth v. LQ
Very High LQ and Low GrowthWhat can we do to encourage or support
product innovation and increased attraction and expansion of companies?
OUR TRADITIONAL BASE INDUSTRIES HAVE VERY HIGH LQs AND ARE PROJECTED TO GROW
46
2006‐2010 GRP Growth
>5%
<5%
Work with strategy stakeholders and appropriate partners to ensure broader understanding of the economy and encourage use of the data as a foundation for decision making
Dig into the driver industries to identify potential regional interventions to accelerate growth rates, enhance the LQs and enhance overall competitiveness
Define the objectives of any additional economic research and analysis required for Version 2.0 of the strategy
NEXT STEPS FOR THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
47
How competitive is the region –what are our assets and gaps?
48
THE REGION’S OVERALL COMPETITIVENESS IS IMPROVING, YET CONTINUED EFFORTS ARE NEEDED
There are many existing frameworks for assessing competitiveness, but key themes have emerged that we have tentatively labeled as products, people and places
The FFEF’s Dashboard of Economic Indicators provides a useful tool for assessing the competitiveness of the four largest NEO metro areas vs. 132 other MSAs nationally
NEO metros have clear competitive strengths and significant competitive weaknesses
Version 1.0 has identified goals, assets and gaps as they relate to products, people and places
49
EFFORTS TO ASSESS COMPETITIVENESS VARY,COMMON THEMES EMERGE
FFEF Dashboard of Economic Indicators
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Brookings Institution
Economic Development Administration
ProductsTechnology, Innovation,
Entrepreneurship,Exports
Technology Commercialization Patents Issued Innovation
Innovation
Entrepreneurship Networks
PeoplePrepared
workforce & educated talent
Skilled Workforce& R&D
Educational Attainment (BA’s) Human Capital Brain Power
PlacesQuality,
Connected Communities
Racial Inclusion
Income Equality
Legacy of Place
Infrastructure
Quality of Place
Quality, Connected Places
Civic Collaboration
Other 5 other factors Branding Experiences
1
2
3
50
VERSION 1.0’S ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FOCUSED IN 3 AREAS
Products People PlacesInnovation, technology,
entrepreneurship, and efficient access
to markets, particularly in key industry clusters,
determine a region’s ability to produce and sell more products in a global economy
A well‐preparedworkforce is needed to meet current and projected demands, and a competitive region needs well‐educated talent capable of out‐innovating the
competition over the long term
Well‐governed, connected, quality
places that offer easy access to education, jobs and cultural and natural amenitiesappeal to growing companies and talented people
51
Quartile performance of MSAs vs. comparison set, 2009 data; NA= Not Available1 Source: FFEF Dashboard, Ranked 136 metropolitan statistical areas (excludes largest and smallest metros) 2 Source: Moody’s Economy.com, Ranked vs. top 100 metros (2008 data)3 Source: Moody’s North American Business Cost Review, Ranked vs. 384 metros (2008 data)4 Source: Brookings, combines Canton/Cle/Ytown and removes duplicate flights, Ranked vs. top 100 metros5 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Ranked vs. Top 40 freight transportation gateways.
Northeast Ohio Akron Canton ‐
Massillon
Cleveland –Elyria ‐Mentor
Youngstown – Warren ‐Boardman
Prod
ucts
VC Raised1 NA 3 3 1 4Industry R&D1 NA 2 4 2 4University R&D1 NA 2 4 2 4Patents1 NA 1 1 2 3Exports as % of GMP2 NA 2 NA 1 1
Peop
le
% of population in professional occupation1 NA 3 4 2 4% of population with a graduate or professional degree1 NA 3 4 2 4
% of population with bachelors’ degree1 NA 2 4 3 4% foreign born population1 NA 4 4 3 4
Places
Cost of Doing Business3 NA 2 4 2 4Broadband Penetration2 NA 2 NA 2 3State & Local Tax Index3 NA 4 4 4 4Housing Affordability2 2 2 NA 2 2Direct Flight Connections4 1 NA NA NA NAValue of freight handled by air land and sea ports5 NA NA NA 2 NA
COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE OF NEO MSAs VS. OTHER MSAs
52
Goals Assets Gaps
Improve product development,
particularly within core and emerging industry clusters
World‐class research capacity
Manufacturing capacity that has embraced innovation
Support infrastructure for emerging clusters
Third Frontier investments
Business retention, growth and attraction network
Below national average in research spending
Research capacity to support key industry sectors (chemistry)
Connections among industry and research assets
Availability of capital
PRODUCTS – INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY, CLUSTERS ENTREPRENEURSHIP & EXPORTS
53
Goals Assets Gaps
Build portfolio of high‐growth companies
Robust entrepreneurial ecosystem
Third Frontier investments
Executive talent with high‐growth experience
Availability of capital
Supply of serialentrepreneurs
Number of second‐stage companies
Large proportion of company mix is mature, low growth
54
PRODUCTS – INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY, CLUSTERS ENTREPRENEURSHIP & EXPORTS
Goals Assets Gaps
Expand exportsDomesticInternational
Air and water ports
Product mix is export friendly
Healthy base of global companies
Diverse transportation assets
Small‐, mid‐sized companies lack export capacity
Connected logistics and transit systems
55
PRODUCTS – INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY, CLUSTERS ENTREPRENEURSHIP & EXPORTS
PEOPLE – WORKFORCE, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT,TALENT ATTRACTION
Goals Assets Gaps
Better prepare workforce to compete for
available jobs that will help
employers grow
Pockets of excellence with WIBs, Career Centers, Community Colleges
Emerging industry‐driven efforts (RITE Board, NEOHealthForce etc.)
Gov. Kasich focused on reform
Clarity, transparency of present and near‐term gap between supply and demand
Coordination, accountability, alignment of institutions
Employers’ ability aggregate demand for workers to influence talentdevelopment system
Employers’ success elevating entry level workers to fill demand for middle‐skill workers 56
Goals Assets Gaps
Elevate educational attainment
27 accredited colleges and universities
209,000 enrolled students
30,000 post‐secondary degrees and certificates issued per year
Pockets of primary and secondary school excellence
Effective local efforts to elevate educational attainment (Stark Education Partnership)
Understanding of longer‐term talent demand and supply, demographics of talent base and understanding of higher education system performance
Multiplicity of K‐12 school districts with varying degrees of resources and challenges
Coordination, accountability and alignment of higher education system
57
PEOPLE – WORKFORCE, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT,TALENT ATTRACTION
Goals Assets Gaps
Attract and retain higher‐educated, higher‐skilled
talent
Pockets of internship excellence
Emerging local talent attraction initiatives
Diverse downtowns and other assets that appeal to younger, talented workers
Coordinated talent attraction efforts
Level of immigration
Coordinated, connected internship programs
58
PEOPLE – WORKFORCE, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT,TALENT ATTRACTION
PLACES – GOVERNANCE, CONNECTEDNESS &QUALITY OF PLACE
Goal Assets Gaps
Vibrant, connected urban cores
Robust internet infrastructure
Diverse downtowns
World‐class cultural assets, natural assets and amenities
Land banks
24‐7 downtowns
Downtown and near‐downtown residential
Infrastructure
Connections of people to educational and economic opportunities
Aligned land use and infrastructure that strengthencompetitiveness
Vibrant, connected rural communities
OARDC
Local‐food networks
Land conservancies
Land banks
Aligned land use and infrastructure that strengthencompetitiveness
Incentives to protect and preserve working lands
59
Goal Assets Gaps
Efficient, effective governance
State policy
Strengthening collaboration efforts
Federal support of nascent coordinated planning efforts
Aligned land use and infrastructure that strengthencompetitiveness
Capacity to improve governmental efficiency, effectiveness
State policies that promote more efficient, effective local government
Efficient access to regional, national and global markets
Multiple airports
Multiple ports
Inter‐states
Rail assets
Robust internet infrastructure
Regional air service strategy
Connected logistics and transit systems
Relatively high labor costs
60
PLACES – GOVERNANCE, CONNECTEDNESS &QUALITY OF PLACE
NEXT STEPS FORHOW WE COMPETE
Update Dashboard of Economic Indicators to increase understanding of competitiveness factors and the region’s ability to compete within those factors
Conduct gap analysis to align with Gov. Kasich’s effort to better match workforce/talent supply and demand
Prioritize existing and potential interventions
Advocate for state and federal policies that enhance our Strategy
61
What are the current economic development interventions and what is the potential impact?
62
NEO’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS HAVE BORNE FRUIT, YET OPPORTUNITIES EXISTHistorical investments in economic development organizat ions are paying dividends and create an opportunity for accelerated growth
Current regional in it iat ives have the potential to create ~60K new jobs and $15B in capital investment – col lect ive retention and expansion efforts should signif icantly increase those outcomes
Init iat ives have been enabled by strong leadership and committed funding, but the system is “expensive” ( leadership and funding) and core funding for operations is decl ining
Comprehensive strategies are needed to:− Achieve broad‐based excellence in commercialization support− Infuse product innovation and commercialization in driver industries with low growth− Enhance the local assets supporting high growth driver industries− Improve the ability of the region’s workforce to compete for the jobs that will be in demand
− Effectively connect regional economic development strategies to urban cores
There are countless mega ‐regional , sub ‐regional , local and hyper ‐ local in it iat ives that may signif icantly increase the regional outcomes, but inconsistencies in metrics and t imel ines prevent aggregation
63
Manufac‐turing
Water Technologies
Advanced Energy*
Ag‐BioBiomedical
Technology/industry sectors
Cross‐cutting en
ablers
Flexible Electronics
*Advanced Energy includes energy efficiency fuel cell, smart grid, energy storage, biomass/waste to energy , nuclear, clean coal, solar, wind, electric transportation and shale gas
MANY REGIONAL INTERVENTIONS ARE CROSS‐CUTTING ENABLERS THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES
Tourism
Entrepreneurship
Workforce/Talent (not comprehensive)
Company Recruitment
Retention & Expansion
Technology Commercialization (not comprehensive)
Inclusion in identified industry sectors
Advocacy
External Marketing and Communications
EXISTING PLANNED
64
CURRENT & FUTURE IMPACT CAN ONLY BE AGGREGATED FOR INTERVENTIONS TRACKED BY FFEF
AmountInvested 2011 2011 Year End 2012‐2018
ProjectedResponsibleOrganization
Manufacturing$4.3M 369 New Jobs
730 Retained Jobs$50.3M Capital
12.7K New Jobs5.5K Retained Jobs$538.7M Capital
MAGNET
Biomedical $30 M 2.3 K Jobs$152M Capital
7.5 K Jobs$200M V Capital BioE ‐ Partners
Advanced Energy $1.6 M 226 jobs$17 M
9.9K Jobs$662M Capital NorTech
Flexible Electronics $870 K 67 jobs$17 M
1.5K Jobs$100M Capital NorTech
Entrepreneurship $15.5 M 2.3K Jobs$221M Capital
7.7K Jobs$350M Capital JS ‐ JEN
Company recruitment $3.9M 1.4K Jobs$52M new payroll
8 K Jobs$300M new payroll Team NEO
Retention and expansion
$4.9M 4 K New Jobs
8 K Retained Jobs$1.5B Capital
40K New Jobs, 83K Retained Jobs
$13B Capital
JobsOhioNetwork
65Source: NorTech, BioEnterprise, TeamNEO, MAGNET, FFEF
ESTIMATING THE COLLECTIVE IMPACT OF INITIATIVES REQUIRES CONSISTENCY OF METRICS
We have compiled a database of nearly 100 mega‐regional, regional, local and hyper‐local initiatives
including…
Key Insights
Strong, vibrant cities and communities are critical for the long‐term vibrancy of the region
The NEO Regional Competitiveness Strategy is interested in understanding the potential collective impact of local initiatives
We recommend that funders encourage consistency of key metrics (job creation, capital attracted or invested, etc) and timelines to enable regional data aggregation
Mahoning River ConsortiumEvergreen Cooperatives
The Oberlin ProjectUniversity Park Alliance
Food Security ClusterStark Education Partnership
66
ASSESSING INITIATIVES BY IMPACT & PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS PROVIDES INSTRUCTIVE INSIGHT
Impact
Low
Low High
High
Prob
ability of S
uccess
67
SECTORS TO BE ASSESSED
Manufacturing – related to value added manufacturing that MAGNET is leading
Biomedical – led by BioEnterprise and its partner organizations
Advanced Energy – NorTech is leading in 11 sectors of energy with different emphasis depending on the sector
Flexible Electronics – NorTech is leading
Ag‐Bio – Early stages with OARDC and Wayne County Economic Development leading
Water Technologies – NorTech is leading a industry driven roadmapping process specif ic to waste and storm water clean up
Tourism – dispersed in many organizat ions across the region
68
ASSESSING INITIATIVES BY IMPACT & PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS PROVIDES INSTRUCTIVE INSIGHT
ENABLERS TO BE ASSESSED
Entrepreneurship – Jumpstart Entrepreneurial Network
Company recruitment – Team NEO tradit ional role
Retention & expansion – JobsOhio regional network
Workforce/talent – dispersed throughout the region
Technology Commercialization – focused within the cluster areas more than cohesive regional strategy
Inclusion in identified industry sectors – NorTech is leading a regional effort with the regional partners and the Fund
External Marketing and Communications – Cleveland Plus
Advocacy ‐ Chambers
69
ASSESSING INITIATIVES BY IMPACT & PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS PROVIDES INSTRUCTIVE INSIGHT
Impact
QUALITATIVE SECTOR ASSESSMENT REVEALS CONSISTENCY RE:IMPACT, UNCERTAINTY ABOUT TOURISM
Advanced Energy
Water Technologies
Ag‐Bio
Biomedical
Flexible Electronics
Manufacturing
TourismTourism
70Low
Low High
High
Prob
ability of S
uccess
Impact
Workforce/Talent
Company Recruitment
Technology Commercialization
Entrepreneurship
Company Recruitment
Retention and ExpansionAdvocacy
Inclusion
Marketing
Marketing
71Low
Low High
High
Prob
ability of S
uccess
QUALITATIVE ENABLER ASSESSMENT REVEALSUNCERTAINTY IN SOME CURRENT AREAS OF FOCUS
Inclusion
NEXT STEPS FOR ASSESSINGTHE IMPACT OF OUR INTERVENTIONS
Assess existing sector and enabler interventions based on potential impact and likelihood of success
Obtain additional input, as appropriate, about the potential impact of additional initiatives
Connect the dots between this analysis and the economic deep dive into driver industries and potential interventions
Connect the dots between this analysis and the competitiveness gaps that have been identified
72
Strategic Drivers
1. Help companies take advantage of immediate growth opportunities through transactional excellence and effective marketing
2. Drive private sector job growth by strengthening the region’s driver industries –with a specific focus on manufacturing
3. Strengthen and connect the region’s innovation, research and commercialization capacity to increase product development in driver and emerging industries
4. Build coalitions that accelerate growth of more emerging industries –leveraging our current and targeted regional advantages
5. Continue to foster and grow the region’s entrepreneurial environment
FOR NEO TO OUTPERFORM THE NATIONAL AVERAGE,WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIC DRIVERS?
73
Strategic Drivers
6. Develop workforce to meet short‐term employer needs; elevate educational attainment and attract high‐skilled people to maximize long‐term competitiveness
7. Align local and regional initiatives that will improve our Quality of Place competitiveness to appeal to growing companies and talented people
8. Strengthen and connect the region’s transportation assets (hub air service, highways, rail and ports) to improve access for people and products to markets near and far
9. Advocate for public policies that lower the cost of living and of doing business in the region, including more efficient government, effective land use and legislation that fosters business growth
10.Develop the coalition(s) of business, philanthropic, education and government leaders to monitor, refine and deliver on the Strategy
FOR NEO TO OUTPERFORM THE NATIONAL AVERAGE,WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIC DRIVERS?
74
75
Activities/EDOs• Retention & Expansion• Attraction• Advocacy• Workforce Development• Nortech• Bio Enterprise• Jump Start• Magnet• Chambers• City/County Strategies• Others…
Green: Current strength but may require some refinement/clarifications
Orange: Significant opportunity to align with regional strategy
Red: Significant gap to be addressed
IMPACT OF STRATEGIC DRIVERS ARE SPREAD OVER TIME –ALIGNING INITIATIVES IS KEY TO VERSION 2.0
SHORT TERM1 – 2 Years
INTERMEDIATE TERM
2 – 10 Years
LONG TERM10 – 20 Years
Strategic Driv
ers
Enable short‐term Demand growth and expand regional marketing
Transportation strategy maintaining/growing air service and grow ground transport competitiveness
Workforce for short term demand
Drive private sector job growth‐ focus on core industries/manufacturing
Improve education attainment across the region
Workforce to develop a long‐term supply for to support growth
Leverage and Build on Innovation strengths
Align local and regional initiatives to improve Quality of Place
Attract and Develop emerging industry clusters
Foster and grow Entrepreneurial environment
Advocate to improve cost of living and of doing business in the region
Coalition to monitor progress, refine and deliver strategic initiatives
75
NEXT STEPS FOR THE TASK FORCE& THE OVERALL STRATEGY EFFORT
Communicate with and obtain input and endorsement from key organizationsUpdate and solicit initial input from key elected officials and select organizations re: Version 1.0
76
VERSION 1.0
VERSION 2.0Develop and prioritize proposed actions to enable strategic driversDeep dive selected areas to better understand and quantify the gaps/opportunities Develop a process and engage a broader community across the region to refine the strategy, gain broader endorsement and ownershipDevelop organization options for ongoing ownership, monitoring, reporting and refinement of Regional Strategy