Hickenlooper Archives - Colorado-based Business and Economic Research

The Perception of Colorado – From a Group of Site Selectors

February 3, 2012February 3, 2012 horvath Leave a comment

This past fall a group of site selectors presented a panel discussion to a packed house of metro area business leaders about their perception of Colorado as a place to do business. Their comments included a mixture of praise and criticism for the state and its economic development efforts. At times the panelists were in agreement and other times they provided contradicting information. The following is a summary of their comments.

Company Trends
The site selectors identified the following as trends within companies:
• Companies are investing in infrastructure, i.e. IT.
• Companies outside the U.S. are paying more attention to sustainability and green manufacturing.
• Companies are paying close attention to labor costs.
• Consumers are expecting improved customer service skills.
• Employee retention will become more important as workers are again viewed as more than a disposable asset.
• Labor availability is a key issue when companies think about relocating.
• Quality of service will become more important.
• Some companies are sharing services such as IT, HR, and accounting.
• There is greater speed to market in merger and acquisition activity.

Industry Trends
The panelists identified the following as industry trends:
• Aerospace will remain important.
• Biofuels will be volatile.
• Data centers are locating in Texas and North Carolina.
• Distribution centers are locating in the south.
• Energy is important in Texas, Arizona, and Colorado.
• Greater demand for third party call centers (chat, email, and video).
• Growth is expected in smaller life sciences such as Washington, San Diego, Indiana, and Florida.
• In 2010, foreign labor costs went up 9%; in 2011 they were up 24%. As a result there is increased on shoring or back shoring.
• Oil and gas services will remain important.
• Renewable energy is driven by incentives and some of those incentives are expected to expire in the near-term.
• Solar will be volatile.
• Waste recovery may be an industry of the future. For example in Denmark it is about 86%, while it is about 20% in the U.S.

Top States
The group identified the following states that are viewed most favorably by companies seeking to relocate:
• Arizona.
• District of Columbia.
• North Carolina.
• Oklahoma.
• South Carolina.
• Texas.
• Virginia.
Arizona and Texas have strong incentive programs. Colorado was perceived in a positive light, but it was not regarded as a top state for company relocation.

Things that are Important to Companies
Companies are attracted to a region for a variety of reasons. The reasons cited by the panelists were:
• Local economic developers have to be in touch with their local businesses. Site selectors indicated they would interview local companies to gauge the level at which state and local eco devo organizations were engaged with the community. They would not recommend companies to states where the eco devo staff did not visit local companies.
• Companies value support from public officials.
• Infrastructure.
• Job training funds are essential to many companies.
• Location – advantages derived from location differ based on the industry. For example, Colorado will unlikely be a focal point for manufacturing ocean liners.
• Manner in which states and communities educate the low income.
• Operating costs are important, but if operating costs were important then New York or Silicon Valley would never attract business.
• Some industries want suppliers in place and nearby, i.e. plug and play.
• Support of the community for eco devo efforts.

Incentives
For many companies, incentives are only part of the picture. The following ideas were discussed relating to incentives and other factors that influence relocation decisions:
• About 60% of companies who receive incentives are out of compliance within a year.
• Colorado incentives are not viewed well, they are a D+. Colorado will never win a project based on its incentives.
• Corporate or personal taxes can be an issue.
• For certain industries the cost of fuel is critical, i.e. fuel is a major operational cost.
• In most cases the states that can offset costs most effectively will win the battle for relocation.
• Incentives can get you on the long list.
• Right to work legislation is important to many companies.
• Some governors have been given discretionary funds for economic development purposes.
• Some states are swapping out incentives and tax credits.
• Some states have had to cut back on incentives because their economies have performed poorly.
• When considering relocation – costs are critical, in particular operating costs.

What Colorado Has Going for It
The site selectors identified some of the strengths they saw in their visits to the state:
• Conoco Phillips was attracted to the state because of the Colorado School of Mines.
• Creativity.
• Cultural aspects of the state such as museums, art galleries, and performing arts.
• Denver’s location is considered both an advantage and a disadvantage.
• Eco devo groups work together at a regional level.
• Governor Hickenlooper is viewed as a visionary and is recognized for his strengths in collaboration.
• Growth of natural gas for electricity production could benefit Colorado.
• Healthcare.
• NREL is a plus for renewable energy.
• Pride of living in a state with solid business activity.
• Talent.
• The workforce analysis of Vestas was key in having them come to Colorado.

Words of Caution or Advice
The site selectors also had words of caution and advice for state leaders:
• Colorado has to articulate the strength of its workforce.
• Colorado does not understand its strengths.
• Colorado is weak in job training funds.
• Denver does a poor job marketing itself – study what Austin has done.
• Don’t rely on NREL too much – it is a federal facility with obligations to the U.S. not Colorado. As well its funding is sporadic.
• Focus on talent you have within the state.
• It is necessary to pay attention to the strengths of the area; for example, Kansas lost aviation jobs.
• Public-private partnerships are the key to future development.
• Some day Fitzsimons will develop.

The discussion was lively and in many cases it was eye-opening, particularly for those who look at the state through lens other than those of a site selector.

State Economic Blueprint Released

July 26, 2011May 31, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

On July 22, Governor Hickenlooper’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade released its business development blueprint for the state. The document is the culmination of seven months of surveys, meetings, and information gathering.

Reaction to the blueprint is mixed. Coloradans feel the strengths of the plan are:
• It has received input from people in all parts of the state and all walks of life. As such it allows various regions to have customzied plans focused on their unique strengths.
• Various groups have openly provided support for the “bottom-up” approach.
• The plan focuses on what some think are some of the state’s natural strengths, such as tourism.
• The plan gives OEDIT staff an opportunity to take actions that they feel are appropriate because it has been mandated by the people.

As well, there is trepidation about parts of the plan. A sampling of some of the concerns are:
• There is not enough attention given to innovation.
• While there is talk about innovation, there is no clear-cut definition of what it is.
• There is a lack of attention given to strengthening the infrastructure.
• Lack of sufficient attention given to the development of primary jobs.
• Input from the masses lacks the vision gained from the expertise of strong leaders.

As with any plan there are a multitude of questions and opinions. An example of these questions follows:
• Who will be accountable for achieving the various goals within the plan – state or local government?
• Since the planning process involved significant local input, will the local organizations be responsible for funding its strategic initiatives or will that responsibility fall on state government?
• What is the proposed economic impact of the plan? How many jobs will it create? What types of jobs will be created?
The good news is that there is now a plan and the state will have a direction for moving forward.

For information about the blueprint go to the OEDIT website or call 303 892 3840.

Bottom Up Planning Process Nears Implementation Phase

March 28, 2011May 31, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

The 14th, and final, stop on Governor Hickenlooper’s Bottom Up Eco Devo Planning tour landed at the Arvada Center earlier today. About 200 citizens and business leaders from the metro counties convened to provide input. The bottom up information gathering process is scheduled to be wrapped up at the end of April.

Attendees were grouped by their county of residence and asked to discuss a common set of questions and issues. The following paragraphs provide some of the topics discussed by fellow Broomfielders.

Topic: What can government do better to support business?
• Make it easier for businesses to find out about local assistance.
• Become more aware of how to support the unique needs of specific industries and clusters such as photonics, aerospace, nanotechnology, and the biosciences. To this point, a brief discussion focused on how elected officials can become more “military-friendly”, which includes support of the defense, homeland security, aerospace industries and their supply chain.
• Continue to further strengthen relationships between education, government, economic developers, workforce training, and the private sector.
• Improvement of the 36 corridor, including completion of FasTracks.
• Establish a visionary group that provides a long-term economic vision for Colorado – that covers all aspects of economic development from research to recruitment to retention. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Colorado Advanced Technology Institute (CATI), helped develop many of the clusters and industries that are critical to the state’s present economy.

Topic: What are areas that are important to the success of Broomfield?
• Maintain a designated level of primary jobs (jobs that create other jobs).
• Support innovation.
• Strength of neighboring communities (higher education, research facilities, distribution services) and realization that it is not necessary to duplicate their competencies.

Topic: What are Broomfield success stories?
• The foresight of city and county leaders that provided Broomfield with a diverse tax base derived from a strong mix of retail and industry.
• Development of the 1st Bank Center.
• 36 Commuting Solutions has developed partnerships between local municipalities to secure funds for improvements of the 36 corridor.

Colorado is blessed with an intelligent and creative populaton who have an abundance of enthusiasm and good ideas. It will be easy to organize and prioritize their thoughts and opinions. The challenge will come in finding funds to implement the plan.

A more complete summary of this event and previous meetings will be available on the Bottom Up website.

Hickenlooper Proposes Closure of Fort Lyon Correctional Facility

February 22, 2011May 31, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

Governor Hickenlooper recently proposed closing the Fort Lyon Correctional Facility as part of cost cutting measures to bring the state budget into balance. The facility employs roughly 200 workers.

For those in the metro area companies come and go and the loss of a company with 200 employees often goes unnoticed, unless a person works there. Approximately 1.2 million people work in the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield MSA, so a loss of 200 jobs would be 0.02% of total employment- not even a bleep on the radar. Bent County residents obviously have a different perspective.

A short lesson about the county will provide insight into their point of view. Bent County is located in Southeast Colorado east of Pueblo, between Otero and Prowers County. Approximately 6,500 people call the county home. Between 2000 and 2009, Bent County population actually increased by about 650 people, or an annualized rate of 1.2%. While this is less than the rate of growth for the state, at least it is positive. Not all rural counties in Colorado have seen their population expand over the past decade.

A review of Census data (Quickfacts) shows that there are about 2,000 households in the county and 2,400 housing units. There is a higher concentration of minorities (Black, American Indian, and Hispanic – terms used by the Census Bureau ).

About 65% of the population (which include prison inmates) are male. As is the case with many other rural counties, Bent has a lower concentration of people under the age of 18 and a higher percentage of workers over the age of 65.

In 2008, median household income for the county was about $33,000 compared to $57,000 for the state. As might be expected from these income levels, approximately 29% of the population lives below poverty level.

With that background let’s look again at the importance of the correctional facility. Fort Lyon is Bent County’s second-largest employer. (Note: Many Colorado rural counties are the home to correctional facilities).

Data from the Colorado Office of Labor Market Information (QCEW) reported that in 2009, Bent County has 1,303 covered workers (workers on payrolls who paid unemployment insurance) in 88 establishments. Only 560 are private sector employees.

At that time the top employment sectors were as follows: local government (451), state government (234), retail (68), hotels and restaurants (65), federal government (58), health care and social assistance (49), and finance and insurance (45). In December, 2009 the county unemployment rate was 8.7% (LMI). The loss of 200 employees in this economy would be devastating!

Should Governor Hickenlooper rescind his recommendation to eliminate the Fort Lyon facility? If so, what other programs can be cut or eliminated to keep the facility in operations? There is no right answer and there is no winner in this situation.

It’s a tough time to be a governor!

Colorado’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Strategy

February 11, 2011May 31, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

The first week in February Governor Hickenlooper (call me “John”) hosted the ninth stop in his Bottom-Up Economic Development tour across Colorado. For about two hours, the region’s top economic developers discussed job creation, economic development, and steps for increasing government efficiencies.

The most frequently discussed topic was transportation and the top priority was to complete FasTracks in a timely and cost effective manner. In addition leaders made a case for completion of the final leg of the beltway (between Broomfield and Golden) around the city, expansion of commercial air, maintenance of our bridges and highways, and reduction of congestion along I-70 into ski country.

Panelists felt that innovation and the attraction/retention of primary jobs was critical if we are to maintain our regional and national competitiveness. They also cited the need to have a well-trained workforce and an efficient, accountable, and adequately funded education system. As well, it is imperative that Coloradans work together to maintain the quality of life that makes the state so attractive. This will require leaders to address issues related to our water supplies, develop parks and recreation areas, invest in infrastructure, and utilize the state’s unique assets to attract commerce.

The metro area’s economic diversity was evident as leaders spoke in support of industries and clusters endemic to their region. For example, they addressed the need for the state to be more “military-friendly”, consider construction of nuclear power plants, understand the importance of refineries, realize the value of our construction and extractive industries, and support gaming and tourism.

As the Bottom-Up discussions continue, it would be beneficial to reflect on past economic-development successes. For example, consider the public-private partnership, the former Colorado Advanced Technology Institute (CATI). During the late 1980s, CATI was established to guide the development of science and technology and the growth of select high-tech clusters. Specifically, the group’s work laid the groundwork for the state’s photonics, materials, hardware, software, telecommunications, and bioscience clusters. While it may not be appropriate to resurrect CATI as it existed, there is merit in having the an organization that would fill many of CATI’s roles in fostering long-term growth.

Four years ago, a state job cabinet was formed, town meetings were held across the state to gather input, and plans were put in place. While that effort was well intended, it did not have the desired impact. Hopefully this Bottom-Up Planning approach with be more successful.

A well-thought out economic development plan couldn’t come at a better time. Colorado employment remains below the 2001 peak and it will be years before state payrolls return to the pre-Great Recession high mark.