Oregon Statewide Economic Development Needs Assessment: A Survey of Economic Development Specialists       Prepared  By:   University  of  Oregon     Economic  Development  Administration   University  Center   Community  Service  Center   University  of  Oregon   1209  University  of  Oregon     Eugene,  Oregon  97403-­‐1209     March  2012         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The  UO  Economic  Development  Center  would  like  to  thank  the  individuals  and   organizations  that  funded  and  supported  the  Oregon  Economic  Development   Needs  Assessment.  We  give  special  thanks  to  the  Oregon  Economic  Development   Association  (OEDA)  and  to  the  organizations  who  took  the  time  to  interview  with   EDC  staff,  the  individuals  who  participated  in  the  needs  assessment  survey,  and   those  who  helped  to  guide  this  project.     Partners Oregon  Economic  Development  Association,  Erik  Anderson  and  Tom  Fox   League  of  Oregon  Cities,  Michael  Novak   Association  of  Oregon  Counties,  Ann  Hanus   Funder U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Economic  Development  Administration   EDC Staff Bob  Parker,  Managing  Director  of  the  Community  Service  Center  and  Economic   Development  Center,  University  of  Oregon   Tom  Osdoba,  Managing  Director  for  the  Center  of  Sustainable  Business,  University   of  Oregon   Megan  Smith,  Managing  Director  of  the  Community  Service  Center  and  Program   Director  for  Resource  Assistance  to  Rural  Environments,  University  of  Oregon   Project Advisors Rich  Margerum,  Director  Community  and  Regional  Planning  Program,  Department   of  Planning,  Public  Policy  and  Management,  University  of  Oregon   Robert  Young,  Assistant  Professor,  Department  of  Planning,  Public  Policy  and   Management,  University  of  Oregon   Researchers Scott  Turnoy,  Kate  MacFarland,  Community  Planning  Workshop  Graduate  Research   Assistants,  Becky  Steckler,  AICP  Adjunct  Research  Assistant   About the UO EDC The  University  of  Oregon  Economic  Development  Center  is  a  partnership  between   the  Community  Service  Center,  the  Center  for  Sustainable  Business  Practices,  the   Sustainable  Cities  Initiative,  and  UO  faculty.  The  UO  Center  provides  technical   assistance  to  organizations  throughout  Oregon,  with  a  focus  on  rural  economic   development.  The  UO  Center  seeks  to  align  local  strategies  to  community  needs,   specifically  with  regards  to  building  understanding  of  the  benefits  of  sustainable   practices  and  providing  technical  training  to  capitalize  on  economic  opportunities   related  to  those  practices.  The  EDC  is  partially  funded  through  a  grant  from  the  U.S.   Department  of  Commerce,  Economic  Development  Administration.   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  i   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This  report  presents  the  results  of  a  statewide  economic  development  needs   assessment  of  Oregon  communities.  The  primary  objective  of  the  needs   assessment  was  to  better  understand  economic  development  professional’s   perceptions  of  the  following:  key  assets  and  barriers  to  local  economic   development,  the  relative  emphasis  and  perceived  effectiveness  of  economic   development  strategies,  the  extent  and  impact  of  organizational  coordination,   and  technical  assistance  needs.   The  U.S.  Economic  Development  Administration  provided  funding  for  the   statewide  economic  development  needs  assessment  (as  part  of  the  EDA’s   University  Center  program).  The  primary  research  tool  for  the  needs  assessment   was  an  online  survey  of  economic  development  professionals  throughout  the   state.  The  University  of  Oregon  Economic  Development  Center  partnered  with   the  Oregon  Economic  Development  Association  to  conduct  the  needs  assessment   survey  in  June  and  July  of  2010.  The  survey  focused  on  economic  development   professionals’  perceptions  regarding  physical,  political/programmatic,  and   community  factors  of  economic  development.     Key Assets and Barriers to Economic Development Many  physical,  political/programmatic,  and  community  elements  influence  a   community’s  ability  to  pursue  economic  development  strategies.  Figure  A-­‐1  lists   the  key  assets  and  barriers  to  economic  development  in  local  communities.   Elements  related  to  land  base  and  infrastructure,  such  as  the  availability  of  large   industrial  sites,  transportation  infrastructure,  and  infrastructure  financing   received  mixed  responses,  representing  assets  in  some  communities  and  barriers   in  others.  This  situation  suggests  that  local  land  supply  and  infrastructure   conditions  vary  depending  on  jurisdiction.  Similar  results  were  found  for   perceptions  of  land  use  regulations,  state  tax  structure,  and  land  use  permitting   processes.  Geographic  analysis  of  survey  results  suggest  regional  differences   between  communities  dependent  on  industries  constrained  by  natural  resource   regulations  and  those  that  are  not.     Communities  that  leverage  traditional  assets  related  to  land  and  infrastructure   and  emphasize  unique  environmental,  social,  recreational,  educational,  and  other   amenities  may  develop  compelling  advantages  over  alternative  locations.   These  findings  suggest  that  it  will  continue  to  be  important  to  support  and   strengthen  organizations  that  provide  business  support.  Communities  must  focus   on  businesses  if  economic  development  strategies  are  to  succeed.  Political  and   community  support  is  critical.  To  strengthen  the  efforts  of  these  organizations,   coordination  among  all  organizations  that  conduct  economic  development   activities  will  be  important.     Page  |  ii   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Figure  A-­‐1.  Key  assets  and  barriers  to  economic  development  to  economic  development   in  Oregon  communities,  2010     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   In  addition,  a  focus  on  infrastructure  planning  and  funding  will  be  critical  for  the   economic  health  of  Oregon  communities.  Without  infrastructure  in  at  the  right   place  at  the  right  time,  economic  development  opportunities  will  be  missed.  The   costs  of  building  and  maintaining  infrastructure  are  straining  the  capacity  of  many   local  governments  that  have  inadequate  revenues  to  fund  needed  improvements.   Cities  should  focus  on  building  quality  communities  if  they  hope  to  compete  for   highly  skilled  workers.  Highly  skilled  workers  (and  the  employers  that  employ   them)  value  parks,  schools,  quality  urban  design,  and  easy  access  to  jobs,  housing,   shopping,  and  recreation.  Affordable  housing  is  an  important  component  of   building  quality  communities  that  all  communities  should  address.   Strategic Emphasis and Effectiveness A  primary  goal  of  our  needs  assessment  was  to  better  understand  local  economic   development  strategies  in  use,  as  well  as  their  perceived  effectiveness.  Although   not  every  community  in  Oregon  has  an  economic  development  strategy,  88%  of   respondents  indicated  their  communities  do  have  a  strategy  as  shown  in  Figure  2.   Figure  2  also  shows  the  most  common  emphasis  of  the  strategy  and  strategies   used  by  economic  development  organizations.     Organizadon/program   support  for  businesses   Infrastructure   Employment  land  supply   Quality  of  life  and  job  training   resources   Polidcal  and  community   support  for  economic   development   Availability  of  labor   Land  use  reguladons,   agencies,  and  permifng   process   Family  wage  jobs   Access  to  capital  for   individuals,  businesses,  and   municipalides   Affordable  housing   Ke y   As se ts   Key  Barriers   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  iii   Figure  A-­‐2.  Strategic  emphasis  of  economic  development  strategies  in  Oregon   communities,  2010       Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   A  majority  of  respondents  (65%)  consider  the  local  economic  development   strategy  to  be  at  least  moderately  effective  and  an  equal  proportion  of   respondents  consider  the  strategy  to  be  successful  at  achieving  objectives.   However,  respondents  associated  with  an  evenly  balanced  approach  between   recruitment  and  retention  were  more  likely  to  consider  the  strategy  very  effective   or  very  successful  than  respondents  associated  with  a  recruitment-­‐oriented  or   retention/expansion-­‐oriented  approach.   Our  community  has  an     economic  development     strategy  (88%)   Emphasis  on  retenLon  of   exisLng  businesses  (56%)   Most  frequently     used  strategies   Provide  adequate  supply  of   development  sites  with  access     to  services  and  udlides   Provide  an  efficient  permifng   process   Development  districts   Tax  abatement   Workforce  training  programs   Improve  transportadon   infrastructure  and  opdons   Least  frequently     used  strategies   Export  promodon  assistance   Public  procurement  programs   Providing  an  adequate  supply     of  affordable  housing   Emphasis  on     recruitment  (28%)   Most  frequently     used  strategies     Provide  adequate  supply  of   development  sites  with  access   to  services  and  udlides   Provide  an  efficient  permifng   process     Development  districts   Workforce  training  programs   Least  frequently     used  strategies   Public  procurement  programs   Business  incubators   Provision  of  low-­‐cost  loans   Balance  between   recruitment  and  retenLon/ expansion  (16%)   Page  |  iv   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Perceptions  regarding  economic  development  strategies  generally  indicate  the   importance  of  implementing  a  relatively  balanced  approach  between  recruitment   and  retention/expansion  of  businesses.  Although  Oregon  communities  are   predominantly  focused  on  retention/expansion  approaches  to  economic   development,  communities  that  appropriately  emphasize  recruitment  and   retention  within  the  overall  approach  and  use  multiple  strategies  in  support  of   each  approach  tend  to  perceive  higher  levels  of  strategy  effectiveness  and   success  on  average.   Development  of  an  appropriate  blend  of  recruitment  and  retention/expansion   should  be  based  on  thorough  “evaluation  of  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the   area  economy  and  the  organizational  capacity  of  the  local  government  and   potential  partners”  to  implement  the  strategy  (Moore  et  al.,  2006).   Communication  between  local  government  and  local  businesses,  if  not  formal   partnerships,  can  lead  to  greater  understanding  of  business  needs,  perceptions  of   local  government,  and  upcoming  changes  or  expansions  (Ibid).  Collaborative   approaches  fostering  partnerships  between  communities  within  a  region  can   increase  community  capacity,  improve  efficiency  through  partnerships  and   networks,  and  reduce  local  competition  to  increase  wealth  generation  for  the   region  as  a  whole  (Moore  et  al,  2006;  Bradshaw  and  Blakely,  1999).     Organizational Coordination and Effectiveness Coordination  between  organizations  engaged  in  economic  development  can   influence  individual  organizational  capacity  to  address  local  needs  and  implement   strategies.  Analysis  of  survey  results  assessed  the  degree  of  coordination   occurring  in  Oregon  communities  among  organizations  and  actors,  operating  at   multiple  scales,  as  well  as  the  perceived  effectiveness  of  organizations  at   achieving  economic  development  objectives.   Survey  results  indicate  that  organizations  in  general  are  perceived  to  coordinate   to  meet  economic  development  objectives  in  Oregon  communities.  Among   organizations  operating  at  multiple  geographical  scales,  municipal  government   operating  at  the  local  level  and  Economic  Development  District  organizations   operating  at  the  regional  level  are  perceived  to  engage  in  a  higher  degree  of   coordination  than  other  groups.  Conversely,  the  fewest  proportion  of   respondents  identified  tribes,  citizen  groups,  and  the  Federal  Government  to  be   engaged  in  a  high  degree  of  coordination.   Respondents  indicated  that  organizations  are  generally  effective  at  achieving   economic  development  objectives.  However,  only  10%  of  respondents  perceive   organizations  to  be  very  effective.  Perceptions  of  organizational  effectiveness  for   each  strategic  emphasis  category  indicate  greater  variability  in  organizational   effectiveness  among  recruitment-­‐oriented  communities;  less  variability,  but   slightly  lower  levels  of  organizational  effectiveness  among  retention-­‐oriented   communities;  and  the  lowest  variability  and  highest  levels  of  organizational   effectiveness  among  communities  with  an  even  balance  of  recruitment  and   retention  strategies.   Economic  development  organizations  should  look  for  more  opportunities  to   coordinate.  Coordination  between  organizations  is  important.  Coordination  can   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  v   reduce  duplication  of  efforts,  increase  effectiveness,  improve  efficiency,  and  take   advantage  of  opportunities  that  one  organization  might  not  be  able  to  do  on  its   own.  In  addition,  organizations  that  coordinate  often  wield  more  influence  when   asking  for  resources  from  local  and  state  legislators.       Coordination  can  occur  on  a  variety  of  levels.  First,  organizations  must  find  ways   to  communicate  with  each  other  so  that  they  understand  what  each  organization   is  doing.  Then,  the  organizations  should  evaluate  their  goals,  objectives,  and   strategies  to  identify  opportunities  to  work  together  towards  common  goals,  and   areas  where  they  could  increase  coordination  to  attain  common  goals.  Finally,   organizations  should  look  for  opportunities  to  do  new  work  (such  as  research,   training,  or  other  programs)  to  increase  economic  development  opportunities  in   their  communities.   Technical Assistance Needs Of  key  interest  to  the  University  of  Oregon  Economic  Development  Center  are  the   technical  assistance  needs  of  Oregon  communities.  Funding,  leadership,   information,  and  organizational  technical  assistance  were  the  top  rated  technical   assistance  needs  for  economic  development  professionals,  as  shown  in  Figure  A-­‐ 3.  Respondents  indicated  they  would  like  more  workshops  and  trainings  to  learn   about  funding,  leadership  training,  and  technical  assistance,  and  that  newsletters,   listserves,  and  blogs  would  be  helpful  to  disseminate  economic  development   information.   Page  |  vi   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Figure  A-­‐3.  Technical  assistance  needs  for  Oregon  communities     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011     Funding   Technical  assistance   Markedng   Business  loans   Econ  dev  planning   Coordinadon  with   other  econ  dev  orgs   Business  park   infrastructure   Funding  to  anract   businesses   General  operadons  of   econ  dev  orgs   Leadership   Polidcal  leadership   Elected  offical   pardcipadon  in   economic   development   acdvides   Economic  strategy   development   Use  leadership  to   conteract  the  silo   effect  of  so  many   organizadons   working  towards  the   same  goal   Informadon   Best  pracdces   technical  assistance   resources   Informadon  about   state  and  federal   programs   Communicadon  with   other  economic   development   professionals  in  the   region   Technical   Assistance   Capacity  building   Strategic  planning   Community  asset  and   opportunity   assessment   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  vii     TABLE OF CONTENTS   Executive  Summary  .........................................................................................................  i   Chapter  1.  Background  ..................................................................................................  1   Introduction  ..................................................................................................................  1   Purpose  and  Methods  ...................................................................................................  1   Organization  of  this  Report  ...........................................................................................  3   Chapter  2.  Evaluation  of  Assets  and  Barriers  ...............................................................  4   Findings  ........................................................................................................................  4   Summary  .......................................................................................................................  9   Chapter  3.    Analysis  of  Local  and  Regional  Economic  Development  Strategies  ......  11   Findings  ......................................................................................................................  11   Summary  .....................................................................................................................  20   Chapter  4.    Perceptions  of  Economic  Development  Coordination  ...........................  22   Findings  ......................................................................................................................  22   Summary  .....................................................................................................................  26   Chapter  5.  Technical  Assistance  Needs  ......................................................................  27   Findings  ......................................................................................................................  27   Summary  .....................................................................................................................  32   References  ....................................................................................................................  33   Appendix  A.  Survey  Instrument  ..................................................................................  34   Appendix  B.  Summary  of  Written  Comments  ............................................................  45   Important  Assets  .........................................................................................................  45   Important  Barriers  ......................................................................................................  45   Capacity  Building  Training  ...........................................................................................  45   Economic  Development  Strategy  Successfulness  .........................................................  46       Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  1   CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND   This  report  presents  the  results  of  a  statewide  economic  development  needs   assessment  of  Oregon  economic  development  professionals  and  their   communities.  The  primary  objective  of  the  needs  assessment  was  to  obtain  a   baseline  of  information  from  perceptions  regarding  the  following:     • Key  assets  and  barriers  to  local  economic  development     • Relative  emphasis  and  perceived  effectiveness  of  economic  development   strategies   • Extent  and  impact  of  organizational  coordination   • Technical  assistance  needs  of  economic  development  professionals   Introduction In  2009,  the  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Economic  Development   Administration  (EDA)  awarded  the  University  of  Oregon  a  three-­‐year  grant  to   establish  a  University  Economic  Development  Center.  The  UO  Center  is  one  of  70   university  centers  nationwide.  The  intent  of  the  EDA  program  is  to  link  the   expertise  of  universities  with  economically  distressed  communities.     The  mission  of  the  University  of  Oregon  (UO)  Economic  Development  Center  is  to   link  UO  resources  with  communities  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  regional   sustainable  economic  development.  The  primary  emphasis  of  our  program  is   providing  technical  assistance  to  distressed  communities  throughout  the  state  of   Oregon.  The  focus  of  the  program  is  creating  sustainable  local  economies  through   capacity  building,  applied  research,  and  partnerships.  The  program  is  a   partnership  between  the  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Economic  Development   Administration  (EDA),  the  University  of  Oregon,  state  and  local  government,  and   private  industry.   A  key  initiative  within  the  Center  is  to  conduct  research  that  has  statewide   relevance.  Part  of  our  research  agenda  is  to  better  understand  what  communities   in  Oregon  need  to  achieve  their  economic  development  objectives.  Moreover,  we   are  interested  in  what  economic  development  professionals  perceive  as  assets   and  barriers  to  economic  development.  The  statewide  economic  development   needs  assessment  is  our  initial  effort  to  answer  these  questions.   Purpose and Methods The  primary  purpose  of  our  needs  assessment  was  to  establish  a  baseline  of   information  regarding  perceptions  of  assets,  barriers,  needs,  and  opportunities   for  economic  development  in  Oregon  communities.  The  needs  assessment  is   based  on  a  survey  of  economic  development  professionals  from  a  range  of   organizations  and  locales  throughout  the  state.  The  survey  included  four  focal   areas:   Page  |  2   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   1. What  are  the  key  assets  and  barriers  to  economic  development  in   Oregon  communities?   2. What  emphasis  do  communities  place  on  recruitment  strategies   relative  to  retention  and  expansion  strategies  and  how  effective  do   economic  development  professionals  perceive  each  set  of  strategies  to   be  at  achieving  economic  development  objectives?   3. To  what  degree  is  coordination  occurring  and  what  is  its  impact  on  the   achievement  of  economic  development  objectives?   4. What  types  of  technical  assistance  would  be  most  useful  to  economic   development  organizations  in  achieving  their  goals?   We  used  an  online  survey  instrument  to  collect  the  perceptions  of  economic   development  professionals  working  throughout  the  state  of  Oregon.  Members  of   the  Oregon  Economic  Development  Association  (OEDA),  with  87  members   (including  city,  county,  state,  federal,  non-­‐profit,  private,  and  University  of   Oregon  affiliation),  and  representatives  of  Oregon’s  Economic  Development   Districts  (EDDs),1  with  12  member  organizations,  were  invited  to  take  the  needs   assessment  survey.  While  the  survey  sample  does  not  include  every  economic   development  professional  at  work  in  the  state,  it  consists  of  a  targeted  group  of   individuals  with  relevant,  professional,  local  and  regional  economic  development   experience.   We  received  80  complete  responses  to  the  survey.  Local  government  and   economic  development  organizations  are  most  represented  among  survey   respondents  (see  Table  1-­‐1).  In  general,  survey  respondents  represent  a  group  of   professionals  from  a  variety  of  government,  non-­‐profit,  and  other  organizations,   with  significant  experience  in  terms  of  years  of  involvement  with  both  local  and   regional  economic  development.                                                                                                                             1 Three members of OEDA are employees of Economic Development Districts. Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  3   Table  1-­‐1:  Respondents  by  organization  type  and  location   Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Organization of this Report The  remainder  of  this  report  is  organized  as  follows:   Chapter  2:  Analysis  of  Assets  and  Barriers  describes  survey  results  pertaining   to  physical,  political/programmatic,  and  community  elements  perceived   as  assets  or  barriers  to  local  economic  development.  It  highlights  specific   elements  listed  as  the  most  important  assets  and  greatest  barriers  to   economic  development  in  Oregon  communities.   Chapter  3:  Economic  Development  Approaches  examines  perceptions  of  the   relative  emphasis  communities  place  on  recruitment  and   retention/expansion  strategies  and  the  perceived  effectiveness  of  each   set  of  strategies  at  achieving  economic  development  objectives.   Chapter  4:  Coordination  examines  the  degree  of  coordination  occurring  in   Oregon  communities  among  multiple  organizations  and  actors,  as  well  as   the  perceived  effectiveness  of  organizations  at  achieving  economic   development  objectives.   Chapter  5:  Technical  Assistance  examines  the  types  of  technical  assistance   and  information  needed  by  respondents  to  further  economic   development  efforts  in  their  communities.   This  report  also  includes  2  appendices:   Appendix  A:  Survey  Instrument   Appendix  B:  Summary  of  Written  Comments     Page  |  4   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   CHAPTER 2. EVALUATION OF ASSETS AND BARRIERS   This  chapter  examines  physical,  political/programmatic,  and  community   elements  considered  to  be  assets  and  barriers  to  local  economic   development  in  Oregon  communities.   Findings A  primary  focus  of  this  study  was  to  determine  key  assets  and  barriers  to   economic  development  in  Oregon  communities.  Elements  indicated  to  be   assets  or  barriers  were  grouped  into  five  categories:  (1)  land  base;  (2)   infrastructure;  (3)  regulatory  framework;  (4)  access  to  capital;  and  (5)   community  characteristics.     Table  2-­‐1  shows  responses  related  to  land  base  elements.  The  availability  of   buildable  industrial  sites  and  buildable  commercial  sites  were  perceived  to   be  assets  to  a  majority  of  respondents.  However,  the  availability  of  large   industrial  sites,  while  a  major  asset  for  some,  appears  to  be  a  major  barrier   to  a  significant  proportion  of  respondents.  Not  surprisingly  the  results  are   highly  variable  depending  on  jurisdiction  and  the  availability  of  buildable,   industrial  land  within  the  local  urban  growth  boundary.     Table  2-­‐1:  Assets  and  barriers  associated  with  land  base  elements     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   Like  land  base  elements,  responses  to  infrastructure  elements  had  mixed   results.  While  a  majority  of  respondents  indicated  most  infrastructure   elements  were  assets  in  their  communities,  the  number  of  respondents   identifying  it  as  a  barrier  suggests  significant  infrastructure  deficiencies   exist  in  many  communities.  Elements  with  the  highest  percentage  of   respondents  indicating  barriers  were  infrastructure  financing  (44%),  freight   infrastructure  (43%),  and  services  to  vacant  commercial  and  industrial  sites   (36%).     Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  5   Table  2-­‐2:  Assets  and  barriers  associated  with  infrastructure  elements     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   Table  2-­‐3  summarizes  responses  related  to  regulatory  framework  elements.   A  majority  of  respondents  reported  political  and  community  support  for   economic  development  as  an  asset.  Significant  minorities,  however,   reported  that  political  and  community  support  is  a  barrier.  Land  use   regulations,  the  state  tax  structure,  and  land  use  permitting  processes  were   generally  not  considered  to  be  assets  by  respondents  –  more  respondents   indicate  regulations  of  public  lands,  the  state  tax  structure  and  local   permitting  processes  to  be  barriers  to  local  economic  development  than   those  that  perceive  such  elements  to  be  assets.     The  negative  perception  of  regulations,  tax  structure,  and  local  permitting   process  may  be  partly  explained  by  geography—respondents  in  regions  of   the  state  with  significant  industry  activity  in  natural  resources  (agriculture   and  forestry)  were  more  likely  to  indicate  these  factors  as  a  barrier  than   respondents  located  in  more  urban  areas.  The  responses  also  suggest  that   local  planning  departments  may  not  be  able  to  act  on  permits  in  a  timely   fashion.  The  current  economic  crisis  has  hit  the  housing  market  especially   hard.    Many  local  governments  have  had  to  reduce  permit  staffing,  which   was  funded  partially  through  permits  for  residential  development.  These   cuts  may  affect  the  ability  of  local  staff  to  handle  permits  in  a  timely   fashion.           Page  |  6   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  2-­‐3:  Assets  and  barriers  associated  with  regulatory  framework  elements     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   Table  2-­‐4  presents  results  on  access  to  capital  elements.  The  results  of  this   section  suggest  that  access  to  capital  is  a  key  barrier  –  more  than  other   categories.  In  short,  lack  of  access  to  capital  for  entrepreneurs,  large  and   small  employers,  and  municipalities  appears  to  represent  a  common  hurdle   to  economic  development  in  many  Oregon  communities.   Table  2-­‐4:  Assets  and  barriers  associated  with  access  to  capital  elements     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   Table  2-­‐5  shows  responses  to  survey  questions  regarding  community   characteristics.  The  results  indicate  that  labor  availability  is  considered  an   asset  by  a  majority  of  respondents.  Respondents,  however,  indicated  the   availability  of  jobs  in  general  and  family-­‐wage  jobs  in  particular  to  be   serious  barriers  to  economic  development.  Consistent  with  secondary  data   sources  such  as  the  Census,  the  responses  suggest  that  the  jobs  that  are   available  in  many  communities  do  not  provide  adequate  income  or   opportunity  to  support  local  residents  and  their  households.  Responses  also   indicate  that  the  availability  of  affordable  housing  is  considered  a  barrier  in   a  majority  of  respondents’  communities.     A  number  of  community  amenities  were  perceived  by  a  majority  of   respondents  as  important  assets  to  economic  development.  Assets  included   access  to  parks  and  recreation  facilities,  schools,  access  to  workforce   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  7   training  programs,  and  active  community  organizations  supporting   workforce  training  and  local  economic  development.   Table  2-­‐5:  Assets  and  barriers  associated  with  elements  of  community   characteristics       Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011   Note:  Percentages  may  not  add  to  100%  due  to  rounding.   While  the  preceding  analysis  addressed  a  broad  range  of  specific  elements,   we  were  also  interested  in  which  elements  respondents  perceived  to  be  the   biggest  assets  and  barriers  in  their  communities.  Respondents  were  asked   to  list  the  two  most  important  assets  and  the  two  greatest  barriers  to   supporting  business  in  their  communities.  Table  2-­‐6  and  Table  2-­‐7  below   summarize  responses  regarding  key  assets  and  barriers  respectively.   The  most  frequently  listed  assets  related  to  organizational  and  program   support  for  economic  development.  Respondents  listed  either  specific   organizations  or  programs  as  the  most  important  asset  to  economic   development  in  their  community.  The  second  most  frequently  mentioned   asset  was  infrastructure,  with  reference  to  either  infrastructure  in  general   or  specifically  to  transportation,  utilities,  and  access  to  telecommunication   systems.  Land  base  elements,  such  as  industrial  lands  and  vacant  building   space,  and  leadership  or  political  support  represent  two  other  key  assets.     We  also  evaluated  responses  concerning  key  assets  and  barriers  for  three   subareas:  the  Willamette  Valley,  Portland  Metro,  and  the  rest  of  the  state.     Page  |  8   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   • Willamette  Valley  respondents  most  frequently  cited  land  base  and   land  use  assets  as  the  most  important  to  economic  development,   while  land  use  regulations  and  infrastructure  elements  represent   key  barriers  to  the  region.     • Portland  Metro  respondents  indicated  organization/program   support  for  economic  development  as  the  most  important  asset   and  infrastructure  as  the  greatest  barrier  to  the  region.  Types  of   program  support  mentioned  by  respondents  include  city   government,  county  government,  chambers  of  commerce,  business   alliances,  and  other  technical  assistance.  Comments  related  to   barriers  focused  on  the  system  development  charges  related  to   infrastructure  improvements,  suggesting  that  new  financial   solutions  are  needed  for  overcoming  this  barrier.   • Rest  of  the  state  respondents  indicated  organization/program   support  as  the  most  important  asset,  but  also  cited  housing,  land   use  regulations,  land  base,  and  labor/workforce  issues  as  major   barriers.  Comments  related  to  housing  focused  on  issues  of   affordability  and  availability  for  employees,  who  struggle  to  live  and   work  in  the  same  community.  One  respondent  mentioned  that,   “much  of  the  existing  workforce  lives  outside  the  community,”   while  indicating  a  labor  shortage  and  a  shortage  of  housing  options   to  enable  an  influx  of  labor.   Table  2-­‐6:  Key  assets  that  support  businesses  in  respondents’  communities,  by  region     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,  2011   Note:  Respondents  could  choose  more  than  one  asset.   Table  2-­‐7  summarizes  the  elements  most  frequently  listed  as  barriers  to   economic  development.  Responses  regarding  key  barriers  identify  a  mixed   set  of  elements  hampering  economic  development  in  Oregon  communities.   The  greatest  percentage  of  responses  referred  to  infrastructure  elements.   While  many  respondents  recognize  available  infrastructure  in  their   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  9   community  as  an  asset,  many  respondents  perceive  a  lack  of  adequate   infrastructure  or  service  capacity  in  their  communities.  A  significant  number   of  respondents  perceive  land  use  regulations,  regulatory  agencies,  and  the   local  permitting  process  to  be  key  barriers.  Other  key  barriers  include   funding  and  access  to  capital,  land  base  elements,  housing  (comments   mostly  associated  with  issues  of  affordability),  labor,  leadership,  and  jobs.   Table  2-­‐7:  Key  barriers  to  supporting  business  in  respondents'  communities     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Note:  Respondents  could  choose  more  than  one  barrier.   Summary The  asset  and  barrier  results  imply  multiple  opportunities  and  challenges   for  economic  development  in  Oregon  communities.  The  results  suggest   programmatic,  leadership,  and  physical  assets  exist  in  most  communities.   Yet,  infrastructure  capacity,  funding  for  programs,  access  to  capital  for   businesses  and  individuals,  employment  sites,  and  employment   opportunities  were  consistently  identified  as  barriers.  Following  is  a   summary  of  key  findings  from  the  assets/barriers  analysis:   • Considerable  variation  exists  from  city  to  city  both  within  regions   and  outside  regions.  This  is  not  a  particularly  surprising  result;  each   jurisdiction  has  unique  attributes.   • Respondents  identified  the  most  important  assets  as:  organizations   and  programs  actively  addressing  economic  development;   infrastructure  (transportation,  utilities,  and  access  to   telecommunication  systems);  land  base  elements  (industrial  lands,   commercial  sites,  and  vacant  building  space);  and  leadership  and   political  support.  Respondents  outside  the  Willamette  Valley  most   frequently  identified  active  organizations  and  programs  as  key   Page  |  10   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   assets  to  economic  development.  Willamette  Valley  respondents,   by  contrast,  identified  land  base  as  most  important.   • Respondents  identified  many  barriers  including:  lack  of  adequate   infrastructure  or  service  capacity;  land  use  regulations,  regulatory   agencies  and  the  local  permitting  process;  funding  for  programs   and  projects,  and  access  to  capital;  land  base  elements  (availability   of  large  industrial  sites);  housing  (issues  of  affordability  and   availability);  and  availability  of  well-­‐paying  jobs.  Infrastructure   represents  the  most  frequently  cited  key  barrier  for  respondents  in   the  Willamette  Valley  and  Portland  Metro  regions,  while   respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state  pointed  to  housing   affordability  and  availability  as  the  greatest  barrier  to  economic   development.   • A  majority  of  respondents  cited  job  availability,  family-­‐wage  jobs,   and  access  to  capital  for  individuals  and  small  businesses  as   economic  development  barriers.   • Respondents  frequently  cited  quality  of  life  resources  such  as  parks,   recreation  facilities,  and  schools  as  important  assets  for  economic   development.  Active  community  organizations  supporting   workforce  training  or  local  economic  development  were  also   identified  as  assets  by  a  majority  of  respondents.     Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  11   CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES   A  primary  goal  of  the  needs  assessment  was  to  better  understand  local  economic   development  strategies  and  their  perceived  effectiveness.  This  chapter  examines   perceptions  regarding  the  relative  emphasis  communities  place  on  recruitment   and  retention/expansion  strategies  and  the  perceived  effectiveness  and  success   of  each  set  of  strategies  at  achieving  economic  development  objectives.   Findings The  second  principal  area  of  research  explored  the  economic  development   emphasis  or  approach  in  use  by  Oregon  communities.  Respondents  were  asked  to   note  the  relative  focus  of  economic  development  in  their  community  between   the  two  core  strategies  of  recruitment  and  retention/expansion.   We  started  by  asking  respondents  if  their  community  has  a  local  or  regional   economic  development  strategy.  Not  surprisingly,  a  large  majority  (88%)  of   respondents  answered  affirmatively,  with  90%  of  respondents  with  a  strategy   indicating  that  the  strategy  has  been  formally  adopted.  All  of  the  respondents   reporting  that  their  communities  do  not  have  an  economic  development  strategy   indicated  that  they  want  a  strategy.   Responses  analyzed  by  region  do  not  show  significant  variations.  When  asked  if   their  community  has  a  local  or  regional  economic  development  strategy,  79%  of   Willamette  Valley  respondents,  91%  of  Portland  Metro  respondents,  and  90%  of   respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state  answered  affirmatively.  Considered  by   organization,  92%  of  respondents  representing  government,  86%  representing   economic  development  districts,  and  80%  representing  other  organizations   answered  affirmatively.  Likewise,  nearly  80%  of  responses  in  each  region  and  over   80%  of  responses  in  organizations  other  than  government  indicated  that  the   strategy  has  been  formally  adopted.  Nearly  75%  of  government  responses   indicated  that  the  strategy  has  been  formally  adopted.   The  survey  results  suggest  that  the  relative  focus  of  economic  development  in   communities  throughout  Oregon  generally  combine  strategies  of  recruitment  and   retention  of  businesses  with  a  slight  emphasis  towards  retention  and  expansion   of  existing  businesses  (Figure  3-­‐1).  Respondents  were  asked  to  scale  their  strategy   from  exclusive  recruitment  strategy  to  an  exclusive  retention/expansion  policy  on   a  scale  of  0  to  100.  The  average  value  of  all  responses  was  58  out  of  100,   indicated  that  most  respondents  consider  their  strategy  to  be  a  mix  of   recruitment  and  retention/expansion  approaches.     Page  |  12   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Figure  3-­‐1.  Relative  focus  of  economic  development  strategy,  recruitment  vs.  retention       Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Note:  0=exclusive  recruitment  emphasis;  100=exclusive  retention  emphasis       When  responses  were  split  into  three  categories  representing  an  emphasis  on   recruitment,  retention/expansion,  or  an  even  balance  of  recruitment  and   retention/expansion,  a  clear  majority  of  communities  were  shown  to  emphasize  a   retention/expansion  approach  (see  Figure  3-­‐2).     Figure  3-­‐2.  Relative  focus  of  economic  development  strategy   We  included  a  discrete  choice  question  that  required  respondents  to  select  the   dominant  economic  development  approach  in  their  community.  A  majority  of   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  13   respondents  (78%)  indicated  that  retention  of  existing  businesses  is  the  dominant   approach,  while  22%  indicated  an  approach  centered  on  recruitment  to  be  the   dominant  strategy.     We  also  analyzed  responses  concerning  the  dominant  approach  by  region  and  by   organizational  categories  on  a  scale  of  0-­‐100  (see  Table  3-­‐1).  Respondents  from   outside  the  Portland  and  Willamette  Valley  regions  tended  towards  a   retention/expansion  emphasis  (average  response  value  of  62),  the  most   retention-­‐oriented  emphasis  of  the  three  regions  analyzed.  While  the  average   value  for  the  Willamette  Valley  region  (52)  represents  a  relatively  balanced   approach,  more  respondents  from  the  region  indicated  a  strategic  emphasis  on   recruitment.  Respondents  representing  economic  development  district   organizations  indicated  an  emphasis  on  retention/expansion  (average  value  of   65).  A  small  majority  of  respondents  representing  other  organizations  indicated  a   strategic  emphasis  on  retention/expansion,  with  a  significant  proportion   indicating  a  focus  on  recruitment.  Across  the  board,  most  respondents  consider   business  retention/expansion  to  be  the  more  important  approach  to  local   economic  development.   Table  3-­‐1.  Relative  focus  and  importance  of  strategic  approach  by  region  and   type  of  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011     The  next  line  of  questioning  asked  respondents  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of   their  economic  development  strategies.  The  responses  suggest  that  economic   development  strategies  are  perceived  to  have  at  least  some  level  of  effectiveness.   Seventeen  percent  of  respondents  indicated  their  strategies  were  somewhat   effective;  52%  moderately  effective;  and  13%  very  effective.  No  respondents   indicated  their  community’s  economic  development  strategy  as  “not  at  all   effective.”   Considering  the  breakdown  of  effectiveness  responses  for  each  relative  focus   category,  some  interesting  comparisons  emerge.  Table  3-­‐2  shows  that  more   respondents  in  the  recruitment  focus  category  (69%)  perceive  the  strategy  to  be   moderately  effective  or  very  effective  than  respondents  in  the  retention  category   (63%)  and  even  balance  category  (56%).  Additionally,  even  balance  category   responses  indicate  a  somewhat  effective  or  better  overall  strategy.   Page  |  14   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  3-­‐2:  Effectiveness  of  economic  development  strategy  by  relative  focus  category     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   We  also  analyzed  perceptions  of  effectiveness  by  region,  organization,  and   economic  development  focus.  Table  3-­‐3  shows  that  the  greatest  percentage  of   respondents  in  each  group  considers  their  community’s  strategy  to  be  at  least   moderately  effective.  However,  the  Willamette  Valley  region  contains  the  largest   proportion  of  slightly  effective  responses  of  any  region  at  25%.  Likewise,  33%  of   respondents  representing  organizations  other  than  government  or  economic   development  districts  indicated  their  community’s  strategy  to  be  slightly   effective.   Table  3-­‐3:  Effectiveness  of  economic  development  strategy  by  region  and  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Considering  strategy  effectiveness  by  respondents  representing  various   geographic  levels  suggests  that  respondents  that  have  regional  strategies   perceive  them  to  be  more  effective.     Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  15   Table  3-­‐4:  Effectiveness  of  economic  development  strategy  by  local  or  regional   focus     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Beyond  establishing  the  perceived  effectiveness  of  each  relative  focus  category,   this  study  sought  to  identify  the  frequency  of  use  of  specific  strategies  associated   with  business  recruitment  and  retention/expansion  of  existing  businesses.   Respondents  who  indicated  business  recruitment  as  more  important  to  their   community’s  economic  development  also  identified  which  strategies  are  being   used  to  recruit  businesses.  Similarly,  respondents  who  consider   retention/expansion  of  existing  businesses  to  be  more  important  to  their   community’s  economic  development  identified  strategies  being  used  to  retain  or   expand  existing  businesses.  Table  3-­‐5  depicts  the  frequency  of  responses  for  each   recruitment  strategy.   Page  |  16   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  3-­‐5:  Recruitment  and  retention/expansion  strategies  in  use     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   The  results  show  interesting,  but  logical  differences.  For  example,  respondents   with  recruitment  strategies  tend  to  focus  on  approaches  that  are  useful  for   recruiting  businesses:  land  supply,  permitting,  incentives,  and  training  were  used   by  a  large  majority  of  these  respondents.  Retention/expansion  policies  use  some   of  the  same  techniques  but  tend  to  focus  on  approaches  like  infrastructure  that   are  more  responsive  to  existing  businesses.  Additional  strategies  written  in  by   respondents  being  used  to  retain  existing  businesses  include:  business  training   and  assistance,  enterprise  facilitation,  loans,  support  for  entrepreneurs,  economic   gardening,  main  street  or  downtown  development  programs,  and  transportation   infrastructure.   When  considered  by  region,  recruitment  and  retention/expansion  strategies  in   use  reflect  differences  in  regional  assets  and  capacity.  Willamette  Valley   respondents  frequently  indicated  the  use  of  providing  development  sites  and   development  districts  for  both  approaches,  whereas  Portland  Metro  and   respondents  in  the  rest  of  the  state  frequently  cited  providing  an  efficient   permitting  process  and  workforce-­‐training  programs,  in  addition  to  development   districts.  Rest  of  the  state  respondents  more  frequently  indicated  the  use  of   transportation  infrastructure  improvement,  workforce-­‐training  programs,  and   developing  telecommunications  infrastructure  for  both  recruitment  and   retention/expansion  (see  Table  3-­‐6).   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  17   Table  3-­‐6:  Recruitment  and  retention  strategies  by  region     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Considered  by  organization,  most  government  respondents  indicated  that   strategies  they  used  included  providing  development  sites,  providing  an  efficient   permitting  process,  and  development  districts.  Economic  development  district   respondents  frequently  cited  workforce-­‐training  programs,  marketing  the   community’s  quality  of  life,  providing  low-­‐cost  loans,  and  improving   transportation  infrastructure.  Respondents  representing  other  organizations   indicated  the  most  frequent  use  of  workforce  training  programs  for  both   recruitment  and  retention/expansion  approaches  (see  Table  3-­‐7).   Page  |  18   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  3-­‐7:  Recruitment  and  retention  strategies  by  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011     We  next  asked  respondents  whether  their  community’s  strategy  includes  target   industries  and,  if  so,  to  identify  the  three  most  important  target  industries.  Over   80%  of  respondents  indicated  an  emphasis  on  target  industries,  including  50%  of   Willamette  Valley  respondents,  95%  of  Portland  Metro  respondents,  and  88%  of   respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state.  Specific  industries  frequently  mentioned   in  each  region  include  the  following:   • Willamette  Valley:  renewable  or  alternative  energy,  food   processing/agriculture,  technology  manufacturing   • Portland  Metro:  clean  technology,  high  tech,  advanced  manufacturing,   renewable  industries,  metals,  professional  services,  apparel,  distribution   and  transportation   • Rest  of  State:  value-­‐added  agriculture  and  wood/forest  products,   manufacturing,  high  technology,  aviation,  recreational  equipment,   renewable  energy,  and  small  businesses   Another  indicator  used  to  assess  respondents’  perception  of  the  economic   development  strategies  in  use  in  their  communities,  aside  from  strategy   effectiveness,  is  respondents’  perception  of  the  strategy’s  level  of  success.   Although  effectiveness  and  success  are  similar  terms,  they  have  specific  meaning   for  the  purpose  of  this  study.  For  instance,  a  strategy  can  effectively  address   economic  development  objectives  with  positive  results  prior  to  successfully   attaining  community  goals  for  economic  development.  Using  both  effectiveness   and  success  provides  a  more  complete  measurement  of  respondents’  perceptions   regarding  strategies  in  use  that  are  working  and  have  yielded  positive  results.   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  19   Overall,  a  majority  of  respondents  consider  their  community’s  economic   development  strategy  to  be  successful  (57%)  or  very  successful  (8%).  However,   some  respondents  consider  their  community’s  strategy  to  be  unsuccessful  (5%)  or   very  unsuccessful  (3%).  Figure  3-­‐4  illustrates  that  no  respondents  in  the   recruitment  focus  category  indicated  a  very  successful  overall  strategy.   Approximately  65%  of  respondents  in  the  retention  focus  category  consider  the   strategy  to  be  either  successful  or  very  successful.  Most  telling,  however,  is  that   all  respondents  in  the  evenly  balanced  category  who  indicated  a  level  of  success   consider  the  strategy  to  be  either  successful  or  very  successful.   Figure  3-­‐4:  Level  of  success  by  economic  development  strategy     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011     Table  3-­‐8  compares  respondents’  perceptions  of  success  by  the  emphasis  of  their   economic  development  strategy.  The  results  show  that  a  larger  majority  of   respondents  in  the  retention  category  (65%)  perceive  their  community’s   economic  development  strategy  to  be  successful  or  very  successful.  Similarly,   more  respondents  in  the  recruitment  focus  category  (18%)  than  respondents  in   the  retention  category  (6%)  perceive  the  strategy  to  be  unsuccessful  or  very   unsuccessful.  An  evenly  balanced  approach,  when  compared  to  recruitment  or   retention,  is  most  associated  with  very  successful  overall  strategies.   0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Recruitment N=16 Retention N=32 Even Balance N=9 Page  |  20   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  3-­‐8:  Level  of  success  by  relative  focus  category     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Although  many  respondents  indicated  that  it  is  too  soon  to  measure  strategy   success  due  to  recent  plan/strategy  adoption,  many  comments  describe  efforts  to   support  small  businesses,  improve  infrastructure,  recruit  firms,  develop   manufacturing  sites,  re-­‐establish  enterprise  zones,  and  shift  emphasis  from   natural  resources  to  high  technology.  One  respondent  associated  strategy  success   with  “a  diverse  economic  base,  quick  permitting  time  frames,  coordination  with   regional  and  State  partners,  [and]  strategically  invested  infrastructure  dollars  to   facilitate  industrial  development.”   A  significant  proportion  of  comments,  however,  indicate  challenges  to  strategy   implementation  and  success.  A  respondent  whose  community  is  linked  with  the   timber  industry  explained,  “We  need  to  diversify  our  local  economy,  but   companies  outside  of  Oregon  have  chosen  other  locations  for  various  reasons.   We  have  a  semi-­‐skilled  and  low  skill  workforce,  not  a  lot  of  college  grads  and   combined  with  the  fact  that  we  are  a  rural  area  we  are  not  attracting  the  bigger   projects.”     Respondents  indicated  that  strategies  would  be  more  successful  with  increases  in   investment  and  committed  leadership.  In  addition,  respondents  suggested   coordination  between  partner  organizations  must  also  improve,  as  one  comment   explains,  “Challenges  exist  in  developing  county  and  regional  economic   development  strategies  that  require  coordination  and  concurrence  among  a  large   number  of  local  entities.”  Another  respondent  claims  that,  “organizations  and   governments  are  not  working  together  as  well  as  they  might  to  be  more   effective.”   Summary Overall,  analysis  of  perceptions  regarding  strategic  emphasis,  effectiveness,  and   success  indicates  the  following:   • A  majority  (88%)  of  respondents  indicated  their  communities  have  a   strategy.  About  90%  of  respondents  that  indicated  their  community  had  a   strategy  said  that  it  was  formally  adopted.   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  21   • Fifty-­‐six  percent  of  respondents  indicated  a  strategic  emphasis  on   retention  of  existing  businesses  and  78%  consider  retention  to  be  more   important  to  local  or  regional  economic  development.   • Respondents  indicated  the  following  recruitment  strategies  as  the  most   frequently  used:  provide  adequate  supply  of  development  sites  with   access  to  services  and  utilities,  provide  an  efficient  permitting  process,   development  districts,  and  workforce  training  programs.  Conversely,   public  procurement  programs,  business  incubators,  and  provision  of  low-­‐ cost  loans  are  less  commonly  used  strategies.     • Respondents  indicated  the  following  retention  strategies  as  the  most   frequently  used:  provide  adequate  supply  of  development  sites  with   access  to  services  and  utilities;  provide  an  efficient  permitting  process;   development  districts;  tax  abatement;  workforce  training  programs;  and   improve  transportation  infrastructure  and  options.  The  least  frequent   retention  strategies  include  export  promotion  assistance,  public   procurement  programs,  and  providing  an  adequate  supply  of  affordable   housing.   • Sixty-­‐five  percent  of  respondents  consider  the  local  economic   development  strategy  to  be  at  least  moderately  effective  and  an  equal   proportion  of  respondents  consider  the  strategy  to  be  successful  at   achieving  objectives.   • Respondents  associated  with  an  evenly  balanced  approach  between   recruitment  and  retention  were  more  likely  to  consider  the  strategy  very   effective  or  very  successful  than  respondents  associated  with  a   recruitment  or  retention  emphasis.   • Nearly  80%  of  respondents  indicated  that  their  community’s  strategy   includes  target  industries.   Page  |  22   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   CHAPTER 4. PERCEPTIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION   This  chapter  examines  the  degree  of  coordination  occurring  in  Oregon   communities  among  multiple  organizations  and  elected  officials,  as  well  as  the   perceived  effectiveness  of  organizations  at  achieving  economic  development   objectives.   Findings To  assess  the  level  of  coordination  occurring  in  Oregon  communities  and  the   importance  of  coordination  to  the  achievement  of  local  economic  development   objectives,  survey  respondents  were  asked  to  consider  the  degree  of  coordination   among  several  actors  working  toward  economic  development  in  their  community.   Respondents  indicated  the  degree  of  coordination  currently  occurring  in  their   community  among  federal,  state,  county,  and  municipal  government,  Chambers   of  Commerce,  non-­‐profit  groups,  economic  development  districts,  tribes,  citizen   groups,  and  elected  officials  (see  Table  4-­‐1).     Table  4-­‐1:  Degree  of  coordination  among  organizations  and  elected  officials     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Of  all  the  organizations  included  in  the  analysis,  only  municipal  government  and   economic  development  district  organizations  (EDDs)  were  indicated  by  a  majority   of  respondents  to  engage  in  a  high  degree  of  coordination.  Considering   organizations  perceived  to  engage  in  a  moderate  or  high  degree  of  coordination,   municipal  government  (85%)  received  the  most  responses,  followed  by  state   government  (80%),  elected  officials  (80%),  EDDs  (79%),  Chambers  of  Commerce   (73%),  and  non-­‐profit  organizations  (66%).  In  fact,  the  only  organizational   category  that  did  not  receive  a  majority  of  responses  indicating  a  moderate  or   high  degree  of  coordination  was  tribes.  More  respondents  indicated  tribal   coordination  as  non-­‐existent,  not  applicable,  or  unknown  than  any  other   category.     Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  23   Organizations  perceived  to  engage  in  coordination  to  a  lesser  extent  include   federal  government,  citizen  or  community  groups,  and  county  government.   Although  the  number  of  organizations  and  degree  of  coordination  among   organizations  may  vary  between  communities,  it  is  clear  that  multiple   organizations,  mostly  local  or  regional  organizations  and  elected  officials,  are   actively  engaged  in  coordination  for  economic  development  in  Oregon   communities.   Respondents  also  indicated  whether  organizations,  in  general,  coordinate  to   achieve  economic  development  objectives.  Figure  4-­‐1  shows  that  approximately   77%  of  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  organizations  coordinate  to   meet  economic  development  objectives  compared  to  11%  that  disagree  or   strongly  disagree.     Figure  4-­‐1:  Do  economic  development  organizations  coordinate  to  meet   community  objectives?   N=69   Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   We  also  analyzed  perceptions  of  organizational  coordination  by  region  and   organizational  category.  Table  4-­‐2  shows  that  a  majority  of  respondents  in  each   group  acknowledge  that  organizations  coordinate  to  meet  objectives  in  their   community.  The  most  respondents  that  strongly  agree  that  organizations   coordinate  represent  the  Portland  Metro  (20%)  and  Rest  of  State  (20%)  regions.   Strongly Disagree 1% Disagree 10% Neither Agree nor Disagree 12% Agree 58% Strongly Agree 19% Page  |  24   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  4-­‐2:  Organizational  coordination  by  region  and  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   To  some  extent  the  importance  of  coordination  to  economic  development  is   based  on  respondents’  perceptions  of  organizational  effectiveness  at  achieving   economic  development  objectives  in  their  communities.  Figure  4-­‐2  shows  that  a   minority  of  respondents  perceives  their  community  organizations  to  be  very   effective,  while  a  similar  number  perceives  these  organizations  to  be  only  slightly   effective  at  achieving  objectives.  The  majority  of  respondents  indicate  that   community  organizations  are  somewhat  or  moderately  effective.     Figure  4-­‐2:  How  effective  are  organizations  at  achieving  economic  development   objectives?   N=68   Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Table  4-­‐3  shows  perceived  organizational  effectiveness  by  region  and  type  of   organization.  Most  respondents  among  regional  categories  perceive  organizations   as  somewhat  effective;  however,  42%  of  respondents  from  the  Willamette  Valley   regarded  organizations  as  moderately  effective.  A  majority  of  respondents  (64%)   Not at all Effective 3% Slightly Effective 10% Somewhat Effective 35% Moderately Effective 41% Very Effective 10% Don't Know 1% Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  25   from  economic  development  districts  felt  their  organizations  were  moderately   effective.     Table  4-­‐3:  Organizational  effectiveness  at  achieving  objectives  by  region  and   organization       Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Respondents’  perceptions  of  organizational  effectiveness  were  also  considered   for  each  relative  economic  development  focus  category.  Figure  4-­‐3  shows  that   most  respondents  indicated  that  their  organization  was  at  least  somewhat   effective.  About  20%  of  respondents  with  a  recruitment  or  mixed-­‐strategy  focus   indicated  their  organizations  were  very  effective.  Surprisingly,  50%  of  the   respondents  that  did  not  indicate  a  strategy  perceived  their  organization  as   moderately  effective.     Page  |  26   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Figure  4-­‐3:  Organizational  effectiveness  by  relative  focus  category      Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service   Center,  2011     Summary • Survey  respondents  generally  think  that  their  organizations  are  doing  an   effective  job  of  coordinating  (achieving)  economic  development  activities   in  Oregon  communities.     • Cities  and  Economic  Development  Districts  are  perceived  to  engage  in  a   higher  degree  of  coordination  than  other  groups  by  the  most   respondents.  Conversely,  fewer  respondents  think  tribes,  citizen  groups,   and  the  Federal  Government  as  engaged  in  a  high  degree  of  coordination.   • Respondents  indicated  that  organizations  are  generally  effective  at   achieving  economic  development  objectives.  However,  only  10%  of   respondents  perceive  organizations  to  be  very  effective.     0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Recruitment N=16 Retention N=29 Even Balance N=9 No Strategy Indicated N=14 Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  27   CHAPTER 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS   Of  key  interest  to  the  UO  economic  development  center  are  technical  assistance   needs  of  Oregon  communities.  This  chapter  examines  the  types  of  technical   assistance  and  information  needed  by  respondents  to  further  economic   development  efforts  in  their  communities.   Findings To  determine  technical  assistance  needs  among  Oregon  economic  development   agencies,  survey  respondents  were  first  asked  what  these  needs  were.   Respondents’  biggest  needs  are  related  to  funding,  leadership,  technical   assistance,  labor,  and  other  needs  (see  Table  5-­‐1).     Table  5-­‐1.  Greatest  need(s)  for  economic  development  as  rated  by  survey   respondents     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Nearly  75%  of  respondents  identified  funding  as  their  greatest  need.  Respondents   indicated  that  funding  is  desired  for  technical  assistance,  marketing,  business   loans,  economic  development  planning,  coordination  with  other  economic   development  organizations,  business  park  infrastructure,  funding  to  attract   businesses,  and  general  operations  of  economic  development  organizations.  In   addition,  respondents  mentioned  funding  could  come  through  public-­‐private   partnerships.     Slightly  less  than  half  of  respondents  indicated  that  leadership  is  a  significant   need.  This  need  included  needs  for  political  leadership,  elected  official   participation  in  economic  development,  economic  strategy  development,  and  the   need  to  use  leadership  to  counteract  the  silo  effect  of  multiple  organizations   working  towards  the  same  goal.  Technical  assistance  was  identified  by  28%  of   respondents  as  a  need,  while  labor  and  other  responses  were  less  commonly   identified.  These  other  responses  included  land  use  needs,  training,  and  other   topics.  These  findings  suggest  that  while  funding  is  an  important  need,  there  are   other  areas  that  could  also  be  served  through  improved  technical  assistance  and   leadership.   Page  |  28   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   We  also  analyzed  needs  by  regional,  organizational,  and  economic  development   focus  categories.  Table  5-­‐2  shows  that  funding  is  considered  to  be  the  greatest   need  by  all  groups.  Economic  development  districts  in  particular  identified  the   need  for  increased  funding,  while  government  and  other  organization   respondents  identified  funding  at  a  slightly  lower  rate.     Respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state  identified  needs  for  labor  and  technical   assistance  more  frequently  than  in  the  Willamette  Valley  and  Portland  Metro.   Leadership  was  identified  as  an  important  need  throughout  the  state.   Government  respondents  identified  a  greater  need  for  leadership  than   respondents  from  other  organizations,  while  economic  development  districts  also   identified  an  important  need  for  technical  assistance.     Table  5-­‐2:  Greatest  need(s)  for  economic  development  by  region  and  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,  2011   Table  5-­‐3  shows  needs  for  economic  development  by  the  primary  geographic   focus  of  their  strategy.  All  organizations  identified  funding  as  the  greatest  need,   though  more  organizations  with  a  local  and  regional  focus  identified  funding  as  a   need  (82%)  compared  with  organizations  with  only  a  local  or  regional  need  (69%   and  67%  respectively).  Organizations  with  a  regional  economic  development   focus,  in  particular,  identified  the  need  for  leadership  (67%),  more  so  than   organizations  with  an  exclusively  local  or  local  and  regional  focus  (38%  and  48%,   respectively).  Labor,  technical  assistance,  and  other  needs  were  identified  at   similar  rates  across  organizations  with  the  three  types  of  focus.     Table  5-­‐3:  Greatest  need(s)  for  economic  development  by  local  or  regional  focus     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  29     Next,  the  survey  asked  about  types  of  information  that  would  aid  in  economic   development  (Table  5-­‐4).  Respondents  were  particularly  interested  in  economic   development  best  practices  (62%),  economic  development  technical  assistance   resources  (53%),  and  information  about  state  and  federal  programs  (49%  and   46%,  respectively).  Forty-­‐six  percent  of  respondents  were  interested  in   communication  with  other  economic  development  professionals  in  the  region.   One  respondent  commented  on  the  pertinent  need  for  communication  by  stating,   “The  issues  and  concerns  of  our  community  are  not  isolated  ones.  Many   communities  battle  the  same  ones  we  do.  However,  it  appears  the  wheel  must  be   re-­‐created  in  each  community  because  there  is  little  sharing  of  successes  and   ‘what's  working’  to  be  found.”  Some  respondents  also  indicated  interest  in  access   to  demographic  information  (37%).  Other  information  needs  indicated  by   respondents  were  information  about  the  state  process  and  regulatory  reform.   Table  5-­‐4.  Rating  of  information  assistance  needs     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Interest  in  information  about  federal  grants  and  programs  was  higher  in  the   Willamette  Valley  (53%)  and  Portland  Metro  (58%)  than  in  the  rest  of  the  state   (33%).  Respondents  in  Portland  Metro  were  also  particularly  interested  in   information  about  state  programs  (63%)  and  information  about  available   resources  for  economic  development  technical  assistance  (63%),  more  so  than   the  other  regions  of  the  state.  Respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state  specified   other  information  assistance  needs,  including  marketing  information  and   understanding  state  process.  Overall,  respondents  from  Portland  Metro  identified   more  information  assistance  needs  than  respondents  in  other  regions.   Page  |  30   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  5-­‐5:  Rating  of  information  assistance  needs  by  region  and  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,  2011   We  also  analyzed  results  by  the  geographic  focus  of  the  organization  (see  Table  5-­‐ 6).  Organizations  with  a  regional  economic  development  focus  in  particular   identified  the  need  for  information  about  economic  development  best  practices   (82%  of  respondents).  These  respondents  were  also  particularly  interested  in   demographic  data  to  create  a  community  profile  for  marketing.  In  general,   respondents  with  a  local  and  regional  focus  indicated  the  highest  levels  of   informational  assistance  needs  across  all  need  categories.     Table  5-­‐6:  Rating  of  information  assistance  needs  by  local  or  regional  focus     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Respondents  identified  the  types  of  technical  assistance  that  their  community   needs  to  assist  economic  development  (Table  5-­‐7).  The  most  common  response   was  capacity  building  for  the  economic  development  organizations  themselves,   with  55%  of  respondents  identifying  this  need.  In  addition,  respondents  identified   strategic  planning  assistance  (43%)  and  community  asset/opportunity  assistance   (42%)  as  needs  for  their  municipality  or  county.   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  31   Table  5-­‐7.  Rating  of  technical  assistance  needs     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community   Service  Center,  2011   Expressing  the  need  for  planning,  one  respondent  explained  the  importance  of  a   “big  picture  view,  augmented  with  tactics  and  strategies  and  steps  that  are   achievable  in  defined  periods  of  time,  with  champions  for  actions  and  a   measurement  system  to  document  and  publicize  each  success  along  the  way  in   order  to  build  momentum  and  enthusiasm  for  the  future  next  steps.”  Another   respondent  urged  for  the  “adoption  of  an  agreed  upon  direction  by  city,  county   and  private  entities,”  while  yet  another  commented  on  the  need  for  “improved   regional  collaboration,”  and  the  development  of  common  goals  and  strategies.   Fewer  respondents  identified  grant  writing  assistance  as  a  need  (29%).  A  few   respondents  indicated  that  they  do  not  require  technical  assistance  (9%).  Some   other  types  of  technical  assistance  that  respondents  identified  as  a  need  include   day-­‐to-­‐day  execution  of  economic  development  strategies  and  connecting  to   others  in  the  northwest.   We  analyzed  technical  assistance  needs  by  region  and  organizational  type  (Table   5-­‐8).  Respondents  across  all  regions  identified  capacity  building  for  economic   development  organizations  as  the  greatest  technical  assistance  need.  About  half   of  Willamette  Valley  respondents  and  respondents  from  the  rest  of  the  state   (excluding  Portland  Metro)  identified  the  need  for  strategic  planning  assistance   and  assistance  in  assessing  community  assets  and  opportunities  for  economic   development,  while  about  a  quarter  of  respondents  from  Portland  Metro   identified  this  need.  More  respondents  in  the  Willamette  Valley  identified  the   need  for  grant  writing  assistance  (42%)  than  in  Portland  Metro  or  the  rest  of  the   state  (29%  and  21%,  respectively).     Page  |  32   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Table  5-­‐8:  Rating  of  technical  assistance  needs  by  region  and  organization     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,  2011     Analysis  of  technical  assistance  needs  by  organization  focus  (Table  5-­‐9)  shows   organizations  that  focus  on  regional  economic  development  identified  much   higher  needs  for  capacity  building  (80%)  than  organizations  focused  on  local  or   local  and  regional  economic  development  (61%  and  47%,  respectively).     Table  5-­‐9:  Rating  of  technical  assistance  by  local  or  regional  focus     Source:  OR  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment  Survey,  University  of  Oregon,  Community  Service  Center,   2011   Summary • Respondents  identified  their  greatest  needs  for  economic  development  as   funding  and  leadership.   • Respondents’  greatest  informational  needs  are  economic  development  best   practices,  information  about  technical  assistance  resources  and  information   about  state  and  federal  programs,  and  communication  with  other  economic   development  professionals  in  the  region.   • Respondents  are  most  interested  in  receiving  technical  assistance  related  to   capacity  building,  strategic  planning,  and  community  asset  and  opportunity   assessment. Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  33   REFERENCES Blakely,  Edward  J.  (1994).  Planning  local  economic  development:  theory  and  practice.  Thousand   Oaks:  Sage  Publications.   Bradshaw,  Ted  K.,  &  Blakely,  Edward  J.  (1999)  What  Are  “Third-­‐Wave”  State  Economic   Development  Efforts?:  from  incentives  to  industrial  policy.  Economic  Development  Quarterly   13(3):  229-­‐244.   Cavaye,  Jim.  (2001).  Rural  Community  Development  –  New  Challenges  and  Enduring  Dilemmas.   Journal  of  Regional  Analysis  and  Policy  31(2):  109-­‐124.   Dewees,  Sarah;  Linda  Lobao;  and  Louis  E.  Swanson.  (2003).  Local  economic  development  in  an   age  of  devolution:  the  question  of  rural  localities.  Rural  Sociology  68(2):  182-­‐206.   Kinsley,  Michael  J.  (1997).  Economic  renewal  guide:  a  collaborative  process  for  sustainable   community  development.  Snowmass,  Colorado:  Rocky  Mountain  Institute.   Koven,  S.G.,  and  T.S.  Lyons.  2003.  Economic  Development:  Strategies  for  State  and  Local   Practice.  Washington,  D.C.:  International  City/County  Management  Association.   Moore,  Terry;  Stuart  Meck;  and  James  Ebenhoh.  (2006).  An  economic  development  toolbox:   strategies  and  methods.  Chicago:  American  Planning  Association.  Report  Number  541.   Oregon  Business  Development  Department.  Strategic  Plan.   http://www.oregon4biz.com/assets/docs/agency-­‐strategic-­‐plan.pdf  accessed  August  11,   2010.   Business  Oregon.  2009  Temporary  Distressed  List.  http://www.oregon4biz.com/The-­‐Oregon-­‐ Advantage/Oregon-­‐Economic-­‐Data/Distressed-­‐Areas-­‐in-­‐Oregon/  accessed  January  29,  2010.   Oregon  Employment  Department.  Worksource  Quality  Information,  Informed  Choices.   http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/OlmisZine  accessed  January  29,  2010.       Page  |  34   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT We  need  your  help!       We  are  conducting  a  survey  of  economic  development  professionals  to  better  understand  the   assets  and  needs  of  Oregon  communities.  Your  responses  to  this  survey  will  improve  our   understanding  of  the  economic  development  needs  and  opportunities  of  communities  in   Oregon.       This  survey  is  being  conducted  by  the  University  of  Oregon  Economic  Development  Center.  The   Center  provides  technical  assistance  to  distressed  communities  in  Oregon  with  the  purpose  of   creating  sustainable  local  economies  and  enhancing  regional  sustainable  economic  development   through  capacity  building,  applied  research,  and  partnerships.     The  Economic  Development  Center  will  use  the  survey  results  to  identify  priority  areas  in  which   to  conduct  more  in-­‐depth  community  projects  geared  towards  sustainable  business   development.  The  survey  will  take  approximately  twenty  minutes.  Your  participation  is   voluntary.  If  you  do  not  wish  to  participate,  you  may  stop  at  any  time.  While  we  cannot   guarantee  confidentiality,  we  will  not  associate  personal  information  with  your  survey   responses  in  the  final  report.  Completing  this  survey  is  your  agreement  to  participate.         If  you  have  any  questions  regarding  this  research,  contact  Scott  Turnoy  at  (503)  548-­‐7846,  or   Robert  Parker  at  (541)  346-­‐3801.  If  you  have  any  questions  regarding  your  rights  as  a  research   subject,  please  contact  the  Office  for  Protection  of  Human  Subjects  at  the  University  of  Oregon,   (541)  346-­‐2510.  Thank  you  for  your  participation.       In  the  first  section  of  the  survey  we  would  like  to  learn  about  your  professional  role  in  economic   development  in  your  community.  Please  answer  the  questions  to  the  best  of  your  ability.  While   we  cannot  guarantee  confidentiality,  we  will  not  attribute  personal  information  to  survey   responses  and  individual  responses  will  be  kept  anonymous.         1.    First,  please  tell  us  about  yourself:       a.  First  Name         b.  Last  Name         c.  What  is  your  email  address?         d.  Name  of  your  Agency/Organization         e.  Work  Address         f.  City         g.  Zip  Code           2.    How  many  years  have  you  worked  in  economic  development?           Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  35   3.    What  type  of  organization/agency  are  you  representing  as  you  fill  out  this  survey?  (Please   select  one)     • County  Government     •  Local  Government     •  Tribal  Government     •  Chamber  of  Commerce     •  Non-­‐Profit  Organization     •  Economic  Development   Organization     •  Citizen  or  Community  Group     •  Elected  Official     •  Other  (please  specify)   4.    Which  best  describes  the  focus  of  your  economic  development  work?  (Please  select  one)     •  Local  economic  development     •  Regional  economic  development     •  Both  local  and  regional  economic  development       5.    How  important  do  you  consider  economic  development  to  be  to  the  overall  quality  of  life  in  your   community?     •  Not  At  All  Important     •  Slightly  Important     •  Moderately  Important     •  Very  Important     •  Don't  Know     In  this  section  of  the  survey  we  want  to  understand  your  perceptions  of  assets  and  barriers  to   economic  development  in  your  community  or  region.  For  each  item,  please  choose  one  of  the  options   along  the  scale  (major  barrier,  barrier,  neither  a  barrier  nor  an  asset,  asset,  major  asset,  or  don’t   know).       6.    Please  indicate  whether  you  think  each  of  the  following  physical  elements  is  an  asset  or  barrier  in   your  community.     Employment  Land  Base   Major   Barrier   Barrier   Neither  a   Barrier  Nor   an  Asset   Asset   Major   Asset   Don’t   Know   Availability  of  large  (>  10  acres)   buildable  industrial  sites  in  your   community’s  urban  growth   boundary  for  economic   development     Availability  of  small  (<  10  acres)   buildable  industrial  sites  in  your   community’s  urban  growth   boundary     Availability  of  buildable  commercial   sites  in  your  community’s  urban   growth  boundary   Availability  of  buildable  land  for   residential  use   Page  |  36   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center       Infrastructure     Major   Barrier   Barrier   Neither  a   Barrier  Nor   an  Asset   Asset   Major   Asset   Don’t   Know   Vacant  commercial  and  industrial   sites  have  adequate  access  to   services               Capacity  of  water  and  sewer   systems  adequately  serve  the   needs  of  the  community  or   accommodate  employment   growth                 Capacity  of  utilities  meets   community  needs  (e.g.  electrical   and  telecommunications   systems)               Quality  and  capacity  of  the  road   network               Infrastructure  for  freight   transportation  (e.g.  roads  for   trucking,  rail  transport,  etc.)               Availability  of  public   transportation                 Alternative  transportation   options  (e.g.  bicycle,  pedestrian   and  other  alternative  modes  of   transportation)               Access  to  infrastructure  financing                                 Assets  and  bariers  (cont.).  For  each  item,  please  choose  one  of  the  options  along  the  scale  (major   barrier,  barrier,  neither  a  barrier  nor  an  asset,  asset,  major  asset,  or  don’t  know).     7.    Please  indicate  whether  you  think  each  of  the  following  policy  and  programmatic  elements  is  an   asset  or  barrier  in  your  community.         Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  37   Regulatory  Framework     Major   Barrier   Barrier   Neither  a   Barrier  Nor   an  Asset   Asset   Major   Asset   Don’t   Know   Political  support  for  economic   development  among  elected   officials               Community  support  for   economic  development               State  tax  structure               Local  land  use  permitting   process               Public  land  regulation  of  natural   resources               Land  use  regulations  that  limit   use  of  farm  and  forest  lands                                           Access  to  Capital   Major  Barrier   Barrier   Neither  a   Barrier  Nor   an  Asset   Asset   Major  Asset   Don’t   Know   Access  to  capital  for  individuals               Access  to  capital  for  small   businesses               Access  to  capital  for  large   businesses               Access  to  capital  for   municipalities                   Assets  and  barriers  (cont.).  For  each  item,  please  choose  one  of  the  options  along  the  scale  (major   barrier,  barrier,  neither  a  barrier  nor  an  asset,  asset,  major  asset,  or  don’t  know).     8.  Please  indicate  whether  you  think  each  of  the  following  community  characteristics  is  an  asset  or   barrier  in  your  community                     Page  |  38   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   Community  Characteristics   Major  Barrier   Barrier   Neither  a   Barrier  Nor   an  Asset   Asset   Major  Asset   Don’t   Know   Availability  of  jobs               Availability  of  family-­‐wage  jobs               Availability  of  labor               Diverse  employment   opportunities               Availability  of  skilled  labor               Responsible  workforce               Availability  of  affordable  housing               Access  to  parks  and  recreation   facilities               Access  to  educational  resources   and  training  programs  that   provide  the  local  workforce  with   the  necessary  skills  for   employment  in  local  or  regional   businesses               Schools               Community  organizations   actively  involved  in  local   workforce  training               Community  organizations   actively  support  economic   development  in  the  community               Businesses  feel  they  have  a   supportive  business   environment               Informal  economic  activities   (e.g.  local  barter  system,   including  shared  services  like   childcare  and  transportation  or   goods  like  food  or  materials)                               9.    Please  name  the  two  most  important  assets  that  support  businesses  in  your  community:       10.    Please  name  the  two  greatest  barriers  to  supporting  business  in  your  community:       Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  39     Please  tell  us  about  your  community's  economic  development  strategy.       11.    Does  your  community  have  a  local  (or  regional)  economic  development  strategy?     •  Yes     •  No     •  Don't  Know     11A.    Has  the  strategy  been  formally  adopted?     •    Yes     •  No     •  Don't  Know     11B.    Does  your  community  want  an  economic  development  strategy?   • Yes   • No     12.    What  is  the  relative  focus  of  economic  development  in  your  community?  (Please  select  the  point   along  the  scale  that  best  represents  the  relative  focus  for  each  approach)                                                                                      Recruitment  of  new  businesses   Retention/Expansion  of  existing  businesses       0   10     20     30     40     50     60     70     80     90     100     Relative  Focus       13.    In  your  opinion,  which  approach  is  more  important  to  your  community's  economic  development   strategy?     • Recruitment  of  businesses     • Retention  (or  expansion)  of  existing  businesses       14A.  What  strategies  are  being  used  to  recruit  new  businesses  to  your  community?  Check  all  that   apply:   • Provide  adequate  supply  of  development  sites  with  access  to  services  and  utilities   • Provide  adequate  supply  of  affordable  housing   • Provide  an  efficient  permitting  process   • Development  districts  (e.g.  enterprise  zones,  renewal  districts,  etc.)   • Business  incubators   • Tax  abatement   • Provide  low-­‐cost  loans   • Public  procurement  programs   • Workforce  training  programs   • Improve  transportation  infrastructure  and  options   • Develop  telecommunications  infrastructure   • Marketing  of  the  community’s  quality  of  life   • Other  (please  specify):         Page  |  40   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   14B.  What  strategies  are  being  used  to  retain  (or  expand)  businesses  in  your  community?  Check  all   that  apply:   • Provide  adequate  supply  of  development  sites  with  access  to  services  and  utilities   • Provide  adequate  supply  of  affordable  housing   • Provide  an  efficient  permitting  process   • Development  districts  (e.g.  enterprise  zones,  renewal  districts,  etc.)   • Tax  abatement   • Provide  low-­‐cost  loans   • Public  procurement  programs   • Workforce  training  programs   • Improve  transportation  infrastructure  and  options   • Develop  telecommunications  infrastructure   • Small  business  mentorships   • Export  promotion  assistance   • Other  (please  specify):     15.  Who  provides  information  to  you  that  you  have  found  to  be  important  in  helping  you  advance  your   community’s  economic  development  strategy?  (Please  check  all  that apply) • Federal  agencies   • State  agencies   • County  agencies   • Local  government   • Tribes   • Chamber  of  Commerce   • Non-­‐profit  organization   • Economic  development  district  organization   • Citizen  or  community  group   • Elected  Officials   • Colleagues   • Private  consultants   • Other  (please  specify):     16.  Does  your  community’s  economic  development  strategy  include  target  industries?     • Yes     • No   • Don’t  Know       16A.  Please  list  the  three  most  important  target  industries  in  your  community’s  economic   development  strategy:                   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  41   17.  Which  of  the  following  sectors  are  focal  points  of  your  community’s  economic  development   efforts?  (Check  all  that  apply)   • Natural  resources   • Agriculture   • Utilities   • Construction   • Manufacturing   • Services     • Wholesale  trade   • Retail  trade   • Transportation  and  warehousing   • Information   • Public  administration   • Other  (please  specify):   18.  Who  are  the  key  partners  for  economic  development  in  your  community?  (Check  all  that  apply)   • Federal  Government  (EDA,  USDA,  Others)   • State  Government   • County  Government   • Municipal  Government   • Tribes   • Chamber  of  Commerce   • Non-­‐profit  organization   • Economic  development  district  organization   • Citizen  or  community  group   • Elected  Officials   • Other  (please  specify):     19.  In  your  opinion,  how  effective  is  the  current  economic  development  strategy  at  achieving   community  economic  development  objectives?   • Not  At  All  Effective   • Slightly  Effective   • Somewhat  Effective   • Moderately  Effective   • Very  Effective   • Don’t  Know     20.  In  your  opinion,  please  indicate  the  level  of  success  of  your  community’s  economic  development   strategy:   • Very  unsuccessful   • Unsuccessful   • Neither  successful  nor  unsuccessful   • Successful   • Very  successful   • Don’t  know   Please  explain  your  response  to  the  previous  question  regarding  the  success  of  your  community's   economic  development  strategy:   Page  |  42   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center     21.  What  are  the  two  greatest  obstacles  to  your  community’s  economic  development  strategy?     22.  What  would  make  the  strategy  more  successful?     23.  Is  your  community’s  economic  development  strategy  different  than  it  was  5-­‐years  ago?   • Yes   • No   • Don’t  Know   Please  explain  your  response  to  the  previous  question:     24.  Do  you  think  your  community’s  economic  development  strategy  will  be  different  5  years  from   now?     • Yes   • No   • Don’t  Know   Please  explain  your  response  to  the  previous  question:       We  are  interested  in  the  level  of  coordination  between  economic  development  organizations  and  their   ability  to  achieve  regional  economic  development  objectives.       25.    Please  indicate  the  degree  of  coordination  for  each  of  the  following  organizations  regarding   economic  development  in  your  community.  (Please  select  one  option  for  each  item)           Low   Moderate   High         No   Degree  of   Degree  of   Degree  of   Don’t   Not     Coord’n.   Coord’n.   Coord’n.   Coord’n.   Know   Applicable   Federal  Government  (EDA,               USDA,  Others)   State  Government               County  Government               Municipal  Government               Tribes               Chamber  of  Commerce               Nonprofit  Organizations               Economic  development               district  organization   Citizen  or  community  groups                 Elected  Officials               Other  (please  specify  below):               26.    Please  indicate  the  extent  to  which  you  agree  or  disagree  with  the  following  statements  regarding   economic  development  in  your  community.  (Please  select  one  option  for  each  statement)   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  43     Strongly  Disagree   Disagree   Neither   Agree  nor   Disagree   Agree   Strongly  Agree   Don’t   Know   Economic  development   organizations  coordinate  to   meet  community  objectives                 Economic  development   organizations  use  consistent   strategies  to  promote  economic   development                               27.    In  your  opinion,  how  effective  are  the  organizations  in  your  community  at  achieving  economic   development  objectives?     •  Not  at  all  Effective     •  Slightly  Effective     •  Somewhat  Effective     •  Moderate  Effective     •  Very  Effective     •  Don't  Know     The  following  questions  will  give  you  the  opportunity  to  tell  us  about  your  community's  economic   development  needs.       28.    Name  the  greatest  need(s)  for  economic  development  in  your  community  (select  all  that  apply):     •  Funding     •  Leadership     •  Labor     •  Technical  Assistance     •  Other  (please  specify):   Please  explain  your  response  to  the  previous  question  regarding  the  greatest  need  for  economic   development  in  your  community:       29.  What  kind  of  information  does  your  municipality  or  county  need  to  assist  economic  development?   (Select  all  that  apply):   • Information  about  economic  development  best  practices   • Information  about  federal  grants  and  programs   • Information  about  state  programs   • Information  about  available  resources  for  economic  development  technical  assistance   • Demographic  data  to  create  a  community  profile  for  marketing   • Communication  with  other  economic  development  professionals  in  the  region   • None   • Other  (Please  specify):   30.  What  kind  of  technical  assistance  does  your  municipality  or  county  need  to  assist  economic   development?  (Select  all  that  apply):   • Assistance  in  assessing  community  assets/opportunities  for  economic  development   • Strategic  planning  assistance   Page  |  44   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   • Grant  writing   • Capacity  building  for  economic  development  organizations   • None   • Other  (Please  specify):     31.  What  type  of  capacity  building  training  would  be  most  beneficial  to  economic  development  efforts   in  your  community?       32.    Is  there  a  question  that  we  should  have  asked  about  economic  development  in  your  community   that  we  did  not?  (Please  write  the  question  in  the  space  below)         33.    Please  write  any  other  comments  you  have  in  the  space  below:               Thank  you  for  taking  the  time  to  complete  this  survey.       Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   March  2012   Page  |  45   APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS   This  Appendix  examines  the  written  comments  included  in  response  to  some  questions  in   the  survey.  It  summarizes  the  key  points  raised  in  the  comments,  rather  than  transcribing   these  comments.     Important Assets When  asked  to  name  the  most  important  assets  that  support  businesses  within  their   communities,  respondents  discussed  a  variety  of  organizations.  Many  organizations  were   traditional  economic  development  organizations,  such  as  chambers  of  commerce.  Others   mentioned  political  institutions,  such  as  city  council  and  other  city  efforts.  Respondents  also   mentioned  the  importance  of  collaboration  between  these  groups.  Some  respondents   pointed  out  that  the  organizations  most  important  to  them  were  those  that  were  willing  to   collaborate  and  work  with  other  groups.     Some  respondents  mentioned  infrastructure  as  the  most  important  assets,  such  as  access  to   rail  and  interstate  and  reliability  and  pricing  of  utilities.  A  few  respondents  mentioned   various  providers  of  technical  assistance  as  important  assets  that  support  businesses.  Other   respondents  mentioned  the  communities  themselves  and  local  quality  of  life  as  important   assets  in  economic  development.     Important Barriers Respondents  also  named  the  most  important  barriers  to  business  within  their  communities.   Many  respondents  mentioned  lack  of  industrial  and  commercial  land.  They  also  mentioned   land  use  regulations  and  the  tax  structures  at  the  state  and  local  level  as  important  barriers.   Other  respondents  mentioned  the  lack  of  funding  for  workforce  training  and  access  to  loans   for  businesses.  Some  respondents  mentioned  the  lack  of  political  support.  Infrastructure   issues  were  also  discussed  as  a  barrier.  These  included  transportation,  electricity  rates,  and   proximity  to  rail  and  interstate.   Capacity Building Training Respondents  indicated  what  type  of  capacity  building  training  would  be  beneficial  to   economic  development  efforts.  They  mentioned  wanting  training  in  the  following  areas:   understanding  the  needs  of  targeted  industries,  exploring  funding  options,  engaging  in   consensus  building,  identifying  partners,  business  viability  evaluation,  and  analysis  of  large-­‐ scale  economic  trends.  One  respondent  indicated  a  need  for  training  to  determine  “[w]hat   kind  of  manufacturing  can  we  attract  that  supports  families  and  residents  with  wages  in  the   private  sector.”  Respondents  repeatedly  alluded  to  the  need  for  consensus  building,  at  times   rhetorically:  “What  do  you  do  when  the  communities  in  your  county  just  don't  want  to  work   together?”  Some  respondents  indicated  they  wanted  a  toolkit-­‐based  and  model-­‐based   training  approach.  They  are  interested  in  toolkits  for  economic  development  inquiries,   recruitment  models,  and  project  development  best  practices.  Other  respondents  suggested   the  need  for  higher  level  analysis  prior  to  addressing  specific  capacity  building  tactics:  “I  think   before  we  talk  about  capacity  building  there  needs  to  be  an  analysis  of  who's  doing  what,   Page  |  46   Oregon  Economic  Development  Needs  Assessment   UO  EDA  University  Center   how  effective  they  are  and  what  an  optimal  structure  would  be.  Once  that  structure  is   determined  and  implemented,  only  then  we  could  begin  to  look  at  capacity  building.”   Respondents  also  mentioned  that  capacity  building  training  about  economic  development   for  other  organizations  in  the  community  who  are  involved  in  but  not  focused  on  economic   development  would  be  useful.  Other  respondents  indicated  that  they  feel  sufficient  technical   assistance  is  already  available  to  them.   Economic Development Strategy Successfulness In  this  question,  respondents  explained  why  they  gauged  their  economic  development   strategies  as  successful  or  unsuccessful.  Many  respondents  said  that  their  strategies  had   become  successful  in  the  last  three  to  five  years.  Others  described  their  strategies  as  too  new   to  gauge  their  success.  Few  respondents  indicated  that  strategies  were  successful  over  a   longer  time  frame.  Some  respondents  explained  that  the  success  of  their  strategies  depends   on  coordination  between  economic  development  organizations.  Without  this  coordination,   the  strategies  would  not  be  successful.