montgomery county strategic economic development policy task

Transcription

MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POLICY TASK FORCE
A STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Report Submitted to:
Montgomery County Commissioners
One Montgomery Plaza - Suite 800
Norristown, PA 19401
Submitted on Behalf of the Montgomery County Strategic
Economic Development Policy Task Force by:
Econsult Corporation
3600 Market St., 6th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104
December 2008
A Strategic Economic Development Policy for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania:
Recommendations to County Commissioners
ii
The contents of this report have been guided and informed by the contributions and efforts of the
Montgomery County Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force and Montgomery County
Economic Development Cabinet and staff. Econsult Corporation would like to thank these
individuals for their assistance throughout this process.
Task Force Co-Chairs:
Morris J. Dean, Blank, Rome LLP; Montgomery County Revitalization Board
Charles Tornetta, Tornetta Realty; Montgomery County Planning Commission
Task Force Executive Committee:
Morris J. Dean, Blank, Rome; Montgomery County Revitalization Board
Charles Tornetta, Tornetta Realty; Montgomery County Planning Commission
Paul Bartle, Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority; High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel
Robert Butera, Retired PA House of Representatives, Regional Convention Center Authority
Jeffrey Heebner, Chairman, Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation
John Rosenthal, Chairman Emeritus, Pennrose Properties (Deceased)
Jim Sayre, Chair, Montgomery County Development Corporation
Task Force Members:
William Caldwell, Norristown Municipality
Jane Dellheim, Commissioner, Lower Merion Twp.
Bernadette Dougherty, owner, Corner Chocolates, former Main St. Manager, Ambler
Jim Ettelson, Thorpe, Reed; former Commissioner Lower Merion Township
Kathleen Friel, Chief Financial Officer, Valley Forge Investment Corporation
Charles Gallub, Develcom
Dave Gannon, Carpenters & Joiners Union Local #1595
Michael Golden, Jenkintown Borough Council
Jill Govberg, Former Lower Merion School District Board President
Ben Gross, Lansdale Borough Council
Bernard Griggs, Montgomery County Building Trades Committee
Wendy Klinghoffer, Executive Director, Eastern Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
Dale Mahle, retired Executive Director, Tri-County Chamber of Commerce, Pottstown
J.P. Mascaro, J.P. Mascaro and Sons
Ross Meyers, American Infrastructure
Hugh Moulton, retired Executive Vice-President, Alco Standard
Phil Jackson, Univest
James C. Phillips, NorCo Auto Group; Lower Pottsgrove Commissioner
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
iii
(Task Force Members Cont’d.)
Joseph Price, Granor Price Homes; President, BucksMont Homebuilders Association
Stephen Prousi, Montgomery Township Board of Supervisors
Lawrence Segal, Impact Pennsylvania Strategies
Karen Stout, President, Montgomery County Community College
Claudia Timbo, President, Corporate Call Center
Deb Tustin, Gwynedd Company; Horsham Water & Sewer Authority
Bud Wahl, Mayor, Ambler Borough; Ambler Savings Bank
Ken Weinstein, 401 Dekalb St. Associates
Robert W. White, Abington Bank
Jim Williams, ASSETS Montco
Montgomery County Economic Development Cabinet Members:
Steven Nelson, Director of Policy, Montgomery County Commissioners Office
Gerald Birklebach, Director, Department of Economic and Workforce Development
John F. Nugent, Director, Redevelopment Authority of Montgomery County
Kenneth Hughes, Director, Montgomery County Planning Commission
Kathy Phifer, Director, Department of Housing and Community Development
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
vii
1.0 Introduction
1
1.1 Background and Framework for Study
1
1.2 Case Statement for a County Investment
3
1.3 Overview of Report
4
2.0 Impacts and Leveraging Potential of Public Investments in Economic
Development
6
2.1 Leveraging Potential of Public Investments in Economic Development
6
2.2 Impacts of Existing County Spending
7
2.3 External Examples of Public Investment Impacts
9
3.0 Policy Development Process and Approach
12
3.1 County Prescribed Tasks and Approach to Assigned Tasks
12
3.2 Task Force Formation and Roles
15
4.0 Task 1: County Overview and Identification of Priority Economic
Development Issues
17
4.1 Montgomery County Overview and Economic Climate
17
4.2 Identifying Priority Economic Development Issues
18
5.0 Task 2: Existing Economic Development Structure and Identification of
Gaps and needs
26
5.1 Existing Economic Development Structure
26
5.2 Overview of County Economic Development Programs and Funding Related to Priority
Economic Development Issues
29
5.3 Gaps and Needs in Existing Economic Development Structure
32
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
v
6.0 Tasks 3 & 4: Proposed Funding and Policy Recommendations
35
6.1 Guiding Principles/Incentives for Receiving Funding
35
6.2 Policy Recommendations
36
6.3 Rationale for Recommended Funding Levels
48
7.0 Identifying Potential Funding Sources
55
7.1 County Funding Sources for Programs
55
7.2 Local Funding Opportunities for Future Exploration
56
8.0 Implementation
62
8.1 Timeline for Allocation and Rollout of Funding
62
8.2 Program Guidelines and Eligibility Requirements
63
9.0 Conclusion
69
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
A.
County Resolution to Establish a Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force
B.
Task Force Meeting Agendas and Summaries
C.
Guide to County and Regional Economic Development Organizations and County Chambers of
Commerce
D.
Guide to County Programs to Address Priority Economic Development Issues
E.
Priority Economic Development Issues Feedback Sheet
F.
County Comparison Analysis
G.
County-Level Economic Development Program Case Studies
H.
Documents Consulted During Ongoing County Research
I.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment, and
Resource Conservation
J.
Recommended Program/Funding Matrix
K.
County Visionary Fund Memo
L.
White Paper – “The Role of MCCC in County Economic Development”
M.
“The Little Town That Could” – Ambler Memo
N.
LERTA Overview and Background
O.
Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code – Specific Plan Section
P.
State and Federal Economic Development Programs
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Montgomery County, on the whole, enjoys a considerable level of prosperity across a wide spectrum of
economic indicators, including business activity, housing values, household income, unemployment levels,
and others. Together, these factors help to position the County as one of the strongest and most desirable
in Pennsylvania, and arguably, the country. Yet, despite the overall strong position of the County, there
exist considerable divisions between the County’s municipalities, such that some continue to prosper while
others have seen a slow and gradual decline through the years while still others now face serious economic
challenges in terms of poverty, disinvestment, and a range of other issues.
Seeking to address these divisions and ensure the long-term economic health of all of its municipalities, the
Montgomery County Board of Commissioners (“Commissioners”) took the proactive step of established the
Montgomery County Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force (“Task Force”) in April of 2008
with the directive to develop a County-wide strategic economic development policy. Helping to motivate
this action by the Commissioners was the absence of both an overall economic development policy to drive
economic development funding decisions, as well as a clear understanding and agreement within the public
about the major economic development issues in the County. The County recognized that increasing
competition and limited external funding resources meant that its currently strong economic condition
should not be taken for granted and that it was critical to take on a more proactive role in its economic
future. This report represents the culmination of the efforts of this Task Force and offers for consideration
by the Commissioners a set of targeted strategic economic development policy recommendations
established by and with the consensus of the Task Force membership.
The Task Force met six times over the six months following its inception and, with technical and research
support from consultant Econsult Corporation, reached the conclusions now being presented in this
document. Helping to inform these recommendations and conclusions has been feedback and input
gathered through ongoing consultation with the County’s Economic Development Cabinet, including
Directors of the County’s Departments of Economic and Workforce Development and Housing and
Community Development, the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Authority, and the Director of
Policy for the Commissioners Office, as well with other County staff and economic development
professionals. Over the course of the project, the Task Force and Cabinet addressed four central tasks,
listed below:
Identifying priority economic development issues throughout the County
Establishing existing economic development programs and organizations within the County and/or
at its disposal
Identifying gaps and needs within the existing economic development structure and programming
Proposing funding and policy recommendations
In undertaking these tasks, the Task Force engaged in considerable discussion and debate, particularly
with respect to the types of programs and policies needed in the County, the ultimate funding levels that
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
viii
should accompany new programs, and the need and appropriateness of installing a new Director of
Economic Development to guide and oversee any new programs/policies. Implicit to all of these
discussions was the underlying assumption that the County has a distinct and critical role to play in guiding
and directing economic development activity throughout its constituent municipalities and it was up to the
Task Force to help define what that role could be.
The final recommendations in this report represent a consensus reached by the entire Task Force which
can be summarized with the following conclusions:
1. Task Force members agree that there is a need, throughout the County and in its older
communities in particular, for the actions and investments being proposed by the Task Force in
response to its identified priority issues and strategies.
2. The Task Force agrees to the specific nature of programs and policies being proposed in the
current set of recommendations (irrespective of specific funding levels).
3. The Task Force agrees to the specific funding levels being proposed in the current set of
recommendations.
Recommendations included in this report represent an opportunity for Montgomery County to advance its
economic priorities and goals and demonstrate its readiness to support new investment where it is most
needed. At the same time, recommendations support and build upon the success of existing County
economic development programs such as the Community Revitalization Program and low-interest loan
pools, as well as offer a critical source of leverage to bring additional public funding to bear to address its
priority issues and locations.
Importantly, funding proposals also stand to complement existing County investments in open space
preservation, as well as potential future investments in transportation now being explored by the County.
And, by strongly supporting the goals and priorities already outlined in the County’s 2005 Comprehensive
Economic Development, Land Use, and Vision Plans, the funding now being recommended presents a
clear opportunity for the County to bring its resources to bear to give its municipalities a collaborative stake,
and to win their cooperation in furthering its priorities and goals.
A final point worth noting is the broader economic climate now facing the Country as a whole. The current
economic downturn has resulted in increased unemployment across the board, compounded by a national
trend of declining property values. The result of these conditions has posed a particular challenge to local
and state governments, which are now faced with decreased tax revenues and increased demand for
social services. A key proposal of the incoming presidential administration has been to lend support to
local and state governments through increased funding for major infrastructure and public works projects.
It will be critical for these governments to be ready to move forward when such opportunities arise, and one
way to do so is by setting in place plans and funding programs that can best leverage future federal
programs. To this end, we note that the recommendations up for consideration represent a timely
opportunity for Montgomery County to take this lead and to ultimately set the standard in taking a proactive
stance on its own economic future.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
ix
Priority Economic Development Issues
The initial challenge undertaken by the Task Force was to determine a set of priority economic
development issues which would be addressed by the policy recommendations now up for consideration.
A wide range of issues were raised by Task Force members, with the final set determined based on both
the frequency with which each was noted and feedback by County economic development leaders. This
set is outlined below, listed in order of priority by the Task Force:
I.
Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities
II. Underutilization of Existing Business Locations
III. Restrictive Local Government Regulations and Business Friendliness
IV. Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention
Notably, an additional issue – Access and Transportation – was initially identified as the second highest
priority issue, but was ultimately excluded from the set of issues to be targeted by the Task Force based on
both the determination that policies in this area should be guided by the County’s Planning Commission, as
well as the County’s plans to examine Transportation-related issues and funding. For each of the
remaining issues selected by the Task Force, a set of specific policy goals was then established to help
further guide the creation of policy recommendations.
Rationale Behind and Guiding Principles for Policy Recommendations
The recommendations included in this report represent a unique opportunity for the County to position itself
as a leader in the region and State in taking progressive action to advance its economic priorities and
goals. In particular, the range of new funding proposals will enable the County to demonstrate its readiness
to support new investment where it is most needed, as well as offer a critical source of leverage to bring
additional public funding to bear to address its priority issues and locations. Such an investment on the
part of the County can also help to ensure the feasibility of many large-scale redevelopment projects, for
which the availability of gap financing is an essential component.
The funding and program recommendations in this report are consistent with and supportive of goals and
priorities outlined in the County’s existing Economic Development, Land Use, and Vision Comprehensive
Plans. Moving forward, the County can further promote these goals and priorities by building them into
funding eligibility requirements and establishing incentives for adhering to and promoting them. As a
starting off point for such a set of requirements, the following guiding principles identified by the Task Force
and Economic Development Cabinet offer a framework within which to establish programs:
Programs funded by the County should be aligned with the Keystone Principles and structured
to enhance the County’s ability to leverage State dollars for funded projects.
Projects funded by the County should be guided by broader planning objectives and within the
context of a defined vision plan for the overall development area.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
x
Programs should encourage collaboration among a wide range of relevant stakeholders,
Performance measurement systems should be incorporated into new programs in order to
ensure efficient and effective use of County dollars and accountability on the part of County
agencies deploying County funds.
Building off of these initial guidelines, a more specific and targeted set of eligibility criteria, included below,
can serve to direct and focus the approval and granting processes:
Adherence to "Green" building principles
Remediation and Re-Use of Brownfields locations
Compliance to the County's comprehensive transportation plan
Use of multi-municipal planning as advocated by the County
Extent to which multi-municipal planning contemplates revenue sharing from the project with
those municipalities participating in the planning process
Utilization of existing infrastructure by the proposed project
Communities with shared services
Projects which utilize funding from all major existing and future County funding programs (ie,
Open Spaces and similarly structured programs)
Projects which support an anti-sprawl, high-density development
Policy Recommendations
The recommendations offered in this report fall into three distinct categories: funding, overall coordination,
and programming. They respond to and address a range of gaps and needs in the County’s existing
economic development structure which were identified by the Task Force as part of the policy development
process. Notably, they are organized below based upon both the category into which they fall and the
specific priority economic development issue which they address (e.g., Recommendation I.1 is listed under
the “funding” category and addresses the first priority issue) Importantly, all programs will be carried out
by existing organizations currently in place throughout the County, meaning that the recommending funding
and policies do not require the creation of additional levels of bureaucracy or County agencies.
Funding Recommendations:
The cornerstone of the recommendations now offered is the creation of $105 million in new County-funded
economic development programs, which are to be spread out over a 7 year timeframe with $20 million
recommended for the initial year of programming. Funding programs and amounts are included below.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
xi
Recommendation I.1:
$12.5 million total increased “seed” funding in matching grants
and low-interest loans to expand the existing Community Revitalization Program activities,
including marketing and promotional campaigns for older communities throughout the County.
Funding will be directed towards projects that have already reached a certain level and require
additional funds to reach fruition.
Recommendation I.2: $15 million total in matching grants and low-interest loans to serve as
new “seed” funding through the Main Street Repositioning Fund. Funding will target second
stage main street and downtown redevelopment in older boroughs and towns (i.e., Jenkintown,
Abington, Lansdale, etc.) for projects focused on parking, rehabilitation of existing buildings,
and upgrading retail corridors.
Recommendation I.3: $40 million total in matching grants and low interest loans to serve as
“gap financing” for major redevelopment projects through the Economically Challenged
Communities Renaissance Fund. Financing is to be directed towards the County’s most
economically challenged communities, such as Norristown and Pottstown,1 for large scale,
transformational, multi-building commercial, industrial, and residential developments.
Recommendation I.4: $9 million total in low-interest loans, in the form of targeted business
incentives for locating in the County’s most economically challenged communities, such as
Norristown, Pottstown, and any others determined to have a similar level of need through the
Economically Challenged Communities Business Location Incentive Fund. Funding will be
divided among programs targeting small businesses and those directed toward larger scale
businesses and employers.
Recommendation I.5: $5 million total in matching grants for planning support through the
County Visionary Fund. New funding will support the development of the planning process and
the formation of planning partnerships necessary to implement large scale development
initiatives undertaken within a framework of visionary and comprehensive strategic planning.
Plans must be site specific and of a nature similar to master or site plans.
Recommendation II.1: $10 million total in low-interest loans through the Commercial/
Industrial Asset Redevelopment and Reinvestment Fund. Funding will be used to encourage
reinvestment in and reuse of existing commercial space throughout the County, in particular for
older office and industrial parks (built environment only).
Recommendation III.1: $6 million total in matching grants, low-interest loans, and operational
support for local municipalities through the Local Government Economic Development
Enhancement Program. Funding will target various incentives, marketing programs, and other
initiatives to be carried out by local municipalities
Recommendation IV.1: $7.5 million in matching grants and operational support towards
workforce development programs through the Workforce Development Creativity Fund.
Funding would target various workforce development-related programs, including contracting
Currently, Norristown and Pottstown are the only recipients of this pool of funding – additional analysis will be needed to
determine eligibility of other municipalities.
1
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
xii
out Career Link job placement programs and enhancing/expanding training programs available
at MCCC and other colleges and universities throughout the County
Overall Coordination:
In terms of structure, the most significant change recommended is to establish a County Director of
Economic Development, who would work with the existing Economic Development Cabinet and serve as a
liaison to the County Commissioners with regard to economic development activities, policies, and funding
decisions moving forward. In addition, the Director would hold the following responsibilities:
External and internal coordination
Lead “dealmaker” for County
Lobbying and advocacy; serving as the outside “face” of County economic development
Direct oversight and approval of appropriations made from proposed new funding programs2
Dealing with business leaders throughout the County
Liaison and direct contact to the County Commissioners
Chairman of Economic Development Cabinet; working collaboratively with Cabinet officials
Programming Recommendations:
In addition to these funding and coordination recommendations, the Task Force has compiled a range of
other programmatic recommendations, which include the following:
Recommendation I.6: Expand the capacity of the Redevelopment Authority with regard to
major redevelopment initiatives in targeted areas
Recommendation I.7: Adopt Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment, and Resource
Conservation as basis for allocating County funding
Recommendation I.8: Implement design charrettes to explore visions for downtown areas
and other development nodes
Recommendation III.2: Promote increased coordination and efficiency of local governments
by promoting and pursuing municipal consortiums and joint municipality agreements
Recommendation III.3: Serve as a primary and centralized information source for economic
development information
All funding decisions for new programs will be funneled through the Director, with the exception of expanded funding for the
Community Revitalization Program, which will continue to be administered through the Community Revitalization Board.
2
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
Recommendation III.4:
attracting new business
xiii
Assist municipalities in targeting commercial development and
Recommendation III.5: Institute Business Friendliness Report Card
Recommendation III.6: Implement conferences/symposia on different economic development
issues for local economic development leaders
Recommendation III.7: Promote international trade
Recommendation IV.2: Promote industry workforce partnerships and training programs in
targeted industries
Recommendation IV.3: Actively seek out input and feedback from County-based businesses
as to current and future workforce needs, including through surveys and focus groups
Additional Policy Areas to Explore:
Finally, along with the policy recommendations that have been discussed above, there remain a range of
factors impacting these recommendations that warrant additional attention and exploration by County
economic development officials. These issues are outlined below and explored in greater depth throughout
the body of this paper.
International trade
Infrastructure development
Community development
Montgomery County Community College role in downtown anchor development
State and federal policy impact on poverty concentration
Rationale for Proposed Funding Recommendations
The proposed funding allocations recommended in this report ultimately reflect a variety of factors,
including the following set of fundamental considerations:
The priority placed on each of the four priority economic development issues identified by the
Task Force through Task 1
The extent to which these issues are currently addressed through existing funding streams
A realistic estimation of the extent of funding that would be necessary to truly achieve the set
of policy goals laid out for each of the identified priority issues
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
xiv
The role of these dollars in leveraging other public and private investments
An estimation of the extent and scale of major projects that might take place based on the
needs and issues that currently affect various municipalities throughout the County
In addition to these underlying considerations, feedback from various County economic development
professionals has provided a sense of the typical subsidy levels sought out for different program activities
to be funded through proposed County programs. It is in large part through this feedback that the various
program types and funding levels were determined, and in turn the total figure of $105 million in County
investments.
Potential Funding Sources
County-based funding sources for the proposed funding programs generally fall into four key categories: (1)
County General Fund appropriations, (2) County General Obligation Bond proceeds, (3) Industrial
Development bonds issued by the County IDA or RDA (with debt service funded by the County), and (4)
HUD 108 loans leveraged against the County’s Community Development Block Grant allocations.
In addition to these County sources, there are a range of non-County funding and program opportunities
that the County should encourage and help to facilitate implementation of by municipalities. While some of
these programs do not involve direct funding, they are important examples of the types of programs the
County should be promoting as it seeks to maximize the use of all existing economic development tools
and further leverage any County dollars committed. Some such examples examined in this report include
local bond issues and HUD 108 loans, Tax Increment Financing, Local Economic Revitalization Tax
Assistance (LERTA) program, Community Development Financing Institutions (CDFIs), Specific Plan
programming, Business Improvement Districts and a range of state and federal assistance programs.
Implementation
Funding Rollout:
Given the considerable sum of all recommended programming - $105 million – it will ultimately be
necessary to fund programs over a multi-year period. The funding rollout schedule presented below
provides such a proposed timeline and allocation of new County dollars, with annual allocations based
upon conversations with County finance officials regarding the County’s dept and capital budget capacities
in the coming years. As can be seen in the schedule below, initial investments for FY 2009 total $20
million, with those programs which most directly address the County’s top priority issues – (I) Challenges
facing older communities and (II) Underutilization of existing commercial space – targeted for immediate
funding.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
xv
Rollout Time Period and Funding
($MM)
FY
20102011
($MM)
FY
20122013
($MM)
FY
20142015
($MM)
FY
20092015
($MM)
-
4.0
4.0
4.5
12.5
I.2 Main Street Repositioning Fund
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
I.3 Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund
14.0
16.0
10.0
-
40.0
I.4 Economically Challenged Communities Business Location
Incentive Fund
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
9.0
I.5 County Visionary Fund
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
II.1 Commercial / Industrial Asset Redevelopment and
Reinvestment Fund
-
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
III.1 Local Government Economic Development Enhancement
Program
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
IV.1 Workforce Development Creativity Fund
-
1.0
2.5
4.0
7.5
20.0
34.0
28.5
22.5
105.0
Funding Program
I.1 Community Revitalization Program
Total
FY
2009
Program Guidelines and Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility requirements, application guidelines, and selection criteria and processes should be established
for each of the recommended programs. Each step of the application process should be easy to
understand and transparent, and should be carefully tailored to generate applications for funding that meet
the program objectives as closely as possible, and to deter those that would not. However, some latitude
or flexibility should be built in to allow for applications requesting funding for projects which that might not
meet the exact objectives, but nevertheless would be an excellent candidate for County funding to achieve
the general goals.
In addition to more general guideline and requirement categories, specific guidelines for each of the
recommended funding programs should be established. Some preliminary guidelines are included in
Section 8 of this report and reflect input of the Economic Development Cabinet. It is important to note that
these are suggestions only, and that the final regulations should be developed by the Economic
Development Director in consultation with the Economic Development Cabinet and then receive final
approval by the County Commissioners.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
xvi
Conclusion
Ultimately, the policy recommendations being offered for consideration by the County Commissioners
represent an important opportunity for Montgomery County to act proactively towards securing the long
term economic health of all of its constituent municipalities, and in particular its most at-risk communities.
For, while the County as a whole can be counted as one of the most prosperous in the Commonwealth and
the Country as a whole, there remain sharp divisions between the County’s most prosperous areas and
those which are more economically challenged.
Given the confluence of the current economic downturn and the strains now facing local and state
government’s across the US, the tight competition for available economic development funding dollars, and
the incoming presidential administration’s plans to boost infrastructure investment at the federal level, the
actions recommended will allow the County to capitalize on any federal funding opportunities and invest in
its own future and overall quality of life.
More specifically, the recommended funding programs will serve as a strategic tool that will enable the
County to leverage state, federal, and other non-County funding streams, as well as to maximize the
benefits of County funding streams already in use and promote the County’s existing economic
development priorities and goals. The availability of funding from the County makes a clear statement to
private investors and public funding sources alike that Montgomery County is ready and able to help move
major projects forward and is willing to take on risk of its own in order to do so. At the same time, the Task
Force’s recommendation to create a County Director of Economic Development will be critical to ensuring
that the County is able to manage and successfully implement its new expanded role in the provision of
economic development funding and programming.
In short, the time is right and the need exists to establish a new County-wide strategic economic
development policy. The Task Force, by consensus, offers this report and its corresponding set of policy
recommendations for consideration by the County Commissioners. The Task Force believes the potential
payoffs for adoption of these recommendations will be substantial and will demonstrate to a range of
relevant stakeholders that Montgomery County is progressive and proactive in its approach to the
economic wellbeing of its local communities.
.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
1.0
1
INTRODUCTION
Montgomery County undoubtedly enjoys one of the strongest economies in Pennsylvania, with a diverse
employment and industry base, excellent access to local and interstate highway systems, lower than
average unemployment rates, higher levels of personal income, strong school systems, and a well-trained
and educated work force. Moreover, the County Government, along with its many municipal and township
governments, currently delivers a wide range of economic development services and resources to
businesses, investors, and other public and private entities. Yet, despite a significant network of agencies
delivering such services, the County currently lacks a unified, strategic economic development policy to
drive economic development funding decisions, nor, until now, has there emerged a dedicated effort among
the public and key stakeholder groups to generate such a policy.
Responding to these circumstances, the Montgomery County Commissioners established a Strategic
Economic Development Policy Task Force and commissioned the present study in order to develop a
cohesive and strategic county-wide economic development policy. Included in this section are a brief
overview of the conditions which led to this undertaking, as well as a statement outlining the case for the
policy recommendations provided in this report as setting the correct course of action at this critical juncture
in determining the overall direction of the County’s economic affairs.
1.1
Background and Framework for Study
With more than 775,000 residents, including a civilian labor force of over 430,000, Montgomery County
stands as the third largest county in Pennsylvania and a major player in both the regional and State
economies. On the whole, Montgomery County enjoys a diverse economy that is home to a range of major
employers in high growth sectors such as the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, as well as an
unemployment rate that that is below both State and national levels. The County is located approximately
twenty miles west of Center City Philadelphia and features exceptional highway access, with the County
seat in Norristown situated less than a 40 minute drive from a major international airport. In 2007, median
household income in the County was $74,000, $25,000 higher than for the State as a whole, while median
housing values of approximately $300,000 nearly doubled those for the State as a whole.3 Moreover, the
County’s track record of prudent fiscal management and integrity is highlighted by its AAA Bond Rating – a
distinction shared with less than 30 other counties in the nation.
In light of this background, it is fair to conclude that Montgomery County is one of the more prosperous
counties in the State, as well as in the U.S. Working to maintain and enhance this strong position are
various County level economic development departments, authorities, and other private and public entities.
Under the umbrella of County government are the Department of Economic and Workforce Development,
the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, the Montgomery County Development
Corporation, and the Workforce Investment Board, as well as the Community Revitalization Board, County
Planning Commission, and Department of Housing and Community Development. Notably, Montgomery
County has adopted a unique approach of combining the tasks of economic and workforce development
under a single department structure. In addition to these governmental entities, the Montgomery County
3
www.census.gov
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
2
Redevelopment Authority and Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation work alongside the
County to promote business attraction, revitalization, workforce development, and a host of other economic
development priorities.
Together, this network of organizations currently oversees a range of programs and funding mechanisms
designed to promote economic development throughout the County. Currently in place is an Economic
Development Cabinet formed by the County Commissioners and comprised of the County Policy Director
and the directors of various County economic development organizations, including the Department of
Economic and Workforce Development, the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Authority, and the
Department of Housing and Community Development. As noted in the County’s 2007 Annual Report on
economic development, this Cabinet is charged with supporting the County Commissioners in leading a
pro-active strategic effort to identify opportunities for economic growth and at the same time remove
impediments to capitalizing on such opportunities.
Yet, despite the County’s generally sound economic position and strong and proactive economic
development structure, there remain considerable divisions between the County’s municipalities with
respect to their overall economic health. Namely, while some areas continue to prosper, others have seen
a slow and gradual decline through the years while still others now face serious economic challenges in
terms of poverty, disinvestment, and a range of other issues. Moreover, there currently exists no overall
economic development policy to drive economic development funding decisions, nor is there a clear
understanding and agreement within the public about the major economic development issues in the
County. The County recognizes that increasing competition and limited external funding resources mean
that its currently strong economic condition should not be taken for granted and it must take a more
proactive role in its economic future. As such, the County’s Commissioners have identified a need for a
more centralized economic development policy to help guide resource allocation and provide a more
strategic direction to the range of activities and entities now involved in the area of economic development.
To that end, Econsult Corporation (“Econsult”) has been retained by the County to oversee the present
study in order to help facilitate a planning process and ultimately offer recommendations for a new strategic
policy for the County. Integral to this process has been the work and contributions of the County appointed
Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force, comprised of a diverse set of County leaders
representing the public, private, and government sectors, as well as a broad cross section of the County’s
geography. Over the course of the past several months, Econsult has worked closely with this Task Force
to develop a set of targeted policy recommendations which are now being submitted for the consideration
of the County Commissioners. The recommendations contained herein were developed through a process
of ongoing dialogue with and with the approval of Task Force members and reflect a consensus view
shared among them.
In commissioning this study, the County identified a series of objectives to help guide the policy
development process and ensure that the final recommendations to the County Commissioners would be at
once economically justifiable and politically, structurally, and fiscally responsible. These objectives are
outlined below and have served as the framework upon which the following study has been built:
1. Identify significant economic development issues in the County
2. Analyze and critique existing programs
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
3
3. Recommend a County-wide economic development policy
4. Create and foster public consensus for this policy
5. Work collaboratively and cooperatively with senior County staff and others in the
production of all work.
1.2
Case Statement for a County Investment
Despite its overall strength, Montgomery County is not without the challenges facing most other localities.
These challenges become especially apparent in the County’s older and economically challenged
communities, most notably in the form of declining older communities, underutilized commercial facilities,
fragmented local government policies, and shortages of adequately trained workforce. Their growing
divergence in well being separates the challenged communities from those not or much less so and argues
strongly for the initiatives that can bridge their differences. One such bridging initiative calls for the County
to directly confront and work to overcome the handicap of its challenged communities in competing for
economic development resources. But given the scarcity of such resources, it is no less crucial that the
County in its overall competition for their funding dollars apply its more general perspective and realize it
must continue to play a proactive role in maintaining the County’s overall strength.
The recommendations included in this report represent a unique opportunity for the County to achieve
these goals and position itself as a leader in the region and State in taking progressive action to advance its
economic priorities and goals. In particular, the range of new funding proposals will enable the County to
demonstrate its readiness to support new investment where it is most needed, as well as offer a critical
source of leverage to bring additional public funding to bear to address its priority issues and locations.
Such an investment on the part of the County can also help to ensure the feasibility of many large-scale
redevelopment projects, for which the availability of gap financing is an essential component.
By meeting these needs, funding proposals stand to complement existing County investments in open
space preservation, as well as potential future investments in transportation now being explored by the
County. In many ways, the economic stagnation found in the urban pockets of the County has contributed
directly to suburban sprawl and the resultant loss of the County’s open space. Such sprawl and Greenfield
development has brought in its wake not only an exodus of urban community investment and a decline in
its property values and tax revenues, but also an increase in the congestion of the County’s roadways and
the burdens placed on its other community and population serving infrastructures. The County has
recognized the danger in leaving these outcomes unchecked, and has responded first through its $150
million, multi-year Open Spaces program, and now through commissioning this study to explore a means of
complementing its Open Spaces spending with targeted economic development programming and funding.
It is also important to note that the recommendations included in this report strongly support the goals and
priorities already outlined in the County’s 2005 Comprehensive Economic Development, Land Use, and
Vision Plans. In the area of economic development, this includes helping to revitalize the County’s
downtowns and main streets, adaptively reusing vacant and underutilized commercial sites, attracting and
retaining businesses, creating a good business climate, retaining a skilled workforce for County
businesses, and supporting a readily available workforce. In addition, these recommendations support the
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
4
County’s visions relating to land use, open spaces, economic development, and housing, as well as its
specific land use goals of directing development to designated growth areas, enhancing older developed
areas, and encouraging sound land use planning. The funding now being recommended presents a clear
opportunity for the County to bring its resources to bear to give its municipalities a collaborative stake, and
to win their cooperation in furthering these priorities and goals.
These recommendations also support and build upon the success of existing County economic
development programs such as the Community Revitalization Program and its low-interest loan pools.
Such programs have thus far served as a key resource for economic and community development efforts
across older communities and other areas in need of new business activity. Yet, the funding currently
available through these programs is simply insufficient to jumpstart the kinds of transformational projects
that will be necessary to realize a meaningful change in the County’s most economically challenged
communities. Thus, the funding proposals now offered for consideration are of a size and scale deemed
sufficient to make a real impact on impacted areas, as determined through consultation with County
economic development officials and the Task Force membership, as well as through ongoing comparative
research.
In total, the recommendations in this report offer a strategic approach through which the County can
address its most pressing economic development challenges and invest in the future of its most at-risk
communities. Such investments in business growth and attraction offer a fresh approach to community
development, whereby initial investments by the County can help to spur future private sector investments
and in turn help to grow the tax base and increase tax revenues in impacted communities. The
recommended programs are designed to generate market-based economic opportunities and the resultant
growth within the impacted communities will enable them to improve service provision and thus offer a
more attractive location for businesses and residents alike. Thus, rather than seeking to improve
communities through direct transfers of funds and provision of services to lower income populations, the
approach offered herein helps to grow and strengthen the community as a whole with the assumption that
just as a rising tide lifts all boats, so too will a thriving economy and business environment positively impact
the residents of a particular community.
1.3
Overview of Report
The remainder of this report provides a detailed account of the policy development process undertaken by
the Task Force and describes the final policy recommendations offered for consideration by the County
Commissioners. More specifically:
Section 2 presents the potential impacts and leveraging potential of public investments in
economic development, including examples of how funding has been leveraged through
programs similar to those now being recommended, as well as the types of impacts and
benefits that can result from such activities.
Section 3 describes the policy development approach, detailing the specific tasks identified by
the County for the Task Force to complete, and explaining the formation and roles of the Task
Force throughout the process.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
5
Section 4 offers an overview of the County’s current economic climate and identifies and
provides background for each of the priority economic development issues which were
identified by the Task Force and served as the basis upon which policy recommendations were
established.
Section 5 continues laying out the framework for the study by describing the County’s current
economic development structure and outlining the various gaps and needs with respect to the
priority economic development issues that were identified by the Task Force.
Section 6 presents the final policy recommendations being offered to the Commissioners,
including guiding principles behind the recommendations, the recommendations themselves,
and the rationale for the specific program funding being recommended.
Section 7 identifies potential funding sources to support the proposed funding
recommendations, including those at the County level as well as indirect non-county funding
and program opportunities that should also be explored by the County.
Section 8 offers additional suggestions for the implementation of the policy recommendations,
including a proposed rollout schedule and program guidelines and eligibility requirements
Section 9 concludes the report by offering summary comments and final conclusions regarding
the policy recommendations now being offered.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
2.0
6
IMPACTS AND LEVERAGING POTENTIAL OF PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
An implicit understanding throughout the course of this endeavor has been the expectation that any
investments and subsidies funded by the County will ultimately yield significant and positive benefits to
address the set of priority economic development issues identified by the Task Force. To that end, this
section offers a snapshot of the ways in which existing County economic development programs and
programs from other government entities have produced such benefits in the past.
One of the most significant benefits to be gained through the County investments proposed in this report is
the ability to leverage other private and public funding sources that may be used to support economic
development activities throughout the County. Notably, there currently exists a wealth of State program
assistance which invites local participation. The following section offers examples of how such leveraging
can occur, illustrating the ways in which the County can take advantage of these invitations by the State
and other funding sources. This leveraging potential is presented through the perspectives of both existing
County programs and the experiences of other cities, counties, and states throughout the US. To begin
(and as a testament to the significance of this particular benefit), we include below an expanded discussion
on why the ability to leverage outside funding – particularly State funding - is so critical for Montgomery
County at this particular juncture.
2.1
Leveraging Potential of Public Investments in Economic Development
In examining the leverage potential of potential new County funding, we turn to the examples and feedback
provided by Task Force member and former Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Housing and
Community Revitalization Larry Segal, who in that role gained extensive experience working on major
redevelopment deals throughout the State and played a key role in targeting the Governor’s legislatively
inaugurated and substantially funded community revitalization funding initiatives. As Mr. Segal notes:
From early in his first Administration and with the Legislature’s sanction, Governor Rendell has
emphasized the revitalization of Pennsylvania’s smaller and older communities as a priority.
Especially relevant to Montgomery County is the fact that the Commonwealth thereby committed
substantial dollars across departments and disciplines which are specifically targeted to
redevelopment.
The Governor’s initial $2.3 billion economic stimulus plan included substantial funding for capital
projects, blight elimination and downtown redevelopment, parks and recreation and environmental
remediation, housing, infrastructure development and industrial site re-use. In addition, Governor
Rendell has maintained this high level of investment and has indicated his intention to retain
redevelopment as a priority agenda item.
The State programs recognize that no single source of funding, much less alone county funding,
can be expected to finance projects of significant scale and scope. The State was prepared to
incentivize the assemblage and participation of multiple sources of funding for such projects. To
summarize its approach: Leverage is key.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
7
With substantial State investment likely to remain directed toward redevelopment, Montgomery County
should be focused on maximizing “its share.” Here, the shared priority of the County and the State—
manifested by common substantial investment, should be what is needed to attract more dollars to the
county and accomplish more “impactful” projects.
It is certainly true that many State programs (notably RACP) require local “match”— and significant County
investment can make the job of providing the required “match” much easier. But, more importantly,
significant investment by the County has the greater potential of leveraging greater State investment; in
short, a significant investment of County resources toward an articulated priority is impossible to ignore.
The leveraging of funds, and the expectation that significant additional State funding can be secured,
should be an absolute demand of any County investment. With meaningful County participation, and a
focus on results, it will be hard for the State not to respond commensurately.
Having laid out the broader case for a County investment as a means of leveraging additional funding, we
now offer more specific examples of how public investments are not only able to achieve such financial
leveraging, but also to produce their own positive impacts in the areas in which they are directed. In this
presentation, we present our findings both for programs funded or carried out by the County itself, as well
for those programs originating in other locales throughout the country.
2.2
Impacts of Existing County Spending
One key example of the impacts that can be realized through targeted investments in economic
development projects is demonstrated by the County’s own spending is the County’s Community
Revitalization Program (CRP), which has to date funded nearly $35 million in revitalization projects
throughout the County’s older communities. As explained by Brian O’Leary of the Planning Commission in
a presentation to the Task Force, the program has produced considerable results in the designated
“revitalization communities” thus far, where positive trends such as more residential and commercial
development being proposed, more homes being built, increasing home values, and decreases in crime
can be seen. Recognizing that it is generally difficult to say exactly how much of the improvements in these
communities can be directly attributed to the CRP, analysis presented in the five-year program review
shows that particularly in the cases of proposed and built residential units, the positive trends in
revitalization communities outpaced the County as a whole.
In addition to these more general trends, the Task Force heard from former Ambler Main Street Manager
Bernadette Dougherty as to the range of projects seeded in part through CRP funds and which helped to
produce the transformational changes now seen in Ambler’s downtown.4 Furthermore, Mr. O’Leary
presented a range of more specific outcomes from the first five years of the program that were made
possible in part with funding allocated through the Community Revitalization Program. Some of these
include:
45 new businesses in the Roslyn section of Abington
22 new businesses and a new tenant in the old PECO building in downtown Pottstown
4
See Appendix M for Bernadette Dougherty’s “The Little Town That Could” memo.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
8
New restaurants, retail, office, and services uses throughout areas such as Hatfield, Narberth,
Norristown, Ambler, and Glenside
Creation of “destination” centers in downtown areas of Ambler, Narberth, and Jenkintown
New Hispanic mini-mall and other businesses in West Marshall St. area of Norristown
More than a dozen homes rehabilitated and resold to low and moderate income families in
Norristown; new home modernization program started in Pottstown
Since these initial outcomes, the CRP has funded a variety of projects which have produced considerable
impacts in their respective communities. Mr. O’Leary offered examples of these successes, further
demonstrating the potential benefits to be gained through additional investments by the County. These
examples, described below, illustrate the extent to which program funding has not only helped to leverage
additional public and private investments, but also to spur additional development activity as a result the
initially funded project.
Pottstown: The completion of the Community College pedestrian underpass and rehabilitation of
the Vaughn Knitting Mills brownfield site have produced a variety of impacts. With assurances that
the underpass would be built, a 50,000 square foot building was rehabbed by a developer for $9
million. The college is renting this building and has added 8 full time jobs and 42 part time jobs.
College enrollment is up 17% over two years. In addition, workforce training facilities have been
included in the building. (This is a 2008 Revitalization Award winner.)
Telford: Since the rehabilitation of the two train station buildings and parking lot, two new
restaurants have located in the buildings, bringing 10 jobs and investing $160,000. Five new
businesses have located around these two restaurants. The parking lot is used by the Indian
Valley Farmer's market, which has seen a 22% jump in vendors. (This is a 2008 Revitalization
Award winner.)
Norristown: Partly due to the new DeKalb Street streetscape project, the owner of an old
supermarket chose to rehab the building, adding 4,000 square feet, and to add new stores with
8,000 square feet.
Souderton: The borough's new parking lot, streetscape improvements, and support of the
Montgomery Theater have encouraged developers to redevelop two old mill buildings on Main
Street. One of the buildings is currently being converted into 28 executive office suites.
Again, it is difficult to say that all progress in the affected revitalization communities is directly correlated to
the CRP; however, what can be said with considerable assurance is that the funding provided through this
program has significantly helped to leverage other private and public funding both for projects receiving
funds specifically and in terms of the overall momentum that projects funded through the CRP have helped
to build in their respective communities.
In addition to the Community Revitalization Program, it is instructive to look to projects carried out through
the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) as evidence to the role that additional County dollars could play in
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
9
revitalization efforts throughout the County. While these examples do not necessarily use County dollars
per se, they are clear illustrations of the types of projects which can have tremendous impacts on their
respective communities, and at the same time which would benefit greatly from a source of gap financing to
ensure their feasibility. We submit that the funding programs now being recommended for the County can
fulfill this important role. In particular, there are currently several major redevelopment projects currently
being pursued by the RDA and which face funding gaps as a result of, among various factors, matching
requirements from other funding sources. Notable in these cases are projects receiving RACP grants from
the State, which require a one to one non-State funding match. At present, there are six new projects
receiving a total of $31.5 million in RACP funding, for which the availability of independent County dollars
would be highly beneficial. Included below are examples of these and other projects of the sort which
could potentially benefit from the proposed County funding programs:
A $16 million office building project in Norristown slated to receive $5 million in RACP grant funding
and requiring $3.5 million in local (County) match.
Several redevelopment projects in Ardmore resulted in $6 million in RACP awards being allocated
to Lower Merion Township.
A major proposed redevelopment project in Ambler which is planned to commence at the end of
2008 and is currently facing a funding gap of more than $15 million, including $5 million in
necessary match for RACP grants awarded.
A proposed parking garage in Jenkintown is seeking a one to one match for an anticipated $6
million RACP appropriation.
An airport expansion project in Pottstown faces a $2.5 million funding shortfall.
Each of these projects has the potential to bring substantial benefits to their respective communities and
the County as a whole, including job creation and business growth, helping to attract commercial and
residential development, and general quality of life improvements, and thus are the types of investments
which could be beneficiaries of the recommended County funding programs.
2.3
External Examples of Public Investment impacts
In addition to these County-based examples of the impacts and benefits to be gained through a substantial
investment by the County, we can find numerous instances outside the County where public economic
development investments have produced a considerable economic benefit or have served to leverage other
public and private funding.
One such example can be found in the public investments made by the City of Vancouver and Washington
State towards downtown Vancouver economic development initiatives. Namely, public investments in
downtown developments by the City and State totaling $54.6 million were estimated to generate local and
State tax revenues of $163.6 million when projected from 1997 out to 2025. Broken down, this includes
$26.7 million in City revenues, $23.9 million in revenue for Clark County, the Port of Vancouver, the
Vancouver School District, and other publicly funded entities, and $113 million in State revenue. These
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
10
investments also produced considerable economic impacts, including total economic activity of $135 million
directly attributable to new developments and nearly 1,500 direct ongoing jobs. In addition, City and State
investments helped to leverage an additional $250 million in private investment, producing a public
investment leverage ratio of 4.6:1.5
Apart from these quantitative benefits, the investments made towards Vancouver’s downtown development
helped to promote a wide range of the City’s Comprehensive Plan objectives, including:6
Increasing the ratio of jobs to residents for the City and region
Promoting revenue enhancing developments to support public service provision
Maximizing the utilization of land designated for employment through more intensive new building
construction and redevelopment and intensified use of existing buildings
Increasing the range of housing options and affordable housing opportunities, as well as
encouraging innovating housing uses through zoning
Examined as a whole, the Vancouver downtown investments offer a clear example of the substantial and
positive potential benefits that can result from targeted and strategic public investment. While the funding
programs recommended for Montgomery County would ultimately be implemented across a wider ranger of
individual municipalities, the above example illustrates the ways in which County funding can help to
produce considerable economic and fiscal impacts, leverage other public and private funds, and promote
the County’s existing comprehensive plans for economic development, land use, and the County’s overall
vision.
In addition to this more general example, it is also helpful to look at the outcomes and impacts of specific
funding programs implemented by other governmental entities throughout the US.
One such example is Baltimore County, MD’s low-interest loan programs targeting small businesses in its
older communities. As reported in January of 2004, the County’s annual disbursement of $2.4 million in
loans ranging from $50,000 to $300,000 helped to leverage outside funding and made it possible for
companies on the receiving end to complete transactions with local lending institutions totaling $64.5
million. 7 These impacts demonstrate the enormous potential of the funding streams currently being
proposed for Montgomery County, particularly programs such as the Business Location Incentive Fund,
which will provide incentives for businesses seeking to locate in the County’s most economically challenged
areas.
Another illustration of the leveraging potential to be realized through a County investment is the
considerable returns gained through Nebraska’s CDBG program. Notably, during the period from 20032007, a total of $54.1 million in CDBG funding invested over nearly 350 projects was able to leverage
roughly $220 million in outside investments from federal, state, foundation, and private sources, translating
Lewis, Paul, “Analysis of the Return on Investment in City of Vancouver Downtown Development,” November 2006.
ibid
7 Dembeck, Chet, “Baltimore County Gets Favorable Return on Investment on its Low-,” The (Baltimore) Daily Record, January
16, 2004.
5
6
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
11
into $4 leveraged for every CDBG dollar invested. These same CDBG investments helped to create over
1,500 jobs throughout the State, impact more than 80,000 residents through improvements to public
facilities and/or infrastructure, and impact more than 145,000 residents through 113 investments in local
municipalities used towards planning community improvements.8
We can find similar demonstrations of the ways in which CDBG grant dollars have been used to leverage
outside funding by looking to the New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal’s recent
approval of more than $3 million in grants to Upstate communities. Some examples of the anticipated
returns from these funds include the following:9
$750,000 in CDBG grants used towards machinery and equipment will help Remington Arms
Company, Inc. create 100 full-time jobs over 3 years, and, combined with other NY State grants,
will help to generate more than $10 million in equity.
$750,000 in CDBG funding used to assist the startup of Renewable Energy Development, Inc. is
anticipated to create 124 new jobs, and, along with other public grants, to generate more than $1
million in equity.
$556,000 in CDBG funds towards a business expansion for Coast Profession, Inc., along with
$200,000 in other State grants, will generate more than $725,000 in equity.
While the above examples all demonstrate the impacts and leveraging potential of CDBG funds specifically,
it is important that they be viewed in the context of all potential programs being recommended for the
County. To that end, these impacts and returns illustrate more generally the extent to which investments of
any structure or program type made by the County will have the potential for similarly significant benefits.
Thus, a $750,000 loan granted through the proposed Economically Challenged Communities Business
Location Incentive Fund - regardless of its specific funding source - could similarly help to leverage millions
of additional dollars in other public and private investment and at the same time ensure the feasibility of a
project that would bring jobs, tax revenue, and other economic and fiscal benefits to the community in
which it is located.
“CDBG 2003-2007 Investments and Impacts” Nebraska Department of Economic Development, 2008.
“DHRC Approves More Than $3 Million in Economic Development Grants.” New York State Division of Housing & Community
Renewal, September 17, 2008.
8
9
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
3.0
12
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND APPROACH
In setting out to develop a strategic economic development policy for the County, the County identified a
series of five key tasks to be carried out by Econsult with input and guidance from the Task Force and
County officials. These tasks correspond with the set of strategic objectives outlined in Section 1 and
identified by the County to help guide the policy making process. Included in Section 3.1 below is a listing
of these tasks, as well as a summary of the process and overall approach employed by Econsult
throughout the project term.
Notably, Econsult has employed a range of approaches in order to reach a comprehensive and thoroughly
researched set of proposed policy recommendations, with independent research conducted by Econsult
submitted on an ongoing basis for comment and review by both County officials and the County-appointed
Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force. Thus, in addition to summaries of the County’s tasks
and Econsult’s approach to the project, included in Section 2.2 is an overview of the roles and activities
carried out by the Task Force towards the creation of a final set of policy recommendations.
3.1
County Prescribed Tasks and Approach to Assigned Tasks
Task 1 - Identify Significant Economic Development Issues:
The Consultant will collect information and perform the appropriate analyses to assess and identify the
significant economic development issues and needs that are currently present and/or likely to occur in the
near term in the County. This may include key informant interviews, surveys, existing studies, research and
other methods. County staff will assist in the collection of this information.
To begin, an important first step in Econsult’s work involved reviewing the existing body of studies and
reports focused on local, County, and State level economic development issues, as well as examining the
County’s existing economic development planning documents and comprehensive plans.10 Econsult also
engaged in a preliminary exploration of the County’s current economic development functions and the
entities and governmental departments engaged in economic development activities and programs. In
accomplishing these tasks, Econsult consulted various leaders of economic development agencies
throughout the County, and Econsult also conducted research independently via secondary research
available online.
Once gaining a sound understanding of the economic “lay of the land” in Montgomery County, Econsult
was then able to develop an initial list of economic development issues which ultimately served as the
starting point for the final set of issues and policy recommendations included in this report. The refinement
of this list involved a highly iterative process made possible through ongoing dialogue between Econsult,
the Task Force, the Economic Development Cabinet, and County officials. An important aspect of this
stage of work was the distribution of a Task 1 Issues Feedback Sheet,11 through which Task Force
members provided Econsult with their top priority economic development issues and other commentary.
From this, Econsult was able to narrow down a final list of priority economic development issues and
10
11
See Appendix H for a listing of documents consulted throughout the policy planning process.
See Appendix E for sample feedback sheet.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
13
accompanying policy recommendations, which then underwent a final review and was approved by the
Task Force.
Task 2 - Identify and Assess Existing Economic Development Programs:
The Consultant will compile information on all existing economic development programs occurring within
the County, whether it is provided by a County or County-related agency or by other entities. County staff
will assist in the collection of this information; the Consultant will perform the necessary analysis to
determine to what extent the existing programs are addressing and meeting the issues and needs identified
in Task 1. Gaps will be identified, as well as “best practices” in the economic development profession.
Moving forward, Econsult conducted a more detailed examination of the County’s economic development
programming and structure. This research was facilitated though both a series of presentations by leaders
of the various economic development entities in the County, as well as additional interviews with these
individuals. As part of this research, Econsult examined not only the major economic development
organizations in the County, but also Chambers of Commerce who can serve as a key resource for
business and economic development activity going forward. Using the four priority economic development
issues identified during Task 1 as a framework, Econsult examined the pool of resources available to
address each of these issues, broken down into four distinct assistance categories: (1) Financing, (2)
Planning/Technical Assistance, (3) Marketing/Advocacy, and (4) Site Selection/Assembly/Preparation.
Within each of these assistance areas, Econsult outlined the specific County agencies and programs which
are most applicable.
In order to provide context for the activities and organizations in place in Montgomery County, another
aspect of this stage of work involved conducting a comparative analysis with other counties possessing
similar attributes to Montgomery County in terms of structure, overall economic position, proximity to major
urban centers, and other factors.
Econsult then worked with the Task Force to identify major gaps and needs within the County’s economic
development programming and structure. This stage of work involved follow-up interviews with County
economic development officials, as well as discussions and interviews with Task Force members. Also
instrumental in the completion of this analysis was ongoing dialogue and feedback among Task Force
members via the online discussion forum, where members were able to offer suggestions and ideas and
then respond to postings by fellow members.
Task 3 - Recommend Funding Amounts and Potential Funding Sources for Economic Development
Programs:
Based upon the results of Task 1 and Task 2, the Consultant will determine if additional funding or other
resources are necessary in order to address the needs and issues identified. If additional funding is found
to be necessary, the Consultant will provide recommendations for an order of magnitude cost for new
County programs and likely sources for these programs. These sources might include internal and external
funding sources.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
14
Building off of the gaps and needs analysis conducted for the completion of Task 2, Econsult worked with
the Task Force and County economic development officials to shape an initial set of preliminary proposed
policy recommendations. Throughout this stage of the process, recommendations were divided among the
four priority economic development issues identified by the Task Force. Also helping to inform these
recommendations were a collection of case studies from other counties throughout the country also
engaged in self-directed economic development programming.12
In addition to providing the recommendations themselves, Econsult worked with the Task Force to develop
a set of guiding principles for any proposed policies, as well as to identify key rationale behind the
recommendation of a significant investment of resources on the part of the County. Also examined at this
point were potential funding sources to support those policy recommendations involving new funding on the
part of the County. Notably, while initially specific funding amounts were considered, in the end it was
decided that at this stage of work only proportions of total funding would be offered for discussion.
Ultimately, these preliminary recommendations and other analyses were compiled and drafted into a memo
which was then distributed to the Task Force for further discussion and deliberation.
Task 4 - Recommend County-Wide Economic Development Policy:
The Consultant will prepare a technical memorandum describing a recommended county-wide strategic
economic development policy and action plan. This policy and plan is intended to be a targeted and
focused county-wide economic development policy that will guide County funding and resource allocation,
and external organization funding within the County. It will provide detailed recommendations as to
proposed programs, funding levels, recommended sources, governance and organization.
Following the distribution and discussion of the initial “Preliminary Proposed Recommendations Memo,”
Econsult applied feedback from the Task Force and County officials in order to develop a revised
recommendations memorandum. This revised document expanded considerably on the components
explored more briefly in the preliminary memo, particularly with regard to specific policy recommendations
such as funding programs and the new Director of Economic Development position, rationale and
guidelines for proposed policies, and funding sources to support proposed County investments. In addition
to these expanded components, several new items were also examined in this revised memo, including
local funding programs to be encouraged by the County, incentivizing of existing County priorities through
new programming, and issues such as infrastructure development, community development, and the role of
the County’s community college in economic development, among others.
In response to further feedback from the Task Force and County officials following the distribution of the
revised recommendations memo, Econsult compiled an additional document for consideration by the Task
Force that explored in greater depth the impact and rationale behind a County investment. Econsult
conducted independent comparative research, worked with individual Task Force members, and consulted
with County economic development officials in order to assemble both specific examples of the returns and
impacts of potential future investments by the County in terms of economic activity and tax revenue gains,
as well as to demonstrate the specific funding that will be needed in order to impart the type of
transformational change the County is seeking to realize through a new strategic economic development
12
See Appendix G for case studies of County economic development programming.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
15
policy. Finally, this memo also presented a proposed roll-out for new proposed funding, broken down
across a seven-year time frame.
Task 5:
Produce Final Report
The Consultant will prepare a final report presenting all of the tasks described above, as well as any
necessary maps, charts or other graphics. The technical memorandums described above will be included,
either as appendices or within the body of the report.
Upon completion of the various project components described above, Econsult commenced work on a final
draft report, inclusive of the content from all previous memos and other distributed materials, which
represents the final conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force. Following the distribution of an
initial draft to the Task Force, members were given a revision period during which they could submit
feedback and commentary, all of which was incorporated by Econsult into a revised draft report. This
report was then reviewed in concert with County economic development officials, Cabinet members, and
the Task Force Executive Committee, with the outcome being the final report now offered for the
consideration of the County Commissioners.
3.2
Task Force Formation and Roles
The recommendations in this report reflect a set of policy proposals developed through consultation with
and with the consensus of a County-appointed Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force. Upon
notice to proceed with the project, Econsult worked with the County to assemble this Task Force, which
represents a wide cross section of the municipalities located in Montgomery County, as well as leaders
from the business, education, and government sectors, among others.
The Task Force was initially authorized through a resolution passed by the County Board of
Commissioners on April 17, 2007.13 From this larger group, an executive committee was selected and cochairs were appointed to play a leadership role in guiding the activities of the Task Force.
In the April 2007 Resolution, the Task Force was charged with developing “a strategic policy and plan for a
county-wide economic development policy, and [to] present same to the County Commissioners with
recommendations for implementing it.” This resolution further stated that “with input from the Planning
Commission, Department of Economic and Workforce Development, Department of Housing and
Community Development, and Redevelopment Authority, this ‘Strategic Economic Development Policy
Task Force’ shall present a written report summarizing its conclusions and recommendations…” This
report now represents the culmination of the work of this Task Force, carried out over a roughly seven
month period which began with the initial Task Force meeting in May 2008. Furthermore, the latter charge
described above was successfully achieved through the inclusion of the County’s Economic Development
Task Force throughout the course of all Task Force and policy development proceedings.
13
See Appendix A for Resolution to establish Task Force.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
16
The Task Force convened for six monthly meetings between May and October of 2008,14 each of which
was preceded by a meeting of the Executive Committee one week prior. During these meetings, Task
Force members engaged in a range of activities, from listening to presentations by County Economic
Development leaders and officials to group discussions and question and answer periods. Each week,
meetings addressed a specific aspect of the overall task at hand, with initial meetings involving the
selection of priority economic development issues for the County and later meetings increasingly focused
on reaching a consensus as to the specific policy recommendations that would be offered to the County
Commissioners.
In addition to the discourse taking place at Task Force meetings, Task Force members engaged in several
“homework” assignments designed to collect further feedback and insights from Task members regarding
both priority issues and gaps and needs within these issue areas. Task Force members also took part in
an online discussion forum organized by Econsult which enabled an ongoing conversation among Task
Force members between monthly meetings.
At the final meeting of the Task Force, all members present voted on a series of questions designed to
ensure that consensus had been reached with regard to the recommendations now being submitted for
consideration by the County Commissioners. Through this vote, agreement was reached that (a) there is in
fact a need, throughout the County and its older communities in particular, for the actions and investments
now being proposed, (b) the specific types of programs being proposed are appropriate and sufficient to
meet these needs, and finally (c) the specific funding levels being recommended are also appropriate and
sufficient to address the issues and challenges facing the County. In addition to this consensus on the
major content of this report, Task Force members later had an opportunity to review and sign off on the
final report, with the Executive Committee and Economic Development Cabinet playing a key role in
finalizing the report now up for consideration.
14
See Appendix B for agendas and summaries from Task Force meetings.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
4.0
17
TASK 1: COUNTY OVERVIEW AND IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The first Task prescribed by the County involved the identification of priority economic development issues
within the County. This process initially involved a review of existing County economic development
reports and plans in order to develop an understanding of the general economic climate within the County.
Using the findings of this research as a framework, Econsult then worked with the Task Force and County
officials in order to develop a preliminary list of economic development issues and then deliberated with the
Task Force in order to refine this list to a selection of the top four priority issues to be addressed through a
new strategic economic development policy. The results of this stage of research and analysis are
included in the sections below.
4.1
Montgomery County Overview and Economic Climate
Montgomery County is, on the whole, doing very well economically, having ranked 22nd in the nation in
terms of highest average weekly wages in 2007. This record sets the County apart as one of the most
prosperous counties not only in Pennsylvania, but in the US as well.
In more specific terms, Montgomery County is currently home to more than 775,000 residents,
approximately 430,000 of whom are part of the civilian labor force. It measures at 483 square land miles
with one of the highest population densities in the State, at 1,607 residents per square mile, and is made up
of 62 municipalities and 22 school districts.15 As is highlighted on the MCIDC website, the County is
“strategically situated in the heart of the Boston-to-Richmond megalopolis, and in the back yard of
Philadelphia, [offering] business the most concentrated consumer population in the United States. Nearly
one-half of the nation's population and a disproportionately large percentage of America's buying power are
located within a 500-mile radius of the County.”16
Between 2000 and 2007, the County saw approximately 3.5 percent population growth, which is about half
the rate of the U.S. as a whole, but almost three times the rate for all of Pennsylvania. In 2007,
Montgomery County residents saw median household incomes of $74,000, $25,000 higher than the State
average. In addition, median housing values of $300,000 were close to two times the State average.17
Moreover, the County’s track record of prudent fiscal management and integrity is highlighted by its AAA
Bond Rating – a distinction shared with less than 30 other counties in the nation.
In order to gain some further perspective on this relative position, we compared Montgomery County with
other counties in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Northeast regions who share similar characteristics in
terms of both economic factors and relative proximity to major cities and metropolitan areas. To that end,
we selected a range of counties against which to draw comparisons with Montgomery County, chosen
based on size, wealth, and their position neighboring a major city which is not incorporated into the County.
In order to paint a clearer picture of how Montgomery County measures up to these competitor regions, we
http://www.city-data.com/county/Montgomery_County-PA.html
http://www.mcidc.com/business/
17 http://www.census.gov/
15
16
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
18
have examined the following factors: population, governance structure, number of municipalities,
relationship to municipal governments, municipal functions filled by the county, and county role in economic
development.
It is important to recognize that county governments operate under a wide variety of structures and powersharing arrangements. This becomes clear when Montgomery County is compared to other counties of
comparable size and economic strength. Through such an analysis, we are able to see that some counties
have far greater levels of resources (particularly as they relate to economic development) relative to other
counties. For the present study, we examine these differences within the context of the four key economic
development issues identified during the completion of Task 1: economic issues facing older communities,
underutilization of existing commercial sites, workforce development, and local government’s regulations
and business friendliness. The results of this analysis are included in Appendix F.
Included below is a brief summary of vital economic statistics for Montgomery County and each of its
comparable counties. These figures are included in the summary table below18 and demonstrate the
relative strength of Montgomery County as compared to other similar counties in the US. In particular,
Montgomery County demonstrates the highest per capita income of all comparison counties, and ranks in
the upper half of all counties in terms of population growth since 2000.
County
County
Population
(2007)
Population
Growth
Since 2000
Number of
Employees in
County
(2007)
Income
per
Capita
(2006)
Size of
County
Budget
($BB)
Number of
Municipalities
Number
of School
Districts
Montgomery (PA)
776,122
3.48%
486,800
$36,655
$0.48
62
22
Baltimore (MD)
788,994
4.60%
377,000
$31,086
n/a
1
Butler (OH)
357,888
7.54%
148,700
$24,720
13
16
Montgomery (MD)
930,813
6.58%
460,900
$43,073
$2.60
$0.76
(2006)
$4.30
19
1
Nassau (NY)
1,306,533
-2.10%
603,400
$37,932
69
56
Norfolk (MA)
654,909
0.71%
326,000
$38,476
28
31
St. Louis (MO)
995,118
-2.09%
611,900
$31,539
$2.74
$0.32
(FY 2007)
$0.50
91
25
Summit (OH)
543,487
0.11%
274,200
$24,859
$0.41
28
n/a
Westchester (NY)
951,325
3.02%
420,500
$43,780
$1.77
45
48
4.2
Identifying Priority Economic Development Issues
In seeking to identify priority economic development issues in the County, one of the Task Force’s first
steps was to agree on a good working definition of the term economic development to serve as a guide for
All following findings are based on the latest reported estimates and figures as they have been reported by the counties
themselves or other data collection agencies such as the U.S. Census Department.
18
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
19
future planning and development of the county-wide economic development policy. In reaching this
definition, included below, Econsult incorporated feedback and comments from various Task Force
members to refine and adapt an initial definition proposed by Econsult at the onset of work on Task 1:
Programs and policies implemented by different jurisdictions to encourage (or discourage) the type
and level of economic activity and investment within that jurisdiction’s borders. It is often linked to
increasing employment within the jurisdiction via expanding business activity and ultimately
improving the quality of life of county residents. Economic development takes as basic premise that
economic activity is driven primarily by market forces, so such government programs and policies
are designed to influence and facilitate private sector business and investment decision-making,
especially location decisions. At the county level (except in areas where counties perform
municipal-type functions), such programs and policies are typically implemented in conjunction with
State and municipal level economic development efforts.
A second, and more important, aspect of the Task Force’s and Econsult’s work on Task 1 was to help focus
the discussion of economic development in the County by defining the three to four key economic
development issues to focus on in this Strategic Economic Development Plan. To accomplish this goal,
Econsult worked with the Task Force and Economic Development Cabinet to assess and refine a
preliminary list of economic development issues, and then select the issues the Task Force members
deemed most important for the County.
In addition to far-reaching discussion at two Task Force meetings and two Executive Committee meetings,
individual Task Force members provided feedback on the top three to four issues that each considered to
be most important and hence worthy of County policy action.19 Nearly two-thirds of Task Force members
submitted responses to a revised issues list distributed following the first Task Force meeting, offering
important insights into those issues which are most pressing and critical for the County to address. While
sixteen different issues were identified by these submissions, the following five were selected with the
highest frequency by Task Force members:
The Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities
Access and Transportation Issues
Underutilization of Business Locations
Restrictive Local Government Regulations and Lack of “Business Friendliness”
Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention Issues
Having reached a consensus as to the specific priority economic development issues on which to focus, it
was also important to identify a broader set of policy goals and objectives for each of these issues that
would help to guide future work on policy recommendations for the County. To that end, included below
are expanded discussions of each of these issues, along with the set of policy objectives that should be
addressed through a County economic development policy. Notably, “transportation and access” was
ultimately not included as part of the final set of priority economic development issues, due to the facts that
19
See Appendix E for feedback sheet used in determining priority issues.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
20
(a) is largely under the realm of the County’s Planning Commission, and (b) it is recognized that the County
Commissioners have tasked the Planning Commission with recommending a broader, county-wide
transportation program and therefore that program will be able to be integrated into the strategic economic
development policy at a later date. However, all other issues in the above list are explored below:
1. Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities
By almost all measures, Montgomery County is one of the strongest counties in the region and State in
terms of its economic prosperity and potential for future growth, evidenced in part by the following
examples:
Job Growth – Between 2000 and 2005, Montgomery County gained over 13,000 new jobs, which is
the second highest county-wide job growth in the 9-county Greater Philadelphia Region. This
increase represented a 3% growth rate, which fell above the 9-county growth rate of 2%.20
Wages – Montgomery County ranked 22nd highest in the nation and highest overall in
Pennsylvania for average weekly wages during the first quarter of 2007 at $1,176.21
Housing Prices – The median home price in Montgomery County in 2007 was $278,000, $30,000
more than the US median of $248,000
Workforce – Montgomery County is a net importer of workers, with almost 67,000 workers
commuting into the county from surrounding areas in 2000.22
Yet, this generally strong picture masks important disparities among the 62 municipalities in the County.
While the top fifth of the County’s municipalities showed an average 9% job growth between 2000 and
2005, the bottom fifth showed an average 1% job loss. This bottom fifth includes many of the County’s
older communities, including such places such as Norristown, Ambler, Pottstown, Jenkintown, Lansdale,
Bridgeport, Telford, and Schwenksville, among others. The following indicators show further evidence of
the economic gaps between the strongest and weakest municipalities in the County:
Highest Municipality
Lowest Municipality
2.0
0.4
Assessed Value per Capita
$147,184
$35,624
Business Receipts per Capita
$447,789
$36,220
Indicator
Jobs per Capita
The challenges facing these older communities are not unlike those faced by other similar communities in
the region, although they may be less severe in their magnitude. As noted in the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission (DVRPC) 1998 study, “The Future of First Generation Suburbs in the Delaware
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2008.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008.
22 “Montgomery County Today & Trends,” Montgomery County Planning Commission, 2008.
20
21
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
21
Valley Region,” such challenges include population and job loss, stagnant or declining local tax base, and
increased demand for municipal services. In addressing these challenges, it is also important to recognize
the range of factors and trends that have led to the decline of certain older communities throughout the
County. Included among those identified in the County’s Comprehensive Economic Development Plan from
2005 are the following:
New shopping habits
Land constraints
Dependence on automobiles
Building obsolescence
New retail approaches
Aging infrastructure
Decline of traditional industries
Image problems
Lack of organization
Unfavorable or inappropriate government
policies, taxes, and rules
Less visible parking
In order to confront and mitigate the negative impact of these factors, the County has identified two key
strategies in its 2005 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. First, the County should attract and retain
businesses through tax incentives and subsidies, providing good transportation access, encouraging land
consolidation and common ownership, understanding the current market and identifying market niches,
establishing anchor tenants and community draws, directing business locations and supporting small
business programs, encouraging new housing, updating local codes, improving parking availability and
upgrading infrastructure and utilities. Second, the County should improve downtown images through
streetscape improvements, traffic calming and pedestrian crossings, encouraging appropriate building
design and establishing façade improvement programs, expanding historic preservation, requiring good
sign design and wayfinding systems, creating central gathering places and sponsoring special events,
improving public relations and marketing, improving housing and addressing broken window syndrome,
providing adequate municipal services, and changing State taxes and investment strategies
Building upon these recommendations and incorporating feedback and input from the County Task Force,
Economic Development Cabinet, and other County officials, the following policy goals have been identified
as central to addressing the issue of economic challenges facing older communities throughout the County:
Improve/upgrade basic infrastructure
Improve transportation access
Support new development, including key “anchor” developments
Address environmental problems
Promote resident employment opportunities and resident job readiness
Promote more business friendly local government
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
22
Support parking solutions
Improve public safety and perception of public safety
Promote historic/cultural tourism and destination opportunities (magnets)
Improve site selection, land assembly, and “spade-ready” land preparation processes
Promote coordination of community and business development programs and activities
2. Underutilization of Existing Business Locations
The underutilization of existing business locations stands as a key concern for Montgomery County.
Notably, even as ongoing commercial development in recent years has brought with it a vibrant retail
sector, job growth and other economic and quality of life benefits, it has also produced unintended
consequences such as vacancies in existing commercial stock and a propensity towards always looking
outward and onward for new development opportunities. The result has been lower rates of occupancy,
rents, and investment in existing shopping centers, office parks, and other commercial properties. Such
trends are hardly unique to Montgomery County, with development patterns throughout the country
trending towards big-box retail and low-density office parks built easily and cheaply by buying up unused
open spaces and farms. However, each year new examples of this type of underutilization crop up within
the County, with key examples being the Fort Washington Office Park, Valley Forge Corporate Center, and
numerous older retail centers throughout Montgomery County.
Moving forward, it will be important for the County to address this issue if it is to offset a host of potential
costs related with an increase in this type of fragmented development and its resultant sprawl. In a study
conducted on behalf of 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, five such costs were identified as an increasing
concern throughout Pennsylvania. Included among these were increases in the costs of roads, housing,
schools, and utilities; increases in the costs of transportation; consumption of agricultural lands, natural
areas, and open spaces; concentration of poverty and acceleration of socio-economic decline in cities,
towns, and older suburbs, and increases in pollution and stress.23
Importantly, Montgomery County has already taken steps to address this trend, prioritizing issues such as
reuse of existing commercial spaces in its Economic Development, Vision, and Land Use plans. These
plans also identify key steps and policy recommendations for the County and its constituent municipalities
to undertake in order to achieve this goal. Furthermore, revitalization of commercial areas and Main
Streets was ranked as a top priority by residents of Montgomery County surveyed by the County Planning
Commission as part of its 2005 Vision Plan, while these same residents also ranked as a last priority the
construction of new shopping centers and office parks.
In undertaking the present exercise to create a strategic economic development policy for the County, the
following policy goals have been identified by Econsult, along with the Strategic Economic Development
Policy Task Force, Economic Development Cabinet, and other Economic Development Officials, in order to
23
“The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania.” Clarion Associations on behalf of 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania. January 2000.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
23
build on the initial steps noted above and work towards reversing the underutilization of existing business
locations.
Assist in land assembly for repositioning and redevelopment
Assist in environmental cleanup or other infrastructure needs of older business parks
Assist in making zoning more friendly to redevelopment
Improve transportation access
3. Local Government Regulations and “Business Friendliness”
Local government imposes a variety of restrictions, via regulation, on business and investment activity.
The vast majority of these regulations are well accepted and reflect balancing the needs of the public with
private rights. However, in some cases, developers consider certain regulations to be overly restrictive,
significantly increasing the cost of doing business or making real estate investments in the respective
jurisdictions.
In seeking to address this issue of local government regulations and “business friendliness,” one of the key
challenges facing the County is the extremely fragmented nature of Pennsylvania’s system of local
government. Namely, according to the 2002 Census of Governments, Pennsylvania ranked as the third
highest state in the nation in terms of number of local governments, at 2,630, with 62 local municipalities
located within the boundaries of Montgomery County alone.24 This fragmentation has produced a high
degree of variance between individual municipalities in terms of rules and regulations governing
development, which can be confusing to developers and a hindrance to the overall development process.
Competition for development and jobs between municipalities has further exacerbated this problem by
hindering cooperation and collaborations which might otherwise contribute to a more favorable business
and development environment.
In Montgomery County’s 2005 Economic Development plan, business climate was highlighted as a key
issue for County, with specific recommendations identified aimed at improving this aspect of the County.
Included among these were the need to enhance communication between business and government,
including through the County’s numerous chambers of commerce, as well as facilitating the site selection
process for new businesses to the area, increasing uniformity of zoning designations, land use regulations,
and local planning across municipalities, and enhancing efficiency in government service delivery, among
others. Creating a good business climate was also a specified goal of the County’s 2005 Vision Plan,
which identified a series of similar steps aimed at achieving this goal.
In order for the County to reach these goals, it will be imperative to gain buy-in and cooperation from local
governments, such that the ideas of joint planning between multiple municipalities (enabled and
encouraged by the Legislature in the late 1990’s) and county-wide uniformity of development-related
24
Rusk, David “‘Little Boxes’ – Limited Horizons,” December 2003.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
24
regulatory processes are recognized as being critical to local growth and prosperity. To that end, the Task
Force and Cabinet members have identified the following set of policy goals to be included in the
forthcoming strategic economic development policy.
Improve municipal cooperation, including joint local planning
Develop more business friendly regulations and zoning codes
Promote more efficient local government service provision
4. Workforce Development
A highly skilled and plentiful workforce is a central requirement for a strong and prosperous economy, and
to that end workforce development has been identified as a key issue on which the County should focus in
the development of a countywide strategic economic development policy. According to a survey of 1,500
companies conducted by the Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board in 2001, 77% of businesses
surveyed had experienced serious or moderate labor shortages (though conditions have improved in recent
years), with the worst shortages concentrated in fields such as craft workers, machinists, and
technicians/electricians. Furthermore, more than half of respondents surveyed expressed an increased
need for education and training of their workforce, and over 60% of respondents felt that local K-12 schools
were not adequately preparing students for the workplace.
From these survey results, it is apparent that education and training are two key focus areas for future
policies addressing workforce development. As identified in the County’s 2005 Economic Development
Plan, there are three key categories of job seekers to which workforce training is most aptly targeted.
These include:
Youth/emerging workers – given that the County’s population of residents aged 15-19 is expected
to grow by 10% by 2025 and that of residents aged 20 to 34 are projected to grow by 24%, it is
imperative that these groups are targeted at both the K-12 level and through post-secondary
education and workforce training programs.
Transitional workers – as the County’s diversity increases in coming years through projected rises
in immigration and poverty levels, transitional workers – those lacking basic skills or having been
laid off from closing or declining businesses – are also likely to increase. As the nature of business
continues to change in future years, these groups may need retraining in order to meet the
demands of the changing economy.
Incumbent workers – workers already employed who may be seeking new jobs in their field or
other fields will need access to appropriate training to support these shifting career paths.
In addition to education and training, two other key concerns relating to the County’s workforce needs are
the availability of appropriately priced and located housing for a resident workforce, as well as
transportation options and mobility of workers. On this latter point, DVRPC’s May 2007 study “Improving
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
25
Access to Opportunities in the Delaware Valley Region,” makes the case that over 12% of the Greater
Philadelphia Region workforce is transit dependent, while only two-thirds of Montgomery County’s major
employers are accessible by transit. Given that Montgomery County is a net importer of jobs from locations
across the region, improving access and mobility to and from major employment centers is a key factor to
address in a countywide economic development policy.
In order to address the range of factors discussed above impacting workforce development in the County,
the following policy goals have been identified by the Task Force and other County entities consulted for
this study:
Promote efforts to improve job skill levels of Montgomery County residents (including
Montgomery County Community College)
Promote opportunities to attract and retain skilled workforce
Increase supply of workforce housing
Improve labor force mobility within the County
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
5.0
26
TASK 2: EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE AND
IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS AND NEEDS
The second task prescribed by the Task Force towards the completion of a new strategic economic
development policy involved examining existing economic development organizations and programs within
the County and then identifying major gaps and needs within this structure. To complete this Task,
Econsult first conducted a thorough review of the programs and organizations involved in economic
development at the municipal, County, regional, and State levels, a process which involved both
independent research as well as interviews with leaders and representatives among these organizations.
From this foundation, Econsult then worked with the Task Force to identify the major gaps and needs within
these programs and organizations, as well as those opportunities for new programming to address the
County’s priority economic development issues. The findings of this stage of research are included in the
sections below.
5.1
Existing Economic Development Structure25
Through its various government agencies and other entities focused on economic development activity,
Montgomery County is currently able to administer a range of programs to address the needs and demands
of existing and potential businesses. These organizations are described below, broken down by those
falling under the arm of County Government as well as those outside the government sector.
5.1.1
Organizations within County Government
Leading these efforts on the part of County government is the Department of Economic and Workforce
Development (DEWD). Headed by Executive Director Gerald Birkelbach, DEWD oversees many local
economic development and workforce programs, making it one of the only agencies of its kind to combine
these two functions under one department. Recognizing that the need for qualified and skilled workers
stands as a primary concern for companies considering location and expansion plans, the County adopted
this structure, enabling it to provide high quality service to both companies and job seekers. Key functions
of the department include the following:
Economic development planning
Low interest loan programs
CareerLink career development center for job seekers and employers
Industry partnerships under Governor Rendell’s Job Ready PA program
EARN Centers (County welfare-to-work job placement program)
See Appendix C for more additional information on County, Regional, and State level economic development organizations
and County Chambers of Commerce.
25
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
27
Youth programs to assist economically disadvantaged youth
Demographic & labor market information
Business start-up assistance
Site selection assistance in conjunction with IDA and IDC
Brokering resources to provide business access to reduce costs for capital expansion projects and
assist in providing qualified workers
Under the umbrella of DEWD are several other organizations which administer programs designed to
address the functions outlined above. One such entity on the economic development side is the
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority (IDA), a quasi-governmental organization which aims
to reduce unemployment, maintain employment at high levels, and develop business opportunities
throughout he County. The IDA achieves these goals by serving as a pass through for private lending
institutions, whereby it borrows money from private lending institutions by issuing bonds or notes (which,
due to its quasi-governmental status can be tax-exempt) and then loans this money to Montgomery County
companies to finance projects, often securing below-market interest rates that can be passed along in
savings to the borrower.
Another economic development organization focused entity falling under the DEWD umbrella is the
Montgomery County Development Corporation (MCDC), which serves as the County’s official “Area Loan
Organization,” offering competitive, low-interest rate financing for a range of businesses (largely industrial),
with funding to be used for real estate acquisition and renovation, equipment and working capital. MCDC
administers the Pennsylvania Small Business First Fund (SBFF) and the MicroLoan Fund for the County,
as well as a grant through the Commonwealth’s Local Economic Development Assistance Fund to market
and promote the County’s business resources. Several promotional materials were produced using this
funding, including the County’s website.
Moving to the workforce side, DEWD administers the functions of the County’s Workforce Investment
Board, a group of executives from businesses, unions, schools, universities and social services who
oversee Montgomery County’s job training and placement programs. The WIB oversees workforce
development policies and programs throughout the County and participates in collaborative activities with
other WIBs throughout the region. One key activity managed through the WIB is the Industry Partnership
program, which helps bring together multiple employers and workers falling within the same industry cluster
to address common needs such as youth and worker training, organizational and human relations
challenges, and the creation of new career pathways. In addition, the WIB overseas a range of initiatives
designed to provide educational and occupational learning programs for youth aged 5 through 21, including
the Youth Empowerment Program, which provides job readiness and skills training for youth ages 14 and
21, as well as a variety of summer programs for youth ages 5 to 14.
Apart from the WIB programs described above, DEWD also oversees on the workforce side the
Employment Advancement and Retention Network (EARN) program, which is funded through the PA
Department of Public Welfare and provides supportive services designed to help individuals re-entering the
workforce overcome barriers that might otherwise hinder their successful re-entry. In addition, DEWD
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
28
currently staffs the PA Career Link program, a key resource for connecting job seekers and potential
employers.
Also falling under the realm of County government are activities carried out by the County Planning
Commission, which is led by Kenneth Hughes and which provides planning assistance to local planning
commissions and works with municipal governments on similar activities. The Planning Commission’s
involvement in economic development processes falls primarily under the realms of zoning, mapping,
communication, and smart growth planning. One key example is the 2005 document “Economic
Development – Shaping Our Future: A Comprehensive Plan for Montgomery County,” which offered
recommendations, strategies and goals that would enable the County to maintain a strong economy while
at the same time directing growth and development to areas of the County in need of economic
revitalization.
The Planning Commission has also designed the Community Revitalization Program (CRP). That program,
using the Commission’s advisory services, is administered by the Community Revitalization Board, under
the guidance of Chairman Kenneth Davis. The CRP was inaugurated in 2000 to provide funding aimed at
strengthening and stabilizing the economies of the County’s older communities. Such funding ultimately
aims to help those communities become more vibrant, livable, and attractive places to work, live, and visit.
The funding is provided as “seed” money to jumpstart revitalization efforts which, if realized, might then
attract the infusion of private community changing investments. Grants are available to specific targeted
areas only, which may include entire municipalities or portions of municipalities. Only Montgomery County
municipalities may apply for the revitalization program, although they may apply on behalf of an
organization doing a project within the municipality.
A final governmental entity responsible for economic development programming in the County is the
Department of Housing and Community Development, which is headed up by Kathy Phifer and which
administers funding for programs related to housing, economic and community development. The
Department works with municipalities, local non-profit agencies, and other counties, state, and federal
departments as well as developers and the general public, typically acting in a grantor or lender capacity.
Additionally, its staff performs monitoring and compliance functions and offers technical assistance.
5.1.2
Organizations Outside of County Government
In addition to the entities falling under the arm of the County government, there are two outside agencies in
the County which play critical roles in the area of economic development. The first of these is the
Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority (RDA), headed up by Executive Director John Nugent. The
RDA serves as an independent governmental agency which uses its access to State and federal dollar
assistance in furtherance of its twin purposes: to assist the County's townships and boroughs in stimulating
economic revitalization and to aid in the provision of affordable housing. The RDA's funding is generated
not only through State and Federal Grant programs, but also from reimbursements received from
municipalities and private sector entities for services provided to them by the Authority. Most applicable to
the current study are the RDA’s functions, described below:
Financing Powers: the RDA assembles and administers below market rate financing packages to
make redevelopment and reuse projects economically viable, including:
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
29
– Identifying and applying for federal, State and County loan and grant funds applicable
to the redevelopment project;
– Providing grants and low interest loans for environmental assessments and remediation
using the Brownfields Program;
– Issuing tax-exempt bonds for capital projects of non-profit organizations and for lower
income housing developments;
– Structuring and administering Tax Increment Financing under which some or all of the
new tax revenues created by the redevelopment project are earmarked to repay the
loan used to finance a portion of the project.
Real Estate: The RDA has special powers to purchase, sell, lease or dispose of real estate,
including purchasing property for private redevelopment. If granted authority by the County and
local municipality, it can acquire redevelopment properties through eminent domain. It can sell
acquired properties on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate for purposes of
redevelopment.
The other key organization falling outside the County Government is the Montgomery County Industrial
Development Corporation (MCIDC), headed up by Executive Director Carmen Italia. MCIDC is a private
entity that administers the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority financing program and Suburban
Development Council’s Revolving Loan Program, as well as the packaging of SBA 504 loans. MCIDC also
plays a key role in site selection assistance for both existing and new firms looking to expand/relocate
within the County. Its inventory of sites includes manufacturing and warehouse facilities, industrials/flex
facilities, office/retail facilities, and land sites, among others. The organization works with other County
economic development agencies, including the Montgomery County DEWD, WIB, RDA, and Planning
Commission, as well as local IDCs, chambers of commerce, and other local and regional economic
development organizations.
5.2
Overview of County Economic Development Programs and Funding Relating
to Key Economic Development Issues
The following is an assessment of Montgomery County’s existing economic development entities and
programs. For the purposes of this assessment, we have organized the following analysis in terms of the
four key economic development issues determined during the completion of Task 1. To recall, these
include:
The Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities
Underutilization of Business Locations
Local Government Regulations and “Business Friendliness”
Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention Issues
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
30
Using this framework, we have examined the pool of resources available to address each of these issues,
broken down into four distinct assistance categories: (1) Financing, (2) Planning/Technical Assistance, (3)
Marketing/Advocacy, and (4) Site Selection/Assembly/Preparation.
Within each of these assistance
areas, we have then outlined the specific County agencies and their applicable programs which most
appropriately apply. Notably, we have examined the following agencies and County departments which we
consider to make up the core of the County-based economic development community:
Montgomery County Department of Economic and Workforce Development (Including Workforce
Investment Board and Other Workforce-Related Divisions) (MCDEWD)
Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Development (MCDHCD)
Montgomery County Planning Commission (MCPC)
Montgomery County Community Revitalization Board (MCCRB)
Montgomery County Development Corporation (MCDC)
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority (MCIDA)
Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority (Montco RDA)
Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation (MCIDC)
We have included a summary matrix of our analysis below, with the expanded results of our analysis
included in Appendix D.
County-Based Assistance and Resources
Issues
Financing
Planning/Technical
Assistance
Marketing/
Advocacy
Site
Selection/Assem
bly/ Preparation
• MCPC: Community
• Montco RDA: Below
Economic
Challenges
Facing Older
Communities
market rate financing;
Brownfields remediation
assistance; Funding for
rehabilitation and
renovation through DCED
• MCCBR: Community
Revitalization Program
• MCDHCD: CDBG
Funding
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
Planning Assistance
Program
• MCCBR: Community
Revitalization
Program
• Montco RDA:
Preparation of
redevelopment plans;
Preparation of tax
increment financing
plans
• Montco RDA:
Brownfields
Remediation; Site
assembly
assistance
December 2008
31
County-Based Assistance and Resources
Issues
Financing
Planning/Technical
Assistance
Marketing/
Advocacy
Site
Selection/Assem
bly/ Preparation
• MCIDA: Below market
rate loans/tax-exempt
financing
• MCDC: Low interest rate
Underutilization of
Existing Business
Locations
financing
• MCIDC: Loans, loan
guarantees, venture
capital, grants, and tax
credits and incentives
• MCRDA: Funding for
• MCIDC: Connector to
Industrial Resource
Centers and Small
Business
Development Centers
• MCPC: Community
Planning Assistance
Program
rehabilitation and
renovation through DCED
• MCDC: PA Local
Economic
Development
Assistance Fund
grants for
marketing and
promoting the
County’s business
resources.
• MCIDC: Site and
building location
assistance
• MCDEWD: Workforce
• MCIDC: Customized Job
Training program; Job
Creation Tax Credits
Workforce
Development and
Labor Attraction/
Retention Issues
• Montco RDA: Financing
for workforce housing
through Housing
Redevelopment Program
• MCDHCD: Funding and
assistance for workforce
housing
Investment Board
(WIB); Employment
Advancement and
Retention Network
(EARN); CareerLink/
Montco Works
• MCPC: Workforce
housing planning
research and support
• Montco RDA:
Technical Assistance
for workforce housing
through Housing
Redevelopment
Program
• MCPC: Assistance
Local Government
Regulation and
“Business
Friendliness”
updating zoning and
subdivision
ordinances;
Community Planning
Assistance Program
• MCIDC: Consulting
services to
municipalities
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
• MCPC: Workforce
housing advocacy
and promotion
• Montco RDA:
Marketing and
other support
services for
workforce housing
through Housing
Redevelopment
Program
• MCIDC: Liaison to
Chambers of
Commerce,
municipalities, and
ED organizations;
County/Governme
nt Information
Center
• MCIDC: County/
Government
Information Center
to assist site
selectors
December 2008
5.3
32
Gaps and Needs within Existing Economic Development Structure
Included below is an analysis of the various gaps and needs that now exist within the framework of the
County’s current economic development structure and programming. Broken down by the various priority
economic development issues identified by the Task Force, these gaps and needs serve as the basis upon
which the policy recommendations contained within this report have been formed.
Challenges Facing Older Communities:
Need to prioritize communities by level of need, as well as clearly identify those critical areas for
development and put into place incentives which will be able to attract investors and developers –
examples include tax increment financing (TIF), Keystone Opportunity Zones (KOZ), Enterprise
Zones (EZ), and Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA)
Attracting developers and private investment to the County's communities facing potential or further
decline is extremely challenging due to a current lack of incentives – County economic
development agencies need the tools with which to steer development into these areas.
The Redevelopment Authority, which handles the majority of deals targeting the County’s most
economically challenged communities, receives no dedicated funding streams from the County for
programming and a limited budget of $500,000 in operational support generated primarily through
project fees; lack of a regular funding stream has made it difficult to hire additional staff to support
the RDA director and drive efforts to procure additional State and federal dollars.
Funding requests for the County’s Community Revitalization Program generally exceed annual
grant availability of $5 million by $2 million to $3 million, while caps on the amount of funding
municipalities can apply for in any given year can delay the completion of projects funded through
this program.
Currently, the Community Revitalization Program is driven by local municipalities and their
revitalization plans, with projects rarely involving the collaboration of key private sector players. A
program similar to the Revitalization program but targeted toward private businesses and
developers would allow the program to expand its reach beyond the largely public space projects
that are currently its main focus and could also encourage public-private partnerships.
Legislative gaps, including the lack of liability protection for County agencies (i.e., RDA) during the
environmental remediation process, as well as eminent domain issues impacting assembly and
packaging of attractive and usable development sites, can stand as roadblocks to the completion of
key redevelopment projects.
Existing parameters for Small Business First Fund (SBFF) loans (administered by MCDC) limit loan
requests to manufacturing industries, remediation of environmental problems, high tech enterprises
and certain entertainment enterprises such as restaurants. There is a need for funding similar in
structure to SBFF loans to target small business owners beyond the parameters of the existing
program – both in terms of business categories and loan amounts.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
33
Programs are needed to provide funding and the authority to assemble land in the County’s
communities of opportunity – e.g., Norristown and Pottstown - where development has previously
been hindered by an inability to package spade-ready development sites.
There is a need for independent County-driven funding to help leverage other State and federal
program funding – by establishing more of its own funding sources, the County would be able to
provide matching funds and other structured funding streams to fill financing gaps in projects
already receiving financing through other public and private sources.
Underutilization of Existing Commercial Space
While the County boasts one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the State, it has often failed to
meet the needs of smaller and mid-sized businesses, which could be integral to utilizing existing
building assets throughout the County.
Demand from manufacturing companies for tax exempt revenue bonds exceeds the county's
annual allocation from the State, a disparity that has increased annually.
There is currently a lack of incentives specifically designed to entice businesses into existing or
aging office parks and other commercial properties, particularly within County economic
development agencies.
Local Government Regulations and “Business Friendliness”
Municipality choices for raising revenue are generally limited to increasing real estate taxes,
earned income taxes and fees, all of which may have adverse effects in their respective areas –
there is a need to expand commercial growth, which can serve as an ideal way to raise revenue
while limiting negative tax impacts on residents.
There is a need to reduce “red tape” and streamline the dissemination of information for potential
investors, developers, and businesses looking to invest and/or locate in the County. Given the
fragmented nature of local government throughout the County, there is a need for a single,
centralized source of information regarding which municipalities have developable Brownfields
sites, which have a need a for affordable workforce housing, which agencies handle which funding
sources, and other key issues.
There is also a need for further communication and outreach by the County to municipal managers
to ensure that managers are aware of the full breadth of programming and funding sources
available to their municipalities.
Rigidity of local zoning regulations and permitting procedures, as well as negative first impressions
by unfriendly or unknowledgeable municipal staff, can discourage potential new businesses from
engaging in activity within the County.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
34
Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention
Workforce demand across varying skill-levels tends to exceed the available qualified labor force
throughout the County.
Rising housing values have resulted in a shortage of affordable housing for vital members of the
County workforce, including police officers, healthcare workers, municipal employees, childcare
workers, and retail salespeople, among others, in the communities in which they work. This
shortage also extends to workers in entry-level or middle income positions in a range of other
industries as well, threatening to create a brain drain of young workers who cannot afford to reside
in the County.
Many out of work residents look to the one-stop career center (career link) for assistance, which is
run through a consortium of State and County employees. Given cuts in federal funding from the
Federal Workforce Investment Act in the past few years, job placement services are not as good or
successful as they could be.
There is a general need throughout the State to implement workforce development and training
programs that target identified growth sectors in the economy.26
26
“Action Plan for Investing in a New Pennsylvania,” IBM, October 2005.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
6.0
35
TASKS 3 & 4: PROPOSED FUNDING AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following up on the identification of the County’s existing economic development resources and the gaps,
needs, and opportunities the County now faces with regard to economic development activity, Tasks 3 and
4 call for the creation of funding and other policy recommendations in to address these areas and establish
strategic solutions for the County’s priority economic development issues. Included below are the specific
policy recommendations developed by the Task Force, along with guiding principles and incentives
surrounding these recommendations and the rationale behind the specific funding recommendations now
offered for consideration.
6.1
Guiding Principles/Incentives for Receiving Funding
A key benefit of the current set of proposed policy recommendations is its consistency with and support of
goals and priorities currently laid out in the County’s existing Economic Development, Land Use, and Vision
Plans. To recall, Economic Development goals supported include revitalizing the County’s downtowns and
main streets, adaptively reusing vacant and underutilized commercial sites, attracting and retaining
businesses, creating a good business climate, retaining a skilled workforce for County businesses, and
supporting a readily available workforce. In addition, recommendations are closely aligned with both Vision
Plan goals relating to land use, open spaces, economic development, and housing, as well as core guiding
principles such as collective action, effective and cooperative implementation of plans, and tackling issues
at the most appropriate levels. Finally, recommendations promote Land Use Plan goals such as directing
development to designated growth areas, enhancing older developed areas, and encouraging sound land
use planning, while at the same time encouraging green, smart growth, increasing transit, and decreasing
automobile use throughout the County.
Moving forward, the County can further promote these goals and priorities by building them into funding
eligibility requirements and establishing incentives to adhere to and promote them. As a starting off point
for such a set of requirements, we turn to the following guiding principals identified by the Task Force and
Economic Development Cabinet to serve as a framework within which to establish programs:
Programs funded by the County should be aligned with the Keystone Principles for Growth,
Investment, & Resource Conservation27 and structured in such a way so as to enhance the
County’s ability to leverage State dollars for projects funded through these programs.
Projects funded by the County should be guided by broader planning objectives and within the
context of a defined vision plan for the overall development area.
Programs should encourage collaboration among a wide range of relevant stakeholders,
including County and private economic development agencies, resident populations of targeted
See Appendix I for “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment, and Resource
Conservation.”
27
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
36
development communities, businesses, developers, and local government officials, among
others.
In order to ensure efficient and effective use of County dollars and accountability on the part of
County agencies deploying County funds, performance measurement systems should be
incorporated into new programs. These systems should emphasize substantive impacts and
outcomes over outputs.
Building off of these initial guidelines, a more specific and targeted set of eligibility criteria, included below,
can serve to direct and focus the approval and granting processes:
Adherence to "Green" building principles
Remediation and Re-Use of Brownfields locations
Compliance to the County's comprehensive transportation plan
Use of multi-municipal planning as advocated by the County
Extent to which multi-municipal planning contemplates revenue sharing from the project with
those municipalities participating in the planning process
Utilization of existing infrastructure by the proposed project
Communities with shared services
Projects which utilize funding from all major existing and future County funding programs (ie,
Open Spaces and similarly structured programs)
Projects which support an anti-sprawl, high-density development
6.2
Policy Recommendations
The policy recommendations contained in this section ultimately fall into two key categories: (1) those
involving new funding sources to be provided by the County; and (2) those which do not necessarily involve
substantial new funding but instead relate to the structure and organization of and activities carried out by
the County’s existing economic development entities (transitional and staffing funding may be required).
Notably, these recommendations did not initially include specific funding levels for various programming
initiatives, but rather included only proportions of total County level funding to be allotted for these
purposes. This approach was intended to serve as a framework for Task Force discussion, whereby
members were given a sense of the emphasis to be placed on each issue area even as actual funding
amounts were left undefined and open to debate.
It is worth stating that the majority of new proposed funding fits into one of two classes. First, there is the
contemplated "seed" funding, which would represent a much escalated, more widely distributed and more
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
37
immediately impactful level of the dollar assistance currently exemplified by the County Revitalization
Board's limited and much overtaxed initiative. The two proposed programs of this type – seed funding –
would target a local revitalization initiative where the infusion of more funding would have the effect of
taking the earlier seeded improvements either, respectively, to a successful earlier completion, or, to a
markedly advanced or “second” stage. In such cases, funding is provided without secured private
investments, but in anticipation and with the expectation of private sector investment in the future driven in
part by the County’s public investments.
Financing gaps in larger scale projects exemplifies the other funding class; it represents a totally new
initiative and calls for a much larger commitment of dollars. But, because the nature of such project use
and application would customarily await the prospect of a consequential, community-changing, anchor type
project, the question was raised as to whether the upfront availability of such funding levels would best be
postponed until any one or more of these projects are actually ready to come off the drawing board. In this
regard, in order to attract the quality private developments sought by this Program, it is important for the
private sector to see a demonstrable readiness on the part of the governmental sectors to cover shortfalls
in their direct funding. Inclusion of upfront funding levels will enable the County to achieve this goal first by
providing its own fundable commitment to meet a significant portion of such coverage needs, and, even
more importantly --- given the amounts involved --- by its using that commitment to help win and capture
the interest of other governmental sectors to dedicate a consequential portion of their resources which
might otherwise be made available elsewhere. This “gap” financing would be provided in situations where
private investment is already committed, such that the addition of a County investment would result in a
public-private partnership type of arrangement.
Upon adoption of these recommendations and the program guidelines, it will be critical for the Economic
Development Cabinet to expand upon each with specific and clear sets of eligibility, application, selection,
use/drawdown, and performance criteria. In particular, it will be important to establish a method by which to
determine which municipalities are most economically challenged versus those with less severe or more
isolated issues. While such criteria have yet to be finalized, we include in Section 8 a rollout schedule for
funding programs, as well as an initial set of implementation guidelines and requirements. In addition, it is
critical that County economic development dollars be allocated in a strategic way so as to maximize
leverage vis-à-vis other public and especially private funding sources. Illustrating the importance of this is
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s recent award of $31.5 million in Redevelopment Assistance Capital
Program (RACP) grant money towards a range of projects throughout the County. As the RACP program
requires a dollar for dollar match of private or public non-State dollars, a readily available source of
matching grants funded by the County could help to ensure the financial feasibility of these and future
projects receiving funding subject to similar restrictions.
Finally, we note that all new proposed programs and activities are to be carried out by the County’s existing
economic development departments and agencies. To that extent, while programs may ultimately
necessitate some additional staffing or operational funding for those impacted organizations, there are no
new agencies or departments required as part of the proposed policy recommendations. However, given
the considerably expanded economic development role the County would take on and the fact that certain
programs and funding sources are recommended to be implemented/administered by agencies outside of
the County government structure, one significant organization change would be the addition of a County
Economic Development Director, the specific responsibilities of which are detailed later in this section. Also
to be noted as a result of these changes is the potential need to expand the Economic Development
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
38
Cabinet to include representation by implementing agencies like the MCIDC and County officials such as
the finance director.
In reading the recommendations that follow, we note that recommendation numbering reflects the issues
which are most impacted by these policies, such that “Recommendation I.1” will be the first in the series of
recommendations pertaining most clearly to Issue I – Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities.
6.2.1
Funding Recommendations:
The recommendations below represent those proposed programming elements which involve the
expansion or creation of County-level funding pools. Total funding amounts are included below, although
these amounts would likely be implemented across a seven (7) year rollout plan (rollout for individual
programs vary within this 7-year time span), the details of which are included in Section 8. Overviews of
the functions and potential uses of each funding program are also included below, with additional
information regarding funding sources, implementing agencies, and other factors included in the funding
program matrix in Appendix J. We note that where funding is provided through loans, it is recommended
that “revolving” loan pools be established to capture interest paid by loan recipients and serve as a means
of replenishing program funding.
Recommendation I.1
$12.5 million total increased “seed” funding in matching grants and low-interest
loans to expand the existing Community Revitalization Program activities,
including marketing and promotional campaigns for older communities
throughout the County. Funding will be directed towards projects that have
already reached a certain level and require additional funds to reach fruition.
Recommendation I.2
$15 million total in matching grants and low-interest loans to serve as new “seed”
funding through the Main Street Repositioning Fund. Funding will target second
stage main street and downtown redevelopment in older boroughs and towns
(i.e., Jenkintown, Abington, Lansdale, etc.) for projects focused on parking,
rehabilitation of existing buildings, and upgrading retail corridors; projects should
build on areas already impacted by Community Revitalization Program dollars to
move what has already been done to a markedly advanced stage (NOTE:
funding is not available to Norristown or Pottstown, which have a higher level of
need and are targeted more specifically through Recommendations I.3 and I.4).
Recommendation I.3
$40 million total in matching grants and low interest loans to serve as “gap
financing” for major redevelopment projects through the Economically
Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund. Financing is to be directed
towards the County’s most economically challenged communities, such as
Norristown, Pottstown, and any others determined to have a similar level of
need,28 for large scale, transformational, multi-building commercial, industrial,
and residential developments.
28
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
39
Recommendation I.4
$9 million total in low-interest loans, in the form of targeted business incentives
for locating in the County’s most economically challenged communities, such as
Norristown, Pottstown, and any others determined to have a similar level of
need,29 through the Economically Challenged Communities Business Location
Incentive Fund. Funding will be divided among programs targeting small
businesses and those directed toward larger scale businesses and employers.
Recommendation I.5
$5 million total in matching grants for planning support through the County
Visionary Fund.30 New funding will support the development of the planning
process and the formation of planning partnerships necessary to implement large
scale development initiatives undertaken within a framework of visionary and
comprehensive strategic planning. Plans must be site specific and of a nature
similar to master or site plans.
Recommendation II.1
$10 million total in low-interest loans through the Commercial/Industrial Asset
Redevelopment and Reinvestment Fund. Funding will be used to encourage
reinvestment in and reuse of existing commercial space throughout the County,
in particular for older office and industrial parks (built environment only).
Recommendation III.1
$6 million total in matching grants, low-interest loans, and operational support for
local municipalities through the Local Government Economic Development
Enhancement Program. Funding will target various incentives, marketing
programs, and other initiatives to be carried out by local municipalities
Recommendation IV.1
$7.5 million in matching grants and operational support towards workforce
development programs through the Workforce Development Creativity Fund.
Funding would target various workforce development-related programs, including
contracting out Career Link job placement programs and enhancing/expanding
training programs available at MCCC and other colleges and universities
throughout the County
The levels recommended above would likely be allocated across a multi-year period – we have proposed a
7-year rollout plan based on deliberations with the Task Force Executive Committee and meetings with
County leaders regarding the current fiscal capabilities of the County. We recommend that the initial year
of proposed funding – FY 2009 –include $20 million, with the majority - $14 million – going towards the
Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund. Also funded during this initial year will be the
Main Street Repositioning Fund ($3 million), the Economically Challenged Communities Business Location
Incentive Fund ($2 million), and the County Visionary Fund ($1 million). These programs have been
selected for immediate funding based on the extent to which they help to address the two leading “priority
economic development issues” identified by the Task Force. All of the programs listed above are funded to
some degree by the second year of proposed funding – FY 2010.
29
30 See Appendix K for Memo from Task Force Co-Chair Morris Dean describing proposed County Visionary Fund.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
6.2.2
40
Programmatic Recommendations
Building upon the funding programs described above, the Task Force has thus far identified various
additional recommendations which will help to strengthen and fortify the County’s existing economic
development structures and programs. These are included below.
Recommendation I.6
Expand the capacity of the Redevelopment Authority with regard to major
redevelopment projects in the County’s most economically challenged
communities, including coordination with private sector, assembly of land for
redevelopment, and other potential roles and functions. As the Authority’s role
is expanded, evaluate the need for additional staffing to fulfill any additional
responsibilities.
Recommendation I.7
Officially adopt the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Keystone Principles for
Growth, Investment, and Resource Conservation as a leading basis for
determining the allocation of County economic development dollars, in order to
fully leverage funding from other public and private sources.
Recommendation I.8
Implement “design charrettes” throughout targeted communities to explore
potential visions for downtowns and other potential areas of development, as
well as local priorities, opportunities, and sensitivities, informed by
representatives from the County’s Planning, Transportation, and Economic
Development agencies.
Promote increased coordination and efficiency of local government service
provision by working with municipal consortiums throughout the County and
facilitating the creation of joint municipality agreements for delivery of services,
infrastructure maintenance, and other vital local government functions.
Serve as primary information source on available development sites, funding,
technical assistance, and other resources critical to potential investors,
developers, and businesses, including compiling general information and
distributing handouts/brochures on doing/improving business in Montgomery
County, with materials being applicable to small and large businesses AND
municipal officials; Publish and distribute periodic informational newsletters, via
print or email, to municipal officials or others who sign up to improve the flow of
information to local officials, developers, investors, and others.
Assist municipalities in developing strategies to target commercial development
as a means of producing increased ratables to meet revenue demands of
municipal budgets, including advising on ways to deploy County business
attraction funding to encourage these activities
Institute Business Friendliness report card to help local municipalities identify
key strengths and areas in need of improvement with regard to their
approaches to dealing with existing businesses and potential new business
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
41
owners in areas such as zoning and permitting, general business friendliness,
administrative “red tape” and other barriers to doing business.
Implement conferences or symposia covering different economic development
issues to promote information sharing among municipal leaders and to educate
municipal leaders on new programming, County best practices and successes,
and other resources available to support local economic development efforts.
Promote international trade by acting as a liaison between County-based
businesses and regional international trade organizations such as the World
Trade Center of Philadelphia; increase internal activities aimed at helping local
governments to attract international businesses to the County and Countybased businesses to increase exports to foreign markets.
Recommendation IV.2
Promote industry workforce partnerships and training programs targeted to high
demand industries such as biotechnology and life sciences, pharma, finance,
defense, and healthcare/hospitals in order to help attract employers from these
sectors into the region.
Recommendation IV.3
Proactively meet with executives of County-based firms and find out what their
current and future workforce needs are. Conduct surveys and hold short-term
focus groups
6.2.3
Overall Coordination: Director of Economic Development
In order to oversee and coordinate a newly expanded economic development role for the County, one final
and important recommendation being offered for consideration is the creation of a County Director of
Economic Development position. There was initially some debate among the Task Force as to the
necessity of such a position, given the relatively strong success the County’s economic development
leaders have had up until now. However, with the considerable new roles that the County will be taking on
through the proposed policy recommendations, it was important to consider the necessity of this position
within the context of what the County’s economic development landscape would look like in the future, and
not simply how things operate in the present. In the end, consensus was reached by the Task Force that
the new Director position would be a positive asset for the County as part of a new strategic economic
development policy. Listed below are some of the major responsibilities to be granted to this Director,
followed by a more detailed discussion of these roles and responsibilities:
External and internal coordination
Lead “dealmaker” for County
Lobbying and advocacy; serving as the outside “face” of County economic development
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
42
Direct oversight and approval of appropriations made from proposed new funding programs31
Dealing with business leaders throughout the County
Liaison and direct contact to the County Commissioners
Chairman of Economic Development Cabinet; working collaboratively with Cabinet officials
The selected individual taking on the role of Economic Development Director would report directly to the
County Commissioners and chair the Montgomery County Economic Development Cabinet, helping to
reinforce that seamless transition between the various economic development organizations and the
County Commissioners. Furthermore, this individual would serve as a primary point of contact for outside
sources and as a public liaison for all economic development activities and entities throughout the County.
In a similar regard, the Director would stand at the forefront of lobbying efforts, representing the County in
negotiations with State and congressional officials on key legislative issues that impact the County’s ability
to carry out comprehensive redevelopment projects and garner future economic development dollars.
Another major aspect of the Director’s role will be to maximize the leveraging potential of all County funding
directed towards selected redevelopment projects, which will be accomplished in two key ways. First, the
Director will help to coordinate funding and programming from the various County and non-County
economic development agencies and departments and facilitate inter-agency communication to ensure that
all available county-level funding opportunities have been explored. Second, this coordination will be
extended to the State and federal level, such that County dollars are used in the most strategic manner
possible so as to get the most out of all other non-County public and private funding sources. In particular,
this individual will play a critical role in developing “emergent partnerships with the State,” particularly with
regard to high-cost infrastructure items.
Finally, the Director would lead the charge in facilitating effective cooperation, collaboration, and exchange
of ideas among individual municipalities, as well as in disseminating valuable program and policy
information to these local economic development leaders. More specifically, the director can work with local
officials to arrange annual one-on-one meetings to gather feedback as to areas in need of attention, and
then respond accordingly by holding conferences and symposia aimed at educating local officials on these
issues and encouraging information sharing among municipalities. In addition, the Director can play a lead
role in encouraging the type of joint-municipality planning efforts that ultimately stand to benefit both the
individual municipalities involved and the County as a whole.
Having discussed in greater detail the roles and responsibilities of the Director, it is also important to clarify
certain conditions which make the addition of such a position so critical to the success of the funding
programs now up for consideration. Notably, the proposed recommendations call for an expanded role for
the Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority (RDA) in managing and implementing funding and other
activities pertaining to major redevelopment projects in the County’s most economically challenged areas.
At present, the RDA receives a relatively limited degree of operational support from the County, but no
specific programmatic funds. Under the proposed recommendations, the RDA will play a lead role in
administering funding under programs such as the Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance
All funding decisions for new programs will be funneled through the Director, with the exception of expanded funding for the
Community Revitalization Program, which will continue to be administered through the Community Revitalization Board.
31
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
43
Fund. Proposed funding under these initiatives totals $40 million, over one-third of all total proposed new
County-level funding.
Because of its State-driven mandate of “fostering economic revitalization and affordable housing programs
throughout the County,” along with its successful record of working “directly with older and often distressed
communities to foster economic development through public-private partnerships,” the RDA is an ideal fit
for the administration and implementation of these program components. However, as the RDA takes a
stronger role in channeling County economic development dollars, it will be critical to have seamless
coordination and communication between it and the County’s economic development agencies and political
leadership – the Director will play a lead role in managing this coordination and supporting/enhancing
current communication.
Another similar example is the enhanced role recommended for the Montgomery County Industrial
Development Corporation, which under these proposed policies would be responsible for (a) helping to
leverage the County’s Distressed Communities Business Location Incentive Fund to help attract larger
businesses who might otherwise have no incentive to do so to move into Norristown and Pottstown; and (b)
working in partnership with the County Department of Economic and Workforce Development on the
administration of the Commercial/Industrial Asset Redevelopment and Reinvestment Fund.
MCIDC is an ideal choice for these roles given its existing relationships and access to private sector
businesses and investors and its proven track record in closing key business relocation deals. Moreover,
these funds offer MCIDC a strategic tool to directly answer prospective businesses concerns over the risks
associated with locating in more distressed communities or older facilities. However, as with the RDA,
MCIDC’s autonomy from the County means that it will be critical to maintain open and consistent
communication between it and the County in light of the considerable sum of County dollars it would be
charged with channeling. Again, the Director can help to ensure this communication and facilitate
coordination between MCIDC, the County’s own economic development agencies and officials, and other
key players.
The coordination of new partnerships such as those described above represents a central challenge the
County will face in its newly expanded economic development role. And, to be certain, there will be many
other challenges associated with the fulfillment of other proposed programs and enhancements. The
County Director of Economic Development would play a significant role in managing these transitions and
helping to establish mutually beneficial ongoing collaborations with all entities involved in the County’s
economic development activities. The Director would take on a clear oversight role with regard to these
collaborations, such that the Director, in concert with the Economic Development Cabinet, would not only
offer recommendations to the Commissioners regarding the funding allocations of applicable County
program dollars, but would also be involved, when appropriate, in potential deals from the ground up.
6.2.4
Additional Policy Issues to Address
In addition to the final priority issues and policy recommendations that have been discussed throughout this
report, there remain a range of economic development issues which did not rank among the top “priority”
issues identified by the Task Force, but still warrant additional attention and exploration by County
economic development officials. Some of these issues are currently addressed to some extent by other
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
44
programs and departments in the County, while others remain largely unaddressed as yet. Nonetheless,
they are all factors which can have an important influence on the success of future County economic
development activities. As such, this section discusses these items in order to provide context for future
policy decisions for the County.
International Trade:
As presented in Recommendation III.7, international trade stands as a key opportunity for the County which
should be promoted and encouraged through a new strategic economic development policy. In this regard,
there are ultimately two key aspects that can and should be addressed through future County policies.
First, the County must work with local governments in order to help attract new international business to the
County. Second, it must also play a role in helping County-based businesses to increase their export
capacity and other business interactions with the international community.
Currently, MCIDC maintains a relationship with the regional World Trade Center of Greater Philadelphia
(WTCGP). The WTCGP is a member-based organization which has functions to address each of these
areas – namely, it serves as both a one-stop shop for international trade activity, as well as a key resource
for member businesses seeking to increase their global activity.32 In looking to expand the County’s
business activity, it will be important for other aspects of the County’s economic development system to not
only facilitate strong working relationships with organizations such as the WTCGP, but also increase their
own direct efforts toward promoting international trade.
In looking for a government-based model of how to succeed in this area, one example is the State of
Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development’s International Trade Program.
According to the Department’s website, “The International Trade program assists Washington State
businesses in profitably accessing the global marketplace by providing training and assistance, building
international trade relationships, and advocating the importance of international trade to Washington’s
economy. [They] work with companies small and large to help them enter new foreign markets to sell their
products and services or to expand sales overseas.” Activities falling under this umbrella of export
promotion include advocating on behalf of participating businesses, assisting businesses in growing sales,
researching international markets, finding overseas buyers, agents, distributors, and joint venture partners,
instructing on the best mechanisms to mitigate risks, and providing information on all trade needs (via a
“trade clearinghouse”), among others. In addition, the International Trade and Economic Development
Division helps to attract foreign businesses into the State by providing business location assistance,
financing incentives, and technical assistance.33
Though operated at the State level, such a model could easily be adapted to a County level operation with
outreach to local municipalities and businesses. One benefit of the Washington model is that services are
generally provided free of charge to businesses – under organizations such as the WTCGP, members must
pay a fee for access to services offered. Thus, in offering such services on its own, the County can play a
key role in promoting increased international trade and business activity throughout the County.
32
33
http://www.wtcphila.org/
http://www.cted.wa.gov/site/150/default.aspx
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
45
Infrastructure Development:
A key point of discussion among the Task Force was the potential role that infrastructure development
could play in attracting new development to distressed areas such as Norristown and Pottstown, as well as
to other older communities throughout the County. Many Task Force members with experience in the
development world have noted that issues with access, water, sewer, and parking can stand as
impediments to development in these areas, while the presence of a sound infrastructure system would do
much to attract developers and help move projects forward. Yet, owing to the high cost of many
infrastructure projects and the extent to which they tend to be non-excludable,34 it is unlikely that they will
be addressed through the private sector alone.
One clear illustration of these significant costs can be seen with sewer and wastewater treatment facilities
throughout the County. Econsult spoke with managers of various sewer authorities in the County’s older
communities in order to gain a sense of the need for capacity upgrades to accommodate new development,
the potential costs of these upgrades to the municipality/authority, and the receptiveness of the local area
to absorbing these potential costs. Most managers expressed that they could absorb some degree of
additional development without surpassing their existing capacity. However, they also noted that should
they need to undertake an expansion or upgrade their facilities, the costs could reach into the tens of
millions of dollars. For example, Bruce Jones of the Ambler Waste Water Treatment Plant noted that 1978
upgrades to comply with EPA standards and double the capacity of the plant cost approximately $12 million
(in 1978 dollars).
Another similar example is the costly price-tag associated with constructing public parking garages, which
can be critical components to the successful revitalization of older municipalities and downtowns
throughout the County. To illustrate, we point to the recent construction of the inter-modal parking garage
in Norristown, which cost an estimated $18 million and required $6 million in grant subsidies.
Examining the potential costs for sewer infrastructure and parking garages alone raises important
questions as to whether or not the County’s proposed funding programs should be applied towards
infrastructure development. To be certain, infrastructure development represents a major aspect of many
large-scale redevelopment projects, and, as noted above, is one that private sector is not likely to fund on
its own. While issues such as access and transportation are currently being targeted for potential
dedicated funding streams by the County, items such as sewer, parking, and even water are not being
similarly addressed. The challenge, then, for the County, which has its own funding limitations, is to bring
outside resources to bear to address these needs. The County must play an active role in bringing all
necessary resources to the table, including its own, even as County resources may not be a primarily
funding component. In this way, County dollars can serve as an important means of leveraging other State
and federal sources and must therefore be considered as a strategic financing tool in the development of
critical infrastructure throughout the County.
As is often the case of public goods such as infrastructure, non-excludability refers to the fact that people cannot be excluded
from using or benefiting from such an investment.
34
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
46
Community Development:
While downtown revitalization and business development stand as central priorities for a new County-wide
economic development policy, it is also important to consider the impacts that new programming may have
on the communities and neighborhoods adjoining new development areas. Activities carried out by the
County should ultimately produce a positive result in the lives of residents they are impacting, and it is
important that private developers and investors consider these results in the formulation of their plans.
Some such considerations to factor in are the inclusion of neighborhood retail, human services, parks, and
other public amenities, as well as providing a means of access to capital for small businesses in impacted
areas. For its part in these efforts, the County can use program eligibility requirements as a means of
guaranteeing the inclusion of such components as part of all funded projects. Another important
consideration is the inclusion of workforce housing opportunities, which can in part be addressed through
the inclusion of mixed-use development in major revitalization projects.
Role of MCCC in Downtown Anchor Development:
There is a vital role to be played by Montgomery County Community College in the development of
economically challenged communities through the establishment of satellite campuses in these locales. In
this regard, we point to the following recommendations drafted by Karen Stout in her White Paper entitled,
“Montgomery County Community College’s Role in Supporting the Economic Development Goals of
Montgomery County.”35 Such projects should be examined in conjunction with potential future applications
of County dollars towards major redevelopment projects in economically challenged communities.
1. Invest in supporting a satellite location for the College in Norristown as a means to attract
Norristown residents who might not otherwise consider college and/or postsecondary
education as an option.
This satellite location would NOT be full service as the current Central and West campuses are designed
primarily because the College has a large, comprehensive facility in Blue Bell, only 6 miles from the
Norristown downtown core. The Blue Bell site is generally accessible via mass transportation and it would
be fiscally difficult to replicate the assets of the Central Campus in Norristown. However, a Norristown
location, could offer important pre-college programs like ESL, developmental mathematics and English,
GED, and academic and financial aid advising as other college courses as feeder programs to the Central
Campus. The location could also specialize in the delivery of workforce development oriented training
programs that could help area residents gain education and employment skills for fast entry into the
workforce and then for possible continuation of degree study in Blue Bell.
The development of such a satellite center will require a capital and operating investment from the County
and the State. Ideally, the College would seek a location in the downtown heart, with easy access to
affordable parking and the mass transportation hub. Planning for the programming at the site will require
extensive conversation with the Borough’s community based organizations.
35
See Appendix L for complete white paper on the role of MCCC in County economic development.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
47
It should be noted that the College does offer some programs in Norristown in conjunction with the Police
Athletic League, the OIC and at the Center for Technical Studies.
2. Invest in a full service location in the eastern part of Montgomery County as a means to better
attract residents in this part of the County.
The College’s facilities master plans of the mid-1980’s spoke to expanding locations beyond Blue Bell to
expand geographic access to County residents. As a result of this planning and lots of community
conversation, the College located in Pottstown in 1997 to serve the western region of the County. The plan
also called for an eastern location.
Given the vision articulated by the Task Force to both develop older communities and to maximize
utilization of current but vacated business locations, the potential to replicate the Pottstown Campus’
success in an older eastern area borough like Jenkintown should be considered. Programming at such a
site would be more full service in that attendees would have access to full associate degree programs in a
number of areas.
The development of such a campus will require significant capital and operating investment from the
County and the State as well as a commitment to the long term development of the site as a college
campus. Ideally, the site should be located close to mass transportation access and near affordable
parking. The College’s focus on the reclaiming of old properties, as is happening in Pottstown, could be
replicated in such a location.
In both potential cases, Norristown and an eastern location such as Jenkintown, the College could follow
and/or adapt the 11 principles that are driving the development of the Pottstown location. It must also be
noted that to undertake either or both proposed efforts will require that the County and the State continue
their investments in the renewal of the Central Campus and the continued growth of the Pottstown
Campus. Neither of these efforts can be abandoned at the expense of further expansion of the College.
State and Federal Policies Impacting Poverty Concentration
One concern raised has been the extent to which federal and State housing policies tend to concentrate
poverty into the County’s most economically challenged communities, such as Norristown and Pottstown.
Most obvious in this regard is the federal Section 8 rental voucher program. In this case, federal limits on
the rental subsidies provided to participants tend to result in these individuals being limited to communities
such as Norristown and Pottstown, where market conditions place housing prices and, subsequently, rental
rates, in the appropriate price range for Section 8 recipients. Highlighting this point is the fact that more
than half of the County’s Section 8 units are located in Norristown, with a considerable portion of remaining
units located in Pottstown.
In addition to the Section 8 program, it has been noted that the majority of State and federal housing
programs that are used by Norristown and other economically challenged communities to develop new
housing or rehab older properties target low and moderate income individuals.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
48
As a result of these policies, impacted communities are negatively affected in two key areas. First, these
communities often see a decrease in the tax base resulting from the expansion of the low-income
population, which in turn limits these communities’ ability to pay for schools and municipal services even as
they are forced to raise tax rates to compensate for these shortfalls. In addition, the concentration of
poverty in impacted communities can have a negative impact on business development, as limited buying
power among lower income residents creates a weak market for retail businesses and in turn results in
vacancies and underutilization of downtown property.
Looking at these trends, it will be important for the County not only to work with impacted municipalities to
help minimize the negative impact of these policies, but also to seek ways to address the problem at its root
by working with State and federal agencies to help diversify the allocation of subsidy dollars throughout the
County. Increasing income diversity in the County’s most challenged communities will ultimately be critical
to other ongoing revitalization efforts, as well as to the success of recommendations contained within this
report which target these communities. Thus, it is in the interest of the County to seek out ways to diminish
this growing problem.
6.3
Rationale for Recommended Funding Levels
The proposed funding allocations recommended in this report ultimately reflect a variety of factors,
including the following set of fundamental considerations:
The priority placed on each of the four priority economic development issues identified by the
Task Force through Task 1
The extent to which these issues are currently addressed through existing funding streams
A realistic estimation of the extent of funding that would be necessary to truly achieve the set
of policy goals laid out for each of the identified priority issues
The role of these dollars in leveraging other public and private investments
An estimation of the extent and scale of major projects that might take place based on the
needs and issues that currently affect various municipalities throughout the County
In addition to these underlying considerations, feedback from various County economic development
professionals has provided a sense of the typical subsidy levels sought out for different program activities
to be funded through proposed County programs. It is in large part through this feedback that the various
program types and funding levels were determined, and in turn the total figure of $105 million in County
investments. Exploring this concept further, we point to the examples and feedback provided by Task
Force member Larry Segal, given his considerable expertise in this area.
Mr. Segal notes that virtually any redevelopment project of consequence will have some measure of
funding “gap” needed to complete a financing package. Such gaps prove inevitable for three principal
reasons:
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
49
1. Mixed-use redevelopment projects typically include public improvement components like parks,
parking garages, streetscape or roadway improvements, or other infrastructure. These “passive”,
non-revenue generating activities cannot be independently financed, and at least some of the cost
must be borne by the public sector. Typically, that may be the government’s role in a public/private
partnership. (Note: Unlike in lucrative greenfield development where markets are established and
developers’ profits typically healthy and assured, the opportunity to impose “impact fees” or to
receive significant developers’ contribution in the urban context is usually limited.)
2. In a conventional suburban development (commercial or residential), lease (square footage rates)
and/or sale prices typically are sufficient to support conventional financing and bank loans for a
substantial portion of the development costs. The projected income from such sources, in the
context of redevelopment projects in our older communities, usually will not support the same
consequential amount of bank financing alone—and subsidy will be required.
3. Quite often, redevelopment projects involve extraordinary costs not found in greenfield
development. Although of questionable market value, many properties are expensive to assemble
and acquire and expensive demolition and environmental remediation (of the site or the building)
common.
He goes on to note that obviously the size of the “gap” or subsidy required will vary project to project, based
on the extent and involvement of the above factors, and that the scale and scope of the project will impact
the amount of subsidy required as well. Assuming that redevelopment activities will be focused on
Montgomery County’s older communities (older buildings, contaminated sites, lower rents and sales prices)
and that an attempt will be made to encourage “impact” projects of scale and scope (mixed-use projects
with substantial public components), the “gap” that must be filled to complete development will likely be
substantial.
He stresses that it cannot be overstated that such significant “gaps” are the rule rather than the exception.
Several examples among many:
In Scranton, the redevelopment of the 500 Block of Lackawanna Avenue was a $25 million
project, requiring $12 million in subsidy.
In Wilkes-Barre, the downtown redevelopment of Public Square, including the construction of
an inter-modal parking garage, movie theater and loft housing, was a $40 million project,
requiring $15 million in subsidy.
In Reading, the downtown movie theater and Goggleworks Arts Center totaled $22 million in
costs, and required $10 million in subsidy.
Norristown, the inter-modal parking garage recently completed, cost $18 million, and required
$6 million in grant subsidy—plus low-interest loan financing and ongoing operating support
from the county.
Mr. Segal notes that in the past, redevelopment dollars appropriated at both the State and county levels
have been relatively low—both in the absolute sense of total dollars appropriated, as well as the specific
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
50
project level commitment of funds. As a consequence, in recent years, only modest redevelopment
projects have been attempted—projects which did not in themselves have significant impact, but which
were premised on the idea that they would serve as a catalyst for ongoing activity. Given the level of blight
and the need for redevelopment in the older communities, these small undertakings have rarely succeeded
in having the revitalizing effect intended. Accordingly, he concludes that any commitment by the
Montgomery County Commissioners to encourage the development of “impactful” projects in the county’s
older communities must be accompanied by the realistic expectation that significant local dollars will be
required.
These ideas and examples offer a substantive foundation for the preference expressed by many Task
Force members for the inclusion of upfront funding levels in the final program recommendations submitted
to the County Commissioners. In order to attract the quality private developments sought by the
recommended programs, it will be important for the private sector to see a demonstrable readiness on the
part of the governmental sectors to cover shortfalls in their direct funding. In this regard, by including
upfront funding levels in the County’s new policy recommendations, the County will be able to achieve this
goal first by providing its own fundable commitment to meet a significant portion of such coverage needs,
and, even more importantly --- given the amounts involved --- by its using that commitment to help win and
capture the interest of other governmental sectors to dedicate a consequential portion of their resources
which might otherwise be made available elsewhere.
Given these factors and in light of the funding dictates of the foregoing impact examples, we expand on our
funding rationale analysis below, examining each of the recommended programs individually in terms of the
need for the proposed level of funding.
I.1
Community Revitalization Program - Increase funding by $12.5 million
The Community Revitalization Program has been in place in the County since 2000 and in that time has
produced considerable results in the areas receiving program funding. As noted above, the program has
funded nearly $35 million in revitalization projects throughout the County’s older communities since it
began. During the period between 2000 and 2005, grants amounting to close to $20 million helped
leverage an additional $14.4 million in tandem and projected external funding sources and opportunities,
resulting in roughly $34 million in total project spending in impacted communities. In looking at future
funding for the program, we note that over its entire course there have been nearly $55 million in total
grants requested, leaving a shortfall of close to $20 million in unfunded project requests. While a portion of
these grant requests might not have qualified for such funding even if it were available due to their
respective projects’ inadequate impact and/or planning, it was noted by Brian O’Leary in his presentation to
the Task Force that there was in fact a need for a substantial infusion of additional program dollars to meet
the demands of worthy project funding requests. These funds would fill a portion of this shortfall and
ultimately provide additional “seed” funding towards such projects, targeting those which have already
reached a certain level of completion and need additional resources to reach the next level.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
I.2
51
Main Street Repositioning Fund - $15 million
As an additional source of “seed” funding, the recommended Main Street Repositioning Fund program
would help to fulfill the remaining funding gaps for actual bricks and mortar investment projects through the
Community Revitalization Program or County Visioning Fund processes. These dollars would therefore
target “second stage” main street and downtown redevelopment projects throughout older boroughs and
towns in the County (ie, Jenkintown, Abington, Lansdale, etc.). Notably, projects funded through this
program would be those which build on activities already funded through the Community Revitalization
Program and which need additional dollars to move towards a markedly advanced stage. These projects
would be of a larger scale and nature than those carried out through the Community Revitalization
Program, such as parking facilities, rehabilitation of existing buildings, and upgrading of retail corridors.
The recommended $15 million in funding amounts to $2.5 million per year over the 7-year proposed rollout
period. This would potentially allow funding for two or three significant projects per year with between
$750,000 and $1.25 million per project. It is anticipated that the fund would contribute only a small amount
of the total project costs, and that funding must be targeted toward a specific project or geographic area.
Moreover, it is expected that the investments made through this program will ultimately set the stage for
future private sector investment in the impacted communities. This fund is not recommended for Norristown
or Pottstown projects, which are addressed through I.3 and 1.4 below.
I.3
Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund - $40 million
This program would serve as the primary source of “gap” financing or local public match for major
redevelopment projects in the County’s most economically challenged communities. Currently, this
includes Norristown and Pottstown, although additional municipalities may be designated for this pool upon
further analysis to determine a sufficient level of need. Projects funded would feature large-scale, multibuilding commercial, industrial, and residential developments of the sort currently carried out by the County
Redevelopment Authority. In seeking feedback from RDA Director Jerry Nugent on the appropriate level of
funding for this program component, Mr. Nugent offered several examples of major redevelopment
programs currently being undertaken in older communities throughout the County which were facing
financing gaps or needed to meet matching requirements of various State programs. Individually, the
funding gaps in these programs ranged from $2 million to $6 million, many of them the result of matching
requirements from recently awarded RACP grants. In total, Mr. Nugent identified $35 million in RACP
grants that have been awarded to these types of large scale projects throughout the County. In addition,
Mr. Segal’s examples listed above include subsidy needs ranging between $6 million and $15 million,
further illustrating the scale of funding that may be required to ensure that major redevelopment projects in
older and economically challenged communities come to fruition. The proposed Renaissance Fund dollars
could help to fulfill these significant financing gaps and importantly, serve as a key leveraging tool in
garnering additional private and public funding.
In addition to matching funds, the “gap” financing provided through this program would serve to supplement
infrastructure development and upgrading projects taking place throughout the County’s economically
challenged communities. The funding of such projects would help to encourage development by ensuring
adequate infrastructure capacity to support new development activity. However, there is often a
considerable cost burden to such activity which is not likely to be shouldered by private developers.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
52
Through interviews with managers of various sewer authorities in the County, we learned that the potential
costs of upgrading sewer and/or wastewater treatment systems throughout the County’s older
municipalities can ultimately cost upwards of $10 million in some cases, a cost that cannot be supported
through debt issuance or increased local tax assessments alone. Several of these managers noted the
difficulty in raising revenue for these projects, particularly within poorer regions of the County where larger
proportions of residents may live on fixed incomes. While this program is not likely to cover all costs
associated with these and other types of infrastructure improvements, County dollars can play a critical role
in leveraging other federal and State dollars for these projects, and in filling in gaps to ensure project
feasibility.
Looking at these two potential uses of Renaissance Fund dollars, we can see that funding of $40 million will
easily be needed to satisfy the demand of developers and other investors. In the area of redevelopment
projects, we base our assumptions on several major projects requiring between $5 million and $10 million
each, while on the infrastructure side the County would likely offer support of $1 million to $2 million for
projects determined to be necessary for ongoing development to occur. In each case, it is assumed that
the County’s investments will supplement an existing commitment of private sector dollars, following the
public/private partnership model of investment.
I.4
Economically Challenged Communities Business Location Incentive Fund - $9 million
We recommend $9 million for the Economically Challenged Communities Business Location Incentive
Fund. This fund would provide incentives for individual business to locate in the County’s most
economically challenged communities, such as Norristown, Pottstown, and any others demonstrating a
sufficient level of need,36 either individually or as part of larger redevelopment efforts. This program would
have two components. The first is a small business focus. Consultation with Gerald Birkelbach of the
County Department of Economic and Workforce Development revealed a need for County funding
structured similarly to the State funded Small Business First Fund (administered by MCDC) but open to a
more diverse set of business types. While the existing SBFF program is generally only available to
manufacturing and high-tech industry sectors, there is a definitive gap when it comes to businesses within
the retail and service sectors. This funding component could help to fill in this gap, with funding and a
structure similar to SBFF. Mr. Birklebach recommended allocation of $1-2 million dollars each year, with
maximum loan amounts for individual businesses set at approximately $200,000. The second component
would focus on larger businesses and be administered with assistance from MCIDC, in conjunction with its
other location incentive programs.
I.5
County Visionary Fund - $5 million
This program would help to support the development of the planning process and the formation of planning
partnerships necessary to implement large scale development initiatives undertaken within a framework of
visionary and comprehensive strategic planning. The program would likely take the form of matching
grants to support and encourage sound planning practices, including cooperative efforts among multiple
36
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
53
municipalities. Much of the funding would be used to procure professional services from private and
County-based planners, and as such the program does not require funding of the same size and scale as
the previously noted proposed funding pools. Assuming individual planning grants may range between
$100,000 and $200,000, depending upon the extent of the envisioned strategy, the recommended total
sum of $5 million enables the County to offer support across a wide range of municipalities which might
seek such funding.
II.1
Commercial/Industrial Asset Redevelopment and Reinvestment Fund - $10 million
This program would provide funding to encourage reinvestment in and reuse of existing commercial and
industrial space in all municipalities of the County, with a particular focus on significant repositioning of
older, obsolete, or otherwise non-competitive office and industrial parks. It is consistent with the County’s
existing greenfield and open space objectives, and importantly, it would provide a critical incentive tool for
organizations such as MCIDC which serve as a key resource for businesses seeking commercial space
throughout the County. Such businesses tend to gravitate towards newer facilities in the County, which can
be occupied with little or no renovation/remediation work and thus less upfront cost to the potential
tenant/owner than a comparable older facility. Because of these challenges, MCIDC may risk undermining
a potential deal by directing clients to these spaces. By providing a pool of resources to support
infrastructure upgrades and building “turnarounds” in older facilities, the County can help to offset potential
costs to building owners and tenants alike, thus mitigating risks generally associated with older facilities
and making these spaces more attractive and competitive resources for MCIDC to market.
These funds would also help to leverage other State and federal programs that could be used for building
and infrastructure improvements to existing facilities within the County. Funding would take the form of
low-interest loans (preferred) or grants and would be available to owners of older commercial and industrial
parks looking to undertake significant infrastructure and building renovations, substantial upgrades of
facilities and grounds, and other similar projects. Substantial renovations for new uses would also be
applicable, but this program would not provide funds for more cosmetic upgrades and would require
substantial private equity investments. The nature of the program envisions significant private
reinvestment, and anticipates large scale redevelopments. As a result, each application could require a
sizeable public subsidy. The proposed $10 million in total funding would allow for loans/grants of between
$1 million and $3 million, depending upon need, spread over three to five “rejuvenation sites.”
III.1
Local Government Economic Development Enhancement Program - $6 million
This program is intended to provide funding to local governments to carry out marketing or other activities
designed to improve business friendliness or attract new investment and business activity. Funding would
take the form of grants, low-interest loans, or operational support to local governments, and would target
older municipalities such as those also eligible for Community Revitalization Program funding. It is likely
that some of this funding would also be used by the County itself in carrying out measures to improve
business friendliness (e.g., examination and possible adjustment of existing regulations, permits,
procedures, and fees) and awareness of County programs among municipal officials (e.g., business
friendliness report card, symposia and forums on economic development issues, etc.), in which case
potential funding available directly to local government would be somewhat reduced.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
54
We recommend $2 million of the proposed $6 million in total funding be set aside for internal County use in
order to support the programmatic recommendations outlined in Section 6.2.2. The remaining program
funds would be awarded to local municipalities on a competitive basis. The anticipated awards would be in
the $50,000 to $100,000 range. These amounts would be of a size and scale sufficient to support the
programs and activities proposed by municipal governments under this program.
IV.1
Workforce Development Creativity Fund - $7.5 million
One of the major program changes recommended in the area of workforce development by Jerry
Birkelbach is the contracting out of the job placement functions carried out under Career Link. Mr.
Birkelbach estimated that such activity could be undertaken for as little as $250,000 in the initial year, and,
if successful, funding could expand to support approximately $500,000 in programming each year
thereafter. Given the recent economic crisis and the likelihood of increased unemployment throughout the
U.S., this funding would enable to the County to proactively address these increases with expanded job
placement services and more efficiently handle job placement needs overall. In addition, it has been
recommended that the County enhance and expand workforce training programs available at colleges and
universities throughout the County, including Montgomery County Community College.37 Much of this
activity will be made possible through the remaining Workforce Development Creativity Fund, which could
provide between $3.5 million to $4 million in matching grants and operational support over the 7-year rollout
period to eligible entities and organizations. We note that the proposed funding does not include support
for the creation of satellite campuses to serve as anchor developments in areas such as Norristown, an
endeavor which would ultimately necessitate a more significant investment on the part of the County.
Given the job placement needs of the County and these recommended college/university-based workforce
development and training activities, Mr. Birkelbach noted that the proposed total funding of $7.5 million was
an appropriate and sufficient figure.
37
See Appendix L for Karen Stout’s white paper on the role of MCCC in County economic development.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
7.0
55
IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Having presented the rationale behind recommending program funding for both the County investment as a
whole and for individual program components, we now present the range of potential funding sources that
may be employed to fund these initiatives. Key to this is identifying County funding sources. Through this
process, the Task Force made it clear that whatever County programs might be established, the County
would always look to maximize other local, State, and federal sources.
7.1
County Funding Sources for Programs
Initially, General Obligation (G.O.) Bond proceeds were envisioned as the primary source of County funds
for the recommended programs, to be augmented where appropriate by HUD108 loan funds or County
General Fund appropriations. After discussions with Bond Counsel, it became apparent that County G.O.
Bond proceeds may not be used for certain of the program expenditures, in particular subsidies to private
businesses. As a result, it is recommended that the County also utilize Industrial Development Authority
and/or Redevelopment Authority borrowing proceeds, which have greater flexibility, with debt service to be
included in the County General Fund debt service.
Thus, the current set of recommended County funding sources includes the following: (1) County General
Fund appropriations, (2) County General Obligation Bond proceeds, (3) Industrial Development bonds
issued by the County IDA or RDA (with debt service funded by the County), and (4) HUD 108 loans
leveraged against the County’s Community Development Block Grant allocations. The matrix below
outlines these funding sources, which may be drawn upon by the County over a seven year timeframe:
Source/Type
Potential Dollars
Advantages
• No upfront output by
HUD 108 Loan
Program
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
$2-3 million (to be
repaid via County
debt service)
County
• Ability to maximize CBDG
allocations
• Can help leverage other
State sources and reduce
burden on potential new
County programs
• Slum/blight prevention
funding would apply well
to County’s communities
of opportunity
Drawbacks
• Job creation requirements
• Restrictive income limits for
•
•
•
•
jobs created with “low and
moderate income” funding
County allocations used in
local areas must show a
County impact
Collateral requirements for
funded projects (1.5x amt.
of loan)
County liability if funded
projects do not comply with
federal guidelines
Not available to Norristown
– only Pottstown or other
older communities
December 2008
Source/Type
Potential Dollars
Advantages
• Ability to spread out
County General
Obligation Bond
$70-85 million
“costs” of subsidies over
time
• No lost tax revenue as
with a TIF district
• Fewer restrictions on use
County Industrial
Development Bond
via IDA/RDA
$25-30 million
of proceeds (ie, bonds
may be applicable to
private users)
• No lost tax revenue as
with a TIF district
56
Drawbacks
• Ongoing debt repayment
burden
• Bond proceeds may be
limited in public use
• Ongoing debt repayment
burden
• Repayment structure may
be more complicated due to
channeling through
IDA/RDA
• Most straightforward
financing mechanism
County General Fund
Allocation
7.2
• Guarantees funding of
TBD
programs
• Low administrative costs –
maximize total direct funds
received
• High upfront cost
• Politically challenging –
raises question of necessity
for tax increases
Non-County Funding and Program Opportunities
Following up this exploration of potential funding sources for County programs, we also now discuss below
several non-County funding and program opportunities that the County should encourage and help to
facilitate implementation of by municipalities. While some of these programs do not involve direct funding,
they are important examples of the types of programs the County should be promoting as it seeks to
maximize the use of all existing economic development tools and further leverage any County dollars
committed. In this regard, the County can help to (a) facilitate the implementation of these programs via
technical assistance or other supports; (b) help move programs forward by cooperating with any legislative
requirements or approvals that may be required of the County, and (c) encourage their adoption by
prioritizing funding allocations to those municipalities which participate in such activities.
Locally Leveraged HUD 108 Loans and Bond Issuances
Much as the County can issue HUD 108 loans leveraged against its Community Development Block Grant
allocations and issue debt through General Obligation bonds, so too can local municipalities employ these
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
57
mechanisms as additional sources of financing and leverage. In the case of HUD 108 loans, this option
would be limited to Norristown, which is the only municipality to receive its own designated CDBG
appropriation. In addition, these loans would face the same restrictions with regard to job creation
requirements, income limits on jobs created, collateral requirements, and other liabilities that apply to
similar loans issued by the County (see restrictions in table for HUD 108).
In the case of local bond issuances, as with the County such actions would allow local municipalities to
bring additional leverage to the table and at the same time enable them to finance projects without
significant upfront spending. However, the proceeds from these bonds are also generally limited to public
use projects and a municipality’s capacity to support the debt burden that will result.
Nonetheless, both of these opportunities should be explored as a means of leveraging state and federal
funding, as well as proposed County funding programs. In the latter case, the County can promote these
activities (in cases where it is fiscally responsible and appropriate for a municipality) by prioritizing projects
located in municipalities in which the local government has demonstrated its own commitment through such
financing.
Tax Increment Financing Districts
In the face of shrinking federal subsidies, tight state and local government budgets, and intense intraregional competition for economic development, the use of TIFs has grown sharply, becoming a standard
part of many local economic development subsidy arsenals. The purpose of TIFs is straightforward: a
jurisdiction uses a TIF as a form of public subsidy to a development, by “capturing” some of the increased
taxes generated by the increased value (to any tax base, but most commonly property) created by that
particular real estate development project (or a group of projects) within a defined geographic area
(typically referred to as TIF “districts”). Instead of going to the jurisdiction’s general revenue fund, these
increased, or “incremental” taxes are diverted into a fund that can be used in various ways to support the
real estate development project directly or indirectly.
Municipalities throughout Montgomery County have already made use of TIF districts, with the assistance
of the Redevelopment Authority – these activities should continue to be explored, particularly in the
County’s older and more economically challenged communities. In doing so, these municipalities gain
several benefits as compared to typical direct outlays of general fund dollars or debt issuance. In
particular, TIFs:
Can help to overcome market failures that would prevent development from otherwise taking
place; along with other financing tools, a TIF can make specific areas/sites more attractive to
private development, thus overcoming the market failure
Can improve areas that have not seen significant investment for long periods
Can improve the competitive position of a locality by making the financial package offering to
prospective developers more attractive
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
58
Are self-financing, as projects in the TIF district are paid for through the incremental gain in tax
revenues brought on by new development; this enables communities to finance development
without incurring significant costs or raising taxes
Offer greater flexibility with regard to how and where they can be used, enabling to localities to
set up TIF districts without restrictions such as mandated public/private funding ratios and
others often associated with state and federal grant programs
Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA)
In looking to maximize all economic development resources available to its constituent municipalities, the
Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) program38 is an important opportunity for the
County to encourage and explore within its older and more economically challenged communities. Through
this program, local taxing authorities are able to exempt improvements to deteriorated business properties
from property tax increases for a limited period of time (up to 10 years). Such “tax abatement” policies can
serve as valuable tools for improving the economic and business climate of certain residential and
commercial districts and ultimately for encouraging investment by reducing the increased tax burden that
accompanies new development.
Currently, LERTA is featured on the MCIDC website under business financing programs it can assist
potential businesses and investors in securing. In this capacity, MCIDC plays an important role in ensuring
that the County’s target business/investor audiences are aware of the opportunities and incentives at their
disposal within the County. Yet, unless those areas most in need of new investment have LERTA and
other similar programs available and ready to go, such efforts by MCIDC may be limited in their impact.
Thus, while this is ultimately a program to be implemented at the local level, there are several ways in
which the County can help to ensure the success and encourage the adoption of such activities and
thereby help to drive private sector investment.
First, the County can play a role in both informing municipalities about this program and helping local
officials through technical assistance and other advisory services in the development and set-up of LERTA
zones. Since LERTA guidelines require all taxing bodies impacted by potential tax abatements – including
the County - to pass enabling ordinances, the County can work with local authorities and school districts to
coordinate these efforts and assist local bodies as necessary throughout the ordinance process. In
addition, the County can help to move these programs forward by pledging to cooperate with local taxing
authorities in terms of authorizing the abatement of County taxes in impacted areas. Finally, the County
can use its own programming as an incentive to encourage local municipalities to implement LERTA
programs. By incorporating eligibility guidelines and/or criteria that prioritize allocation of funding towards
those municipalities making the greatest use of locally available programs such as LERTA, the County can
not only ensure that its own dollars are spread as far as possible, but that these dollars are able to best
leverage other State, federal, and private funding sources.
38
See Appendix N for background and overview documents explaining LERTA.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
59
Specific Plan Programming
One potential tool for the County to promote through a new strategic economic development policy is the
“Specific Plan” process established as part of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. As defined
within this code, “a ‘specific plan’ is a detailed plan for nonresidential development of an area covered by a
municipal or multi-municipal comprehensive plan, which when approved and adopted by the participating
municipalities through ordinances and agreements supersedes all other applications,” including existing
zoning.39
According to John Cover of the County Planning Commission, there are currently no municipalities within
the County which have taken advantage of the Specific Plan process – nevertheless, it remains an
important opportunity to explore in order to attract new development throughout the County. As Mr. Cover
noted, the Specific Plan process would enable municipalities belonging to regional planning organizations
(of which there are currently four in Montgomery County) to develop specific wide-reaching redevelopment
plans without being limited to or constrained by existing zoning codes in the area.
However, because it essentially places the municipality in the role of the developer, it can be a costly
undertaking. As such, a best case scenario is often to partner with a developer who can help to alleviate
some of the financial burden on the municipality. In this case, the developer benefits in several key ways:
(1) plans can specify new zoning to replace existing zoning restrictions; (2) plans already have the goahead of the municipality, thereby mitigating risk of community opposition; and (3) there is a ready-to-go
plan for them to take over, vastly expediting the overall development process. Nonetheless, the Specific
Plan process is not without its limitations. Most notable is the requirement that a municipality must be part
of a regional planning organization, as well as the cost burden on the municipality without the guarantee of
a developer to implement the plan.
Given these limitations, Mr. Cover suggested that the County could promote the use of this program by
helping to subsidize planning, engineering, or other costs should a municipality take part in it. And,
because only those municipalities involved in regional planning organizations can take part, such funding
will have the additional benefit of providing an incentive for individual municipalities to work jointly through
these types of arrangements. Such arrangements ultimately hold considerable value in their own right, as
demonstrated by the successes of the existing regional planning organizations currently operating in the
County. In these areas, joint planning has helped to bring down costs to participating municipalities by
spreading the burden and enabling them to take advantage of economies of scale. In addition, because
planning consultants are hired by a group of municipalities, it helps to ensure that activities are carried out
in the best interests of all involved rather than any one individual municipality.
Looking to the proposed funding recommendations identified by the Task Force, we note the potential for
integrating Specific Plan incentives as one of the activities to be eligible under the County Visionary Fund
program.
39
See Appendix O for Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code language on Specific Plans.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
60
Community Development Financing Institutions
In looking to develop an adapted County-based Small Business First Fund program which would expand
eligibility of the existing State program beyond manufacturing and high-tech industry businesses, one
avenue to explore is Community Development Financing Institutions (CDFIs). Importantly, CDFIs can
serve as a vehicle to bring loan and capital assistance to small businesses in downtowns which are starved
for that access. As mission-based financial intermediaries that borrow capital from various sources and
lend it in primarily low-income and low-wealth communities, CDFIs can address the need for capital in
these areas, and do so through strategies designed to assure that capital made available in low-income
communities revolves in those communities.
CDFIs can work closely with the County Department of Economic and Workforce Development in order to
best leverage County resources with outside investment, and importantly can help to mitigate the risk that
could potentially be placed on the County if it were to finance businesses who might not traditionally qualify
for credit.
Business Improvement Districts and Local Leadership
An additional tool to examine as a means of leveraging County dollars directed to older downtown areas in
the County are Business Improvement Districts. These public-private partnerships are established in
defined sections of a community and fund improvements to these areas through special assessments or
user fees to member businesses in the district. Already, several communities throughout the County have
taken the necessary steps towards establishing these entities, with some BIDS fully established. Moving
forward, the County can play an important role in helping to promote and expand the use of BIDs by its
municipalities by providing incremental funds to help support projects funded within these Districts.
In looking at these types of locally-driven endeavors, it is also important to recognize the need for
consistent and strong leadership by local officials. Looking to the case of Ambler, it was only through the
coordinated and sustained efforts of local economic development leaders that transformation change was
possible. To that end, the County can help to encourage the kind activities that made Ambler so successful
by helping its older municipalities and boroughs in recruiting those professionals who will be able to provide
the guidance and leadership necessary for such changes to take root. One such means of doing so is
through its County Visionary Fund, which can also be used by local areas in establishing ongoing vision
plans.
State and Federal Funding Opportunities
The purpose of this study has been to identify a set of policy recommendations that can be adopted at the
County level and which can provide a comprehensive and focused strategic approach to economic
development throughout the County. To that end, the recommendations included in this report have
intentionally focused on those funding programs and organizational changes which can be controlled by
and are under the authority of the County, and it has generally excluded any expanded discussion of
federal or State programs as they relate to the County’s economic development policies. Nonetheless, an
underlying assumption of all of these recommendations has been that wherever possible, the County will
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
61
take advantage of any and all applicable funding programs offered at the State and federal level, and that it
will also continually seek out new opportunities from these and any other sources. Included in Appendix P
is a list of such programs as they relate to the County’s priority economic development issues and the types
of program recommendations included in this report.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
8.0
IMPLEMENTATION
8.1
Timeline for Allocation and Rollout of Funding
62
Given the considerable sum of the all recommended programming - $105 million – it will ultimately be
necessary to fund programs over a multi-year period. This type of roll-out benefits the County both for its
ability to limit the impact of new spending in any given year on the County’s finances, as well as for the
opportunity it presents to adjust program decisions and funding levels based on the performance and
impact of previous investments. The funding rollout schedule presented below provides such a proposed
timeline and allocation of new County dollars. We note that annual allocations are based off of
conversations with County finance officials regarding the County’s dept and capital budget capacities in the
coming years. As can be seen in the schedule below, initial investments for FY 2009 total $20 million, with
those programs which most directly address the County’s top priority issues – (I) Challenges facing older
communities and (II) Underutilization of existing commercial space – targeted for immediate funding.
Rollout Time Period and Funding
($MM)
FY
20102011
($MM)
FY
20122013
($MM)
FY
20142015
($MM)
FY
20092015
($MM)
-
4.0
4.0
4.5
12.5
I.2 Main Street Repositioning Fund
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
I.3 Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund
14.0
16.0
10.0
-
40.0
I.4 Economically Challenged Communities Business Location
Incentive Fund
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
9.0
I.5 County Visionary Fund
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
II.1 Commercial / Industrial Asset Redevelopment and
Reinvestment Fund
-
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
III.1 Local Government Economic Development Enhancement
Program
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
IV.1 Workforce Development Creativity Fund
-
1.0
2.5
4.0
7.5
20.0
34.0
28.5
22.5
105.0
Funding Program
I.1 Community Revitalization Program
Total
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
FY
2009
December 2008
8.2
63
Program Guidelines and Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility requirements, application guidelines, and selection criteria and processes should be established
by the Economic Development Cabinet for each of the recommended programs. Each step of the
application process should be easy to understand and transparent, and should be carefully tailored to
generate applications for funding that meet the program objectives as closely as possible, and to deter
those that would not. However, some latitude or flexibility should be built in to allow for applications
requesting funding for projects which that might not meet the exact objectives, but nevertheless would be
an excellent candidate for County funding to achieve the general goals.
8.2.1
General Guidelines and Procedures
While we suggest that the County be charged with recommending a preliminary set of specific regulations
for each program, we recommend that certain general guidelines and procedures be followed across the
board. More specifically, we propose that all of the programs require, at a minimum, eligibility, application,
and selection requirements covering the areas outlined below. We suggest that the new Economic
Development Director, in consultation with the Economic Development Cabinet, be tasked with initially
formulating these regulations and procedures, with final approval of all regulations and procedures vested
with the County Commissioners.
Eligibility:
For-profit or non-profit status? Government status?
Located within targeted jurisdictions (with waiver criteria)
Type of project meets Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force objectives
Other funding sources
Timing of project (shovel ready to less)
Proposed expenditures meet funding requirement
Application:
Applications open to all
Set our process and timetable
Identify what materials and information to be included
Clear economic and fiscal benefits
Clear sources of funding and uses, and operating pro-formas
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
64
Local government recommendation/sign-on
Selection Criteria:
Meets economic development objectives
Economic/employment and fiscal benefits
Applicant/developer financial capacity
Amount of leverage, including private investment
Timeframe (preference toward more immediate period)
Program Details:
Application and selection process
Amount of funds available
Identify what project expenses are eligible for funding
Terms and conditions
Payout procedures
Claw-back conditions
8.2.2
Draft Program by Program Regulations
In addition to the general items outlined above, we also suggest specific guidelines for each of the
recommended funding programs. These suggestions incorporate the valuable input of the Economic
Development Cabinet. We note that these are suggestions only, and that the final regulations should be
established by the Economic Development Director in consultation with the Economic Development
Cabinet and then be approved by the County Commissioners.
Recommendation I.1: Expand existing Community Revitalization Program
1. Require an on-going revitalization committee in communities.
The committee should be separate from existing government bodies, i.e. Borough Council,
Planning Commission, etc.
The committee must be officially created by the municipal governing body through resolution.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
65
The committee must provide annual reports to the County Revitalization Board documenting
recent revitalization efforts and project status updates.
2. Create a contingency fund opportunity.
Only as a last resort for projects that suffer a shortfall and cannot be delayed without a
significant cost.
Use of this opportunity will be deterred unless there are no other reasonable options.
Money granted as a contingency will be counted against the available money to that
municipality during the subsequent annual funding round of the program.
A maximum percentage of the project that the request may encompass as well as any
penalties for receiving contingency funds should be considered.
3. Require a minimum amount of local dollars for each grant (local match requirement)
Currently, County requires a 10% or 20% local match, but this may be paid using State,
federal, or private contributions.
At least 5% should come directly from the municipality.
This would include local grant programs that the County funds, such as Façade Improvement
or Homeownership Assistance programs.
4. Require approved projects that do not initially have a final design to submit their final design to the
county for approval.
County staff would review projects for consistency with the original approved application and
also ensure that good installation practices are being used.
5. Impose a one million dollar funding limit on any one project in a municipality, regardless of the
number of grants or phases, with the exception of streetscaping.
6. Remove project types from the eligibility list that may receive funding from other proposed
programs under the county.
All non-construction project types should be made eligible for funding under the Local
Government Economic Development Enhancement Program or the County Visionary Fund.
Recommendation I.2: Main Street Repositioning Fund
1. For major projects only; could be continuation of projects initiated via the Community Revitalization
Program or the Proposed County Visionary Fund (see I.5 below).
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
66
2. Linked to private sector and local matching funds.
3. Demonstrate that matching funds have already been allocated or pending subject to county fund
acquisition.
4. No cap on applications - competitive project-driven applications
5. Projects seeking funding should be shovel-ready.
6. Applicants should justify the project with pro-formas, possibly comparing a greenfield site with the
proposal.
Recommendation I.3: Economically Challenged Communities Renaissance Fund
1. Data analysis needed to see if this should be limited to Norristown and Pottstown only.
2. Needs to be project driven - major projects only; preference given to transformational
redevelopment efforts, including those with multiple projects
3. Projects seeking funded should be shovel ready.
4. Developer should already be present and ready to commit funding.
5. Applicants should justify with pro-formas, possibly comparing a greenfield site with the proposal.
6. Preference should be given to major infrastructure improvements.
Recommendation I.4: Economically Challenged Communities Business Location Incentive Fund
1. Grant/loan amounts based on employment and space.
2. Grant amount should be linked to available matching funds and dollar amount of the private
investment to be leveraged as a result of the grant.
3. Should consider the strategic importance of the industry/business type to the area being served.
4. Small business component should balance credit risk of applicant with potential benefit to impacted
community (e.g., County may choose to establish a higher risk threshold than private sector
lenders in order to yield benefits to community)
Recommendation I.5: County Visionary Fund
1. Funding should be directed toward procurement of planning and site design services from private
firms and County sources
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
67
2. Resulting plans must differ from municipal revitalization plans currently funded through the
Community Revitalization Program; plans must be site specific and along the nature of a master or
site plan.
3. Plans should identify high growth potential areas/hubs of a size large enough to achieve
sustainability and spur future development
4. Encourage the organization of public-private partnerships which can bring to bear necessary
enabling resources and development skills.
5. Consider multi-municipal planning.
6. Plans should include a detailed implementation plan that identifies:
Necessary implementing ordinances, strategies, partners, etc. to be used
Prioritized list of individual plan components
Timeline for completion of and implementation of plan components
Estimated costs and potential funding sources for each component including in plan
Recommendation II.1: Commercial/Industrial Asset Redevelopment and Reinvestment Fund
1. Eligible existing commercial office, retail and industrial parks established prior to 1970.
2. Must be used to invest in infrastructure designed to substantially reposition park for 21st century
needs.
3. Can change use, and mixed-use should be encouraged.
4. Preference given to increased density and transit-oriented development (TOD).
Recommendation III.1: Local Government Economic Development Enhancement Program
1. Marketing and other elements currently overlap with the Community Revitalization Program, but
these project types should be removed from eligibility for that program as stated above.
2. Make eligible funding for the hiring of an Economic Development staff person in a municipality
3. Municipalities receiving funding should submit proposals identifying uses for funding and should
demonstrate a past steps taken to improve local economic development and business climate.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
68
Recommendation IV.1: Workforce Development Creativity Fund
1. Matching grants/operational support towards workforce training programs at colleges and
universities (including MCCC)
Applicants must set up performance/training goals and means of tracking program
performance; focus of evaluation criteria should be on outcomes such as total jobs placed,
retention of placements, quality of jobs secured (in terms of wages, etc.), and skills and
competencies gained through training (as opposed to outputs such as number of enrollments).
Preference should be given to programs targeting key industry sectors – biotechnology, life
sciences, pharma, and others - identified by County.
Grants should be used for training that will result in full-time permanent employment.
Awards should factor in level of match from other sources.
Overall cost and cost per trainee of proposed program should be considered.
2. CareerLink service contracts with qualified private job placement agencies
Selection process should include competitive bidding.
Applicant must demonstrate record of success and submit evidence to support said record.
Applicants must set up performance goals and means of tracking program performance; focus
of evaluation criteria should be on outcomes such as total jobs placed, retention of placements,
quality of jobs secured (in terms of wages, etc.).
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
69
9.0 CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the policy recommendations being offered for consideration by the County Commissioners
represent an important opportunity for Montgomery County to act proactively towards securing the long
term economic health of all of its constituent municipalities, and in particular its most at-risk communities.
For, while the County as a whole can be counted as one of the most prosperous in the Commonwealth and
the Country as a whole, there remain sharp divisions between the County’s most prosperous areas and
those which are more economically challenged.
Given the confluence of the current economic downturn and the strains now facing local and state
government’s across the US, the tight competition for available economic development funding dollars, and
the incoming presidential administration’s plans to boost infrastructure investment at the federal level, the
actions recommended will allow the County to capitalize on any federal funding opportunities and invest in
its own future and overall quality of life.
The recommended funding programs will serve as a strategic tool that will enable the County to leverage
state, federal, and other non-County funding streams, as well as to maximize the benefits of County funding
streams already in use and promote the County’s existing economic development priorities and goals. In
particular, funding recommendations stand as a strong complement to existing County investments in open
space preservation, as well as potential future investments in transportation now being explored by the
County. The availability of funding from the County makes a clear statement to private investors and
public funding sources alike that Montgomery County is ready and able to help move major projects
forward and is willing to take on risk of its own in order to do so. At the same time, the Task Force’s
recommendation to create a County Director of Economic Development will be critical to ensuring that the
County is able to manage and successfully implement its new expanded role in the provision of economic
development funding and programming.
In short, the time is right and the need exists to establish a new County-wide strategic economic
development policy. The Task Force, by consensus, offers this report and its corresponding set of policy
recommendations for consideration by the County Commissioners. The Task Force believes the potential
payoffs for adoption of these recommendations will be substantial and will demonstrate to a range of
relevant stakeholders that Montgomery County is progressive and proactive in its approach to the
economic wellbeing of its local communities.
ECONSULT
CORPORATION
December 2008
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: County Resolution to Establish Strategic Economic Development
Policy Task Force
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
April 17, 2007
RESOLUTION
OF THE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A STRATEGIC ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, economic development has been a role of the County of Montgomery
dating back to when the early turnpikes were acquired and the first county bridges
were constructed; and
WHEREAS, the County has recently recognized the need for a county-wide
economic development policy and has hired a firm to study the issues and suggest
actions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to have an appointed task
force oversee this effort, in order to provide guidance, expertise and feedback as
appropriate.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of
Montgomery County hereby establish a task force on Strategic Economic
Development Policy, consisting of representatives from business, education,
government, and others, as shown below and with the co-chairmen as designated
below; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this task force develop a strategic policy and
plan for a county-wide economic development policy, and present same to the
County Commissioners with recommendations for implementing it; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with input from the Planning Commission,
Department of Economic and Workforce Development, Department of Housing and
Community Development, and Redevelopment Authority, this “Strategic Economic
Development Policy Task Force” shall present a written report summarizing its
conclusions and recommendations within six [6] months.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Task Force shall cease to exist no later than
November 30, 2008.
C:
File
Purchasing
Finance
Planning Commission
Task Force members
Commissioners Office
APPENDIX B: Task Force Meeting Agendas and Summaries
Montgomery County
Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force
May 14, 2008 Meeting
Agenda
1. Welcome/Introductions
2. Purpose
3. Scope/Role of Task Force & Executive Committee
4. Conflict of interest statement
5. Timetable/deliverables
6. Preliminary identification & prioritization of county-wide
economic development issues (Task Force action
required)
7. Future meeting dates –proposed (all 3rd Mondays):
June 16
4PM
July 21
4PM
August 18
4PM
September 15 4 PM
(Task Force action required)
8. Other business
Page 1 of 4
MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING FOLLOW-UP
May 27, 2008
TASK 1:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
At the initial meeting of the Task Force, a list of key economic development issues facing the County
was reviewed and discussed. As noted at the meeting, the Task Force’s first step in this process is to
agree upon three to four economic development issues that the Task Force considers to be the most
important issues and hence, worthy of county policy action. The Task Force has been asked to
submit these priority issues to the County Commissioners for review and acceptance as soon as
possible.
The following outlines an updated listing of issues based on recent County economic development
trends, existing County economic development and planning documents and reports, and interviews
and discussions with County economic development cabinet members and other officials, all
augmented by comments from the first Task Force meeting.
For ease of review and discussion, we have categorized these issues into 3 basic groups:
•
•
•
Economic Activity Issues (Type, Location, Investment, Attraction & Retention)
Human Capital Investment Issues
Physical Infrastructure Investment Issues
Specific issues, as well as some background or discussion points for each category, are briefly
detailed in the following pages. As discussed at the meeting, taxonomy is not perfect, so feel
encouraged to combine or sort these as you like. The Task Force’s objective for Task #1 is to agree
upon a list of priority economic development issues facing the County now and in the future. We ask
that you review this material and submit your Top 4 choices, via fax, or email no later than the end of
the day, Tuesday, June 3.
Throughout this exercise, we should keep in mind that we are ultimately trying to develop
recommendations for a COUNTY economic development policy --- not local government, nor state
government policy. Of course, how the County interacts with these other governments, as well as
with private entities, will be crucial for the ultimate strategy, but the idea is NOT to have the county
take over roles traditionally in the domain of other levels of government.
A. Economic Activity Issues (Type & Location, Attraction & Retention)
1. Uncompetitiveness of, and Challenges Facing, Older Communities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Older boroughs; former industrial centers
Older “Main Streets” and downtowns, primarily retail
Rundown downtown areas, obsolete building stock
Abandoned homes and/or deteriorating neighborhoods, absentee landlords
Public Safety concerns
Poor transportation access
Deteriorating physical infrastructure
May 27, 2008
Montgomery County Economic Development Strategy Task Force - Meeting on Task #1
•
•
•
•
•
Page 2 of 4
Inappropriate development or land uses
Unattractive strip commercial areas
Environmental (brownfields) problems
High resident unemployment
Unfriendly business climate with local governments
2. Underutilization of Existing Commercial, Office, Industrial and Retail Parks/Centers
•
•
Older commercial retail centers tired and lack reinvestment
Industrial land redevelopment costly due to:
– Land assembly and zoning problems
– Infrastructure and environmental remediation requirements
– Transportation access issues
3. Locating New Commercial Office and Retail Parks/Centers, Industrial Parks
(Where should new development occur?)
•
•
•
Need to address greenfield/sprawl issues
Office and Industrial locations:
– Location and transportation access
– Design and compatibility issues
Retail:
– Not efficiently meeting demands of residents
– Parking and pedestrian access problems
– Design issues and compatibility with existing uses
4. Dealing with Large Scale Re-Use Opportunities (e.g Willow Grove NAS, Bethlehem Steel
site, Environmental Brownfield Sites, Etc.) Issues
•
•
Concerns with compatibility and buffering with existing residential and other uses
Landscaping and preservation issues
5. Underutilization of Convention/Visitor/Meeting/Recreation/Industry Opportunities
•
•
•
Concerns about future growth of attraction of more conventions and meetings in County
Need for increased promotion and marketing of County facilities and tourist attractions
Untapped cultural, heritage, and recreational opportunities
6. Restrictive Local Government Regulations and Lack of “Business Friendliness”
•
•
•
Barriers to land development (planning, zoning codes)
Inefficient provision of government services
Lack of regional cooperation and promotion
7. Problems for Small Business Development
•
•
Bureaucratic start-up barriers
Lack of/poor access to capital sources
May 27, 2008
•
Page 3 of 4
Lack of business assistance opportunities
8. Concerns about countywide Business Attraction strategies for the future
•
Lack of county-wide marketing goals and efforts
B. Human Capital Investment Issues
1. Labor Attraction/Retention Issues
•
•
“Brain Drain” – loss of highly skilled workforce
Quality of life issues (relative decline in attractiveness as a live and work location)
2. Education Issues
•
•
•
•
K-12 school quality problems
Community college and technical school roles in workforce development
Retention of graduates from colleges and universities in Montgomery County
Potential for attracting R&D and technology firms
3. Workforce Training/Availability Issues
•
•
•
•
•
Labor shortages
Need to keep competitive with education and training of workforce
Lack of affordable housing for workers
Increasingly timely and costly commutes
Lack of day care availability
C. Physical Infrastructure Investment Issues (Including Promotion of Green Development)
1. Transportation (Roads/Rail/Transit/Air) Issues
•
•
•
•
•
Increasing traffic congestion, including commute
Reduced walkability and decreased public transit options resulting from sprawl
Ongoing projected traffic growth
Maintenance and expansion of air travel options and facilities
Road/transport access to different communities
2. Water/Sewer/Power Issues
•
•
•
Protection of water quality
Flood and stormwater management issues
Utilities and Facilities Issues:
– Need for efficient sewer and water improvements, and their influence on
development areas
– Need for environmentally safe sewer facilities and appropriate solid waste disposal
– Mitigation of negative impacts and externalities
May 27, 2008
Page 4 of 4
3. Parks/Recreation (Quality of Life) Issues:
•
•
•
Loss of large interconnected open spaces
Need for protection and management of wetlands, streams, woodlands, and natural
habitats
Lack of sufficient park space and other recreation facilities
4. Open Space/New Development Issues (including sprawl)
•
•
•
•
Population growth problems
Inefficient and excessive land consumption
Loss of farmland and open space
Ineffective preservation efforts
5. Problems with Residential Development/Housing Market
•
Market not meeting housing demands of resident population and workforce
May 27, 2008
Montgomery County
June 16, 2008 Meeting
Agenda
1. New Member/First Attendee Introductions (5 min.)
2. Recap of May 14 Task Force Meeting (5 min.)
3. Task
a.
b.
c.
1 Discussion and Finalization (75 min.)
Economic Development definition
Results of Task Force issues prioritization
Transportation Program discussion (Montgomery
County Planning Commission staff)
d. Draft policy choices to address top issues (not programs
or funding levels at this point)
e. “Interim Report” to Commissioners
4. Task 2 Introduction (10 min.)
5. Other Business
6. Next Task Force Meetings (all Mondays, to be held at the
Montgomery County Human Services Center, Community
Room, Dekalb & Fornance Sts.)
June 16
4PM
July 21
4PM
August 18
4PM
September 15 4PM
7. Adjournment
Summary of June 16, 2008 Meeting
Montgomery County Strategic
Economic Development Policy Task Force
Montgomery County Human Services Center, Norristown
Chairs Morris Dean and Charles Tornetta called the meeting to order at 4 PM. The meeting
began with a welcome from Commissioner Jim Matthews, and then brief introductions from
each of the 27 Task Force members in attendance. Also present at the meeting were Cabinet
officials Gerry Birkenbach, Jerry Nugent, and Ken Hughes, as well as Jim Maza.
The Task Force reviewed and approved the revised definition of economic development. Steve
Mullin from Econsult then reviewed the results of the Task Force issues prioritization, followed
by a presentation by Leo Bagley of the Montgomery County Planning Commission on the
Commission’s current work program to improve transportation access throughout the county.
The majority of the meeting was spent considering the policy goals and the draft policy choices
derived from the Task Force’s prioritization. A number of Task Force members commented on
the policy goals and choices. Key themes that surfaced in these questions and conversations
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The desire to capture a clearer sense of business attitudes and responses to some of the
issues and policy goals identified;
The recognition that much of Montgomery County was doing well economically,
particularly compared to the rest of the state and the region;
The need to center the Task Force discussion on strategies and tactics that would
“create employment”;
A focus on the question of the particular role that county government could play in
influencing economic activity in the county, recognizing that market forces are far
more powerful than any government policies and programs and that the most
significant government actions that shape development in Pennsylvania occur at the
local level, not the county level;
A desire to explore additional financial incentives that the county could employ to
encourage multi-municipal planning and development;
The acknowledgement of the vital role that transportation access has played in guiding
economic activity in the county (e.g. King of Prussia and I-76 and Route 202, and
Conshohocken and I-76 and I-476);
A need to understand more clearly the existing structures, strategies and incentives
(from the state, county and local governments) available to businesses in the county
and to explore various possibilities to create more of a “one-stop shop” for businesses
to improve business access to services in the county.
The discussion then moved to the next step in the Task Force process, which was to consider
the effectiveness and impact of existing incentives offered to businesses at the county level as
well the efficiency of the “delivery system” through which those incentives were offered. A
summary of county programs was handed out to the Task Force with instructions to read
through it and be prepared to discuss their observations and questions at the next meeting.
The Task Force Chairs also stated that before the next meeting the consultants from Econsult
would prepare and deliver an interim report to the Commissioners that laid out the issues,
policy goals and choices identified by the Task Force. The interim report will also include
background and context gathered by the consulting team from their review of existing reports
and studies of the Montgomery County economy and its economic development challenges and
opportunities.
The remaining task force meetings will be held at the Montgomery County Human Services
Center at the following dates and times
July
21
August 18
September 15
4PM
4PM
4PM
The meeting was adjourned by the co-chairs at 6:00 PM.
Montgomery County
July 21, 2008
4:00 PM
Meeting Agenda
(Location:)
Human Services Center
1430 DeKalb Street
(entrance & parking off of Fornance St.)
Please contact Ingrid Picco at 610-278-3020 with any questions.
1. Interim Report – Presentation to Commissioners Update
(5 min.)
2. Presentations - Existing Economic Development
Entities/Programs (1 Hour)
a. Gerald Birklebach: Montgomery County Department of
Economic and Workforce Development
b. Carmen Italia: Montgomery County Industrial
Development Corporation
c. Brian O’Leary: Montgomery County Community
Revitalization Board and Program
d. John Nugent: Montgomery County Redevelopment
Authority
e. Lawrence Segal: State Economic Development
3. Overview of Task Force Website “Homework” Feedback
(10 min.)
4. Initial Identification of Gaps/Needs (15 min.)
5. Next Steps in Process – Recommendations for Policy/
Programs and Governance (15 min.)
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
The next Task Force meeting will be held Monday, August 18th
Summary of July 21, 2008 Meeting
The third Task Force meeting was called to order just after 4:00 PM. The meeting began with a greeting
from the co-chairs, after which all Task Force members and guest presenters introduced themselves. In
addition to the Task Force, attendees included Cabinet officials Gerry Birkelbach, Jerry Nugent, Kathy
Phifer and Ken Hughes, Steven Nelson, Brian O’Leary of the County Planning Commission and
Community Revitalization Board, and Carmen Italia of the Montgomery County Industrial Development
Corporation.
In addressing the first item on the meeting agenda, Steven Nelson noted that the Task 1 Interim Report
had been successfully handed off to the County Commissioners and that the Commissioners were
supportive of the Task Force’s work thus far as well as their plans moving forward. A final report to the
Commissioners is expected for early fall 2008.
After this brief recap, the majority of the remaining meeting time was devoted to presentations by the
directors of the major economic development organizations and departments in the County. In addition,
Task Force member Larry Segal offered a statewide perspective on big-picture economic development
efforts. Presenters focused their discussions around the following set of guidelines suggested by Econsult
and the Task Force Executive Committee:
•
•
•
•
•
Present organizational information within the context of the four key economic development
issues established through Task 1
Discuss overlaps between your organization and other economic development organizations in
the County, region, and state
Discuss commonalities/collaborations/partnerships between your organization and other
economic development organizations in the County, region, and state
Existing Gaps - Where do funds go each year and are all funds used up? Are there any types of
potential customers who may not qualify for your programs/funding? Are there any non-monetary
gaps such as structural and legislative issues?
Vision - What would you do if you had additional resources in terms of funding, staffing, etc.?
What future roles do you envision for your organization?
Specific presenters and key takeaways from their presentations include the following:
•
Gerald Birklebach of the Department of Economic and Workforce Development discussed the
roles and programs covered through the department, as well as funding streams delivered, and
offered an explanation for why the current structure exists (i.e., economic and workforce
development combined) and how that structure came to be.
•
Carmen Italia of the Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation discussed the
history of MCIDC and how it came to fill its current economic development roles in the County.
He did not feel that there were many gaps in programming at MCIDC, nor did he find that
MCIDC overlapped functions with other agencies in the County. He noted the importance of and
need for workforce training and marketing, particularly for higher paying jobs, as well as the
challenge of promoting older boroughs given a lack of available or attractively packaged land.
•
Brian O’Leary of the Community Revitalization Program provided an overview of the program,
including funding levels, spending to date, and key revitalization projects. He noted that the
program would have the greatest impact towards the issues of “Economic Issues Facing Older
Communities” and “Underutilization of Existing Commercial Space.” He further noted the gap
between funding requests and available program dollars and expressed the need for addition
funding to entice private development in revitalization communities.
•
Jerry Nugent of the Redevelopment Authority distinguished the role of the RDA from other
County economic development organizations such as MCIDC and the Department of Economic
and Workforce Development, citing the organization’s prominent role in infrastructure
development in older and distressed regions of the County. He noted that a key reason for lack of
private development in older communities was the high risk to investors and developers, and
expressed a need for programs and funding to promote development in these areas, as well as
legislation to address issues such as eminent domain and environmental remediation liability that
often inhibit private investment.
•
Larry Segal of the Task Force presented a broader, state level view of economic development,
stressing the need to make older communities more attractive to developers and to focus on larger
transformational development plans as opposed to individual projects on a smaller scale. He
further noted that it was critical to provide a continuum of knowledge throughout the County’s
economic development organizations in order to facilitate the development process for potential
customers.
Following these presentations, Stephen Mullin of Econsult discussed next steps for the Task Force,
focusing in particular on the identification of gaps and needs within the County and translating these
identified gaps and needs into specific policy recommendations. He proposed the following series of
questions to the Task Force to being asking themselves:
•
•
•
•
•
Can some programs be modified/changed to be more effective?
Can the County use more funding in some areas or less in others?
Should programs be shifted among/between different agencies/entities?
Should new programs be devised and within which entities?
Can the County better leverage other private, local, and state funding sources better through
changes in its programs or the provision of new funding sources?
He further encouraged the Task Force to begin considering what role additional financing might play in a
new economic development policy, focusing on issues such as appropriate funding levels, how to
determine what is the right amount, and sources for funding. In addition, he stressed the importance of
considering future policy changes within the framework of the four priority economic development issues
identified in Task 1.
Finally, during a brief question and answer period at the end of the meeting, Task Force member Jill
Govberg noted the need to consider economic development recommendations within the context of
transportation policies, as well as important role that public buy-in, via the mechanism of public
referenda, played in the success of past County funded programs such as the Open Spaces program.
Please note that the remaining task force meetings will be held at the Montgomery County Human
Services Center at the following dates and times:
August 18
September 15
4PM
4PM
Montgomery County
August 18, 2008
4:00 PM
Meeting Agenda
(Location:)
1430 DeKalb Street
1. Welcome
2. Feedback on Google Groups “MontcoTaskForce” Discussion
Forum (5 min.)
3. Discussion of Preliminary Proposed Recommendations Memo
(1 Hour, 45 min.)
a. Introduction to and review of recommendations by
Econsult
b. Discussion of recommendations by Task Force
– Challenges Facing Older Communities (Ambler
case study presentation by Charles Wahl,
Bernadette Dougherty, and Hugh Moulton)
– Underutilization of Existing Commercial Space
– Local Government Regulation and Business
Friendliness
– Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/
Retention
– Overall Coordination
4. Next Steps in Process and Remaining Task Force Meeting
Schedule (10 min.)
5. Adjournment
The next Task Force meeting will be held Monday, September 15th
Summary of August 18, 2008 Meeting
The fourth Task Force meeting was called to order just after 4:00 PM by Co-Chair Charles Tornetta.
Mr. Tornetta extended a welcome to County Commissioner Joseph Hoeffel, who attended the
meeting along with a mix of approximately 20 Task Force and Economic Development Cabinet
members.
Following this introduction and welcome, Mr. Tornetta asked the Task Force for any feedback or
comments relating to the “Montco Task Force” Google Groups discussion website – there were no
comments other than an inquiry by Jill Govberg into how many members were currently signed up
(note: all Task Force members have now been added as members to the website by Econsult).
After this inquiry, the meeting moved towards the discussion of Econsult’s preliminary proposed
policy recommendations, as outlined in the memo distributed prior to the Task Force meeting.
Stephen Mullin of Econsult started off this discussion with an overview of the Recommendations
Memo. His presentation first offering context for the proposed recommendations by outlining the
rationale for the County’s investment and offering guiding principles to be used in the development
of final policy recommendations. He then provided an initial review of the recommendations for
each of the County’s priority economic development issues and finally, noted some of the potential
sources for funding these proposals, along with various factors that would impact the timeline for the
rollout and allocation of future program funding by the County (NOTE: Please see attached power
point presentation).
This overview was followed by a more detailed explanation of each of the proposed
recommendations within their respective issue areas, with discussion by the Task Force interspersed
between each set of recommendations. For the first issue – Challenges Facing Older Communities –
there was also a brief presentation by Task Force member Bernadette Dougherty, who told the story
of Ambler’s revitalization over the past decade. Ms. Dougherty served as Ambler’s Main Street
Manager for 12 years and was instrumental in the turnaround of Ambler’s Main Street area. Key
points from Ms. Dougherty’s presentation include:
•
•
•
•
•
Initial streetscape investments and other superficial improvements produced little real impact
because there was no input from business and resident communities as to their needs/wants
Change began following 1992 Vision meeting and then continued through the reinvention of
the town’s “niche” as a regional arts and entertainment center
Major catalyst for transformation was remake of Ambler Theater, made possible by first
securing private investment and then using this to leverage other County, state and federal
sources – success of the theater induced spillover investments by other private businesses
Key elements to success are “people, partnerships, and persistence”
One major recommendation would be for County to offer source of larger scale funding for
bigger ticket items such as parking garages, etc. – limitations on existing funds through
Community Revitalization Program prevent use for such activity.
Following Ms. Dougherty’s presentation, the majority of remaining meeting time was used for Task
Force discussion of proposed recommendations. Key issues raised and addressed through this
dialogued are outlined below:
Inclusion of dollar amounts in final recommendations:
Task Force members voiced their perspectives on whether final recommendations to the
Commissioners should include a specific, defined dollar amount for a County investment. One view
was that dollar amounts should not be included and that the final report should instead outline
targeted projects, with funding levels ultimately determined in a need-based manner. On the other
side of the debate was the view that the final recommendations should in fact name a total funding
amount, in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the County’s investment for leveraging other
funding sources. County Commissioner Hoeffel also provided input on this issue, and the ultimate
consensus was that a funding dollar amount would be named. In addition, there was general
agreement that recommended funding amounts for programs involving major redevelopment activity
be based on careful and reasonable estimates of the number and types of projects to be undertaken
and the costs associated with such activity.
Role of County in helping to expedite and streamline the development process:
Task Members noted that local government regulations, particularly with regard to zoning and the
development process, can often limit development potential and prospects for local economic
growth. One such example was the height restrictions placed on proposed new condominium
projects in certain communities. In addition, lags in approval times by local and County government
entities can impede the completion of development projects in a timely manner. To the extent that
the County can work with local governments to adapt their zoning restrictions and expedite approvals
for major redevelopment projects, it could help to open up development opportunities and at the
same time generate significant savings for private investors, for whom lagging approval times mean
unnecessary additional expenditures. There was a general consensus that these issues were important
to address in a future policy, but specific means of doing so remain open for further discussion.
Role of infrastructure in attracting development:
Several Task Force members noted the importance of infrastructure in encouraging investment by
private developers and enabling projects to move forward. In particular, issues relating to access,
water, and sewer in the County’s older boroughs and urban areas can inhibit development, while the
presence of sound and well-functioning infrastructure can help to bring in developers. One future
question to ask in this regard is whether infrastructure should be addressed at the level of individual
municipalities, multi-municipality consortiums, or some other unit of organization. There was no
ultimate decision on how to handle this issue, and Econsult will be exploring costs and other factors
related to infrastructure issues in anticipation of the next Task Force meeting.
Need for a systematic means of identifying municipal eligibility for program dollars:
There was considerable discussion as to which municipalities to target through new economic
development programs. Norristown and Pottstown were noted by several Task Force members as
priority locations for significant investment, while other older communities such as Ambler and
Lansdale were also brought up as potential areas to target. While some expressed that specific areas
must be named explicitly in final recommendations to the Commissioners, others felt it was better to
identify specific projects targeted for funding rather than any particular location. One suggestion was
to develop a taxonomy for determining which areas to target, based in part on the extent to which
municipalities are seeking additional development activity and also driven by metrics to be
determined as programs are further defined. Such eligibility criteria will be clearly delineated in
final recommendations to the Commissioners. More immediately, they will be explored further in
the next recommendations memo and as a discussion topic at the next Task Force meeting.
Eligibility requirements for individual projects:
It was noted that there are two distinct types of funding being proposed through this effort: (1) Seed
money for revitalization projects such as those taking place in Ambler and other boroughs throughout
the County; and (2) Matching funds to help fill financing gaps in larger scale projects, and, in doing
so, leverage other funding sources. In both cases, it was agreed that projects receiving County
funding should be based within a broader vision and developed through a sound planning process,
with priority placed on those projects which are most financially and logistically feasible, most likely
to reach the development stage, and most “spade-ready.” One idea proposed to ensure these criteria
are met is the creation of a standardized application template through which developers could present
a proposed development program, demonstrate the positive economic impacts it would produce for
the County, and indicate the extent of any County funding desired. Such tools and criteria will be
further addressed and fleshed out as specific project application and eligibility requirements are
established.
The need for and future roles of a new County Director of Economic Development:
In response to the proposed recommendation to establish a new Director of Economic Development
for the County, Task Force members noted that it was important for the individual assuming this
position to have well established contacts in the economic development field and to be ready to move
forward with little on the job training. It was also noted that the individual could play an important
symbolic role in demonstrating the priority being placed on economic development activities by the
County. There was a general consensus, however, that the proposed roles and responsibilities
assigned to the position needed to be filled out and more clearly defined – Econsult will continue to
refine these roles and responsibilities for a subsequent draft the proposed policy recommendations.
Governance and administration of new programming:
For the most part, it was agreed that the new programs proposed through the preliminary
recommendations could be administered and/or governed through the County’s existing economic
development agencies and organizations. There seemed to be general consensus that the County’s
Redevelopment Authority would be an appropriate entity to administer much of the new funding
aimed at major redevelopment projects in the County’s older communities and “communities of
opportunity.” One key issue to explore further in this regard is additional staffing and/or resources
that would be needed by those entities assuming additional programming responsibilities.
Following a lively and engaged discussion, Charles Tornetta wrapped up the session and noted that
the Task Force would be revisiting the issues at the next meeting. In addition, Stephen Mullin
encouraged all Task Force members to respond to the discussion and post any other thoughts on the
Google Groups site. Finally, it was noted that while the final Task Force meeting was originally
slated to be the September gathering, there may need to be an additional meeting, which would be
scheduled for October 20th. The next Task Force meeting will be held Monday, September 15th,
2008.
The meeting was adjourned by the Co-Chairs at 6:10 PM.
Montgomery County
September 15th, 2008
4:00 PM
Meeting Agenda
(Location:)
1430 DeKalb Street
1. Welcome
2. Discussion of Revised Recommendations Memo
(1 Hour, 50 min.)
3. Timeline and Content of Final Report (5 min.)
4. Activity for Next Task Force Meeting (5 min.)
5. Adjournment
The next Task Force meeting will be held Monday, October 20th
Summary of September 15th, 2008 Meeting
The September 15th Task Force meeting was called to order just after 4:00 PM by Co-Chair Charles
Tornetta. Mr. Tornetta extended a welcome to the Task Force and to County Commissioner Bruce
Castor, who attended the meeting along with a mix of approximately 20 Task Force and Economic
Development Cabinet members.
Following Mr. Tornetta’s welcome, Econsult consultant Steve Mullin presented to the Task Force the
revised set of funding and program recommendations from the most recently distributed
recommendations memo. In particular, Mr. Mullin went through the summary funding/program
matrix in Appendix A of the document, explaining each of the programs in terms of total proposed
funding levels, applications for funding, and the type of program that is being proposed (ie, grant,
loan pool, operational support, etc.). Throughout this presentation, Task Force members posed
questions and offered feedback, the result of which was an open and engaged discussion of each of
the propose funding and program recommendations.
Major issues brought up by Task Force members and answers/responses to these issues include the
following:
•
How the specific amounts of funding were derived for each program (what are the
rationales for these levels)
Funding levels were determined based on (a) a reasonable estimates of the order of magnitude of
funding necessary for typical projects receiving County dollars, (b) how many of those types of
projects might be expected, (c) typical funding gaps in projects throughout the County as
described by Jerry Nugent of the RDA, and (d) recommended amounts for new funding targeting
individual businesses as offered by Jerry Birklebach.
•
How infrastructure funding plays into the recommended programs, particularly as a
means of enhancing business friendliness by making areas more “spade ready” for
businesses and developers
County should be careful to use infrastructure funding only in areas that might not otherwise be
developed and in which upgrades to older infrastructure are necessary for development – in other
words, it should not be applicable for projects in areas that would be considered greenfields or
would be easily developed. At the same time, the County should play role in bringing all funding
“players” to the table, including itself in strategic levels if necessary.
•
Impact of plans/recommendations on existing agencies
Recommendations do not call for any new departments or agencies, although additional
personnel may be required in existing organizations charged with new responsibilities under the
recommendations; one major structural/organizational change is the addition of a new County
Director/Coordinator of Economic Development.
•
Misrepresentation of coordination/collaboration between existing agencies in the
County
Memo discussion of potential for disconnection between County and non-County ED agencies
will be revisited and revised as necessary.
•
The importance of having the political will at the local level to move projects forward
•
Concern over handing over County dollars to local areas if they (a) do not have a vision
or knowledge of what local businesses need, and (b) have demonstrated a failure to be
business friendly in the past
Example provided on point (a) that in Ambler it was often zoning that was one of the biggest
problems for businesses, and that the involvement of the planning commission in helping local
officials to address these issues would be helpful. On point (b), such concerns can be addressed
by implementing clear qualification and eligibility requirements and selection criteria for those
areas awarded program funding.
•
The incorporation of performance measures into program requirements
•
How to prioritize the different programs if all funding cannot be provided at first
Will be explored further by Consultants for next set of materials distributed.
•
The need for more specific examples of the kinds of return on investment other areas
have seen following similar investments as those proposed in the recommendations, as
well as a hesitance to support recommended amounts at this point without such
examples or evidence
Will be explored further by Consultants for next set of materials distributed. See also paragraph
below regarding comments by Commissioner Bruce Castor.
•
Need to understand better where the County’s dollars have made the greatest impact in
the past and what factors in these areas contributed to that success (as well as where
dollars have had little impact and why not)
Will be explored further by Consultants for next set of materials distributed. See also paragraph
below regarding comments by Commissioner Bruce Castor.
•
The importance, beyond dollars, of the right combination of people, persistence, and
partnerships
•
The possibility of directing all funding towards areas such as Norristown and Pottstown
In response to these issues raised by the Task Force, County Commissioner Castor offered the
observation that there is little appetite in the public for the County to spend their tax dollars on
projects that may ultimately fail to produce an impact. In order to address these concerns, he noted
the need to demonstrate where past spending by the County has had a positive and meaningful
impact and then use this as part of the rationale for why the funding and programs currently being
recommended should be implemented by the County.
There was a general consensus by those present at the meeting that such a demonstration was
important and necessary to move forward and address reservations over recommending such
substantial investments by the County. To that end, Econsult will be compiling such examples, along
with establishing a means of prioritizing the various funding programs in light of an inability to fund
all programs at once.
Following this discussion, Charles Tornetta wrapped up the session and noted that the next step for
the Task Force would be to come to a point of consensus on all policy recommendations and
ultimately sign off on a report of these recommendations to the Commissioners. In addition, Mr.
Tornetta noted that the next Task Force meeting will be held Monday, October 20th, 2008.
The meeting was adjourned by the Co-Chairs shortly after 6:00 PM.
Montgomery County
October 20th, 2008
4:00 PM
Meeting Agenda
(Location:)
1430 DeKalb Street
1. Welcome
2. Presentation and discussion of Public Funding Impact and
Rationale Memo (1 hour)
3. Presentation and discussion of funding rollout schedule
(15 mins.)
4. Next steps – final report and remaining Task Force activity
(45 mins.)
5. Adjournment
Summary of October 20th, 2008 Meeting
The October 20th Task Force meeting was called to order shortly after 4:00 PM by Co-Chair Charles
Tornetta. Mr. Tornetta extended a welcome to the Task Force and to County Commissioner Bruce
Castor, who attended the meeting along with Task Force and Economic Development Cabinet
members. Co-Chair Morris Dean also took a moment to remark on and honor Task Force member
John Rosenthal, who passed away several weeks ago.
Following Mr. Tornetta’s and Mr. Dean’s opening remarks, Econsult consultant Steve Mullin
presented to the Task Force a summary of the Public Funding Impact and Rationale Memo
distributed prior to the meeting, as well as the proposed rollout of funding dollars under each of the
recommended funding programs. This presentation was followed by a question and answer period
and open discussion with the Task Force.
This period started off with a question regarding the availability of funding for small and medium
sized businesses, particularly those who may have underwriting issues with traditional lenders, under
the Economically Challenged Communities Business Location Incentive Fund. Mr. Mullin noted
that funding will be available to such parties under this program and also discussed the balance the
County must find between establishing clear eligibility standards for its funding streams and
assuming some level of risk (which is likely higher than traditional private lenders) in order to gain
economic benefits such as jobs and business growth through loans to these potentially “higher risk”
prospects.
Another point raised at the onset of discussion was whether policy recommendations have been
examined within a competitive context, asking questions such as: Are these measures necessary for
the County to remain competitive with surrounding areas? Is anyone doing anything similar? Do they
put us on par with other counties or “leapfrog” us ahead of them? It was recognized by the Task
Force and the consultants that this competitive framework is important to examine and it will be
incorporated into the final report.
One of the major issues discussed was whether any real consensus had been reached regarding the
total amount of funding that would be recommended to the County Commissioners by the Task
Force. Several Task Force members expressed concern over handing recommendations for such
significant spending increases over to the Commissioners if there had been no formal approval by the
Task Force. In following up on this same issue, Task Force members Ben Gross and Jill Govberg
noted that despite general agreement concerning priority economic development issues and general
goals for implementation of a proposed policy, they did not feel that there was adequate support from
the Task Force yet for the proposed recommendations to hire a County Director of Economic
Development or establish the $105 million in new proposed funding programs. Ms. Govberg and
Mr. Gross submitted for consideration by the Task Force a Minority Report (attached) outlining these
views.
In addition to the more broad-based concerns over Task Force consensus, several attendees raised
questions regarding specific funding programs and how these addressed the issues facing the County.
One member noted that a major goal of the proposed programs has been to offer funding for
transformational projects, and while this is provided for through the “Economically Challenged
Communities Renaissance Fund,” these dollars go primarily towards Norristown and Pottstown,
leaving other older communities without funding for similar transformational activities. Also raised
was the question as to whether the County Visionary Fund dollars were a redundancy to existing
planning activity under the Community Revitalization Program. To this question, Steve Nelson
responded that the County Visionary Fund will focus on more detailed master planning and thus
differs from the more broad-based planning funded under the CRP. Finally, there were also concerns
raised over a clear and demonstrated need for the Local Government Economic Development
Enhancement Program, given that many municipalities lack the necessary leadership and/or staffing
to handle such funds.
In responding to the concerns raised by the Task Force, Co-Chair Charles Tornetta noted that the
report to be submitted to the Commissioners would contain recommendations only and that it was
ultimately up to the Commissioners to determine the appropriate course of action with regard to
setting up new economic development funding streams. He pointed out that the Task Force’s main
charges have been to (a) decide if there is a need for spending to address the County’s issues, and (b)
determine how much would be needed to address these issues, but that the Commissioners would
make the final decision as to how much, if any, funding is allocated. Mr. Mullin explained that the
$105 million total was the result of estimating an appropriate or workable amount for each of the
programs and then adding these individual totals together, as opposed to deciding on a total number
and distributing it across the various programs.
To these points, Task Force member Larry Segal cited several conclusions that had in fact been
reached so far, including: (1) Revitalization of older communities remains a major issue; (2) If the
County is going to do anything it wants to make a real impact; and (3) If the County is in fact going
to make a true impact, it needs to make a sizable investment. Following up on this, Robert Butera
noted that it is time for the County to lead through progressive action and that in taking the steps
prescribed in the recommendations, it will be able to set the standard for the region and state. Mr.
Butera further pointed out that the proposed funding provided the County with an opportunity to
further advance its existing development priorities by acting as an incentive to adhere to such
priorities.
Several attendees offered their perspectives on why the recommended programs were necessary and
should be offered for consideration by the County Commissioners. One Task Force member noted
that effective governance and leadership were not all that was needed to impart change in the
County’s more challenged areas, and that funding was a critical issue as well. RDA Director Jerry
Nugent lent support to this comment, noting that along with the $70 million in public funds that have
been invested into Conshohocken developments in recent years, there has been more than $200
million in private investment, and that new developments in Conshohocken have been a significant
contributor of tax revenues to the municipality, County, and State. He also noted that while earlier
developments required public outlays of funds, the most recent buildings were funded entirely
through private investors – he observed that while it may take time to see the yields of public
investments such as those now being proposed, they do ultimately provide important benefits and
returns to their communities.
In addition, another member noted that proposed funding will play a similar role to the County’s
current Open Spaces funding, which in large part is intended to combat sprawl and its resultant
impacts. The current recommendations should be regarded as following a similar pursuit, given that
urban decay is just as significant as a problem as sprawl and is in fact the “flip side” of that issue.
These funds will make an important statement that the County continues to put renewal and open
space preservation as a priority.
As demonstrated in the points raised above, there was considerable back and forth among Task Force
members as to whether they were comfortable standing behind the recommendations now up for
consideration, particularly with regard to the $105 million in new County funding being proposed.
Following that discussion and in response to questions about group consensus, Mr. Tornetta proposed
bringing several key issues to a vote – these issues and the results from the Task Force are included
below:
•
Question 1: Do all Task Force members agree that there is a need, throughout the
County and in its older communities in particular, for the actions and investments being
proposed by the Task Force (essentially reaffirming the Task Force’s identification of
key issues and strategies)? All voted yes to this question.
•
Question 2: Does the Task Force agree to the types of programs being proposed in the
current set of recommendations (not necessarily specific funding levels, but the general
type of program)? All but two of the Task Force members present voted yes to this
question.
•
Question 3: Does the Task Force agree to the funding levels being proposed in the
current set of recommendations? All members of the Task Force who voted on this
question voted yes.
Importantly, there were no dissenting votes in response to these questions, even from those members
voicing the greatest concern over the proposed policies and funding levels. Based on these
responses, the co-chairs concluded that consensus had been reached with regard to the current set of
policy recommendations up for consideration and that the consultants would move forward in putting
these recommendations into a final report to the County Commissioners. It was recognized by all
attendees that the decision to adopt the recommendations included in the final report will rest solely
with the Commissioners and it will be up to them to decide if, how, and in what form these policies
are implemented.
Moving forward, the Consultant will commence work on the final report (the outline for which was
distributed via email with the most recent set of materials for the Oct. 20 Task Force meeting) and
will deliver a draft copy to the Task Force by Monday, November 10th. The Task Force will then
have 10 days to review the draft report and respond with any comments by Thursday, November 20th.
From this point, the consultants will incorporate any changes and/or comments and then meet to
review the final draft with Task Force Executive Committee on December 1st. The final report will
follow shortly thereafter.
At the close of the meeting, the Co-Chairs thanked all Task Force members, Economic Development
Cabinet members, and other County officials for their ongoing participation and contributions over
the past several months.
NOTE: There will be no additional Task Force meetings.
APPENDIX C: Guide to County and Regional Economic Development
Organizations and Chambers of Commerce
A. MATRIX OF MAJOR PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN SOUTHEASTERN PA
R&D and Product Improvement
Marketing
Advocacy
Financing/Funding
Economic Platforms
New venture creation
Workforce and talent development
Government efficiency and effectiveness
SBDC's, Entrepreneurial centers, BFTP
WIBs, Campus Philly
Committee of 70, Economy League
Committee of 70
Philadelphia Forward
Individual Industry Segments
Hospitality and Tourism
Leisure Travellers
Conventions and Trade Shows
Arts and Culture
Technology
Health Care
Creative Economy
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Higher Education
GPTMC, CCD
CVBs
Cultural Alliance, ABC
BFTP
DVHC
IP
GPTMC
CVBs
Cultural Alliance, ABC
Tech Council
DVHC
IP
PA Bio
DVIRC
Campus Philly
Hotel Assn.
Cultural Alliance
Tech Council
DVHC
IP
PA Bio
Cultural Alliance
BFTP, IP, IDC's, UCSC
BioAdvance
DVIRC
GPCC
Geographic Segments
Regionwide
Suburban Counties
City of Philadelphia
Center City
University City
City Avenue
Neighborhoods
CEO Council, Economy League
Some chambers of Commerce
CEO Council, Economy League
CCD
UCD
City Avenue SSD
TRF, CDC's, BID's
Select Greater Phila
IDC's
PIDC
CCD
UCD
City Avenue SSD
CCD, BID's
GPCC
GPCC
CCD
IDC's
PIDC
TRF
Glossary
ABC
BFTP
BioAdvance
CCD
CEO Council
City Avenue SSD
Committee of 70
Cultural Alliance
CVB's
DVHC
DVIRC
Economy League
Entrepreneurial Centers
GPCC
GPTMC
Hotel Assn.
IDC's
IP
KIP
PA Biotech
Philadelphia Forward
SBDC's
Select Greater Phila
Tech Council
TRF
UCD
UCSC
WIB
Arts and Business Council, a Council of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber
Ben Franklin Technology Partners of SEPA, regional Ben Franklin Partnership
Regional funding pool established with tobacco settlement money to fund promising life sciences startups.
Center City District, Philadelphia's Special Services District in the downtown area
A Council of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber, successor to Greater Philadelphia First
Special services district around City Avenue, which divides Philadelphia and Montgomery Counties
Long-time lawyer-oriented private sector government watchdog and reform group
The leadership group representing the nonprofit cultural institutions in the region.
Convention and Visitors bureaus, which exist in each county (sometimes more than one per county!)
Delaware Valley Healthcare Council, principal trade organization for healthcare providers
Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center, nonprofit consulting and training resource for manufacturers
Economy Leauge of Greater Philadelphia
Centers at Temple, Drexel, and Wharton created to educate emerging entrepreneurs connected with those universities
Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, long-time business membership and advocacy organization.
Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, a nonprofit regional tourism marketing agency
Association of major hotels in the region.
Industrial Development Corporations exist in each of the 5 counties of SEPA
Innovation Philadelphia, nonprofit promoting technology-based development in the City and region
Knowledge Industry Partnership, partnership of IP, GPTMC, PEL and the City
Statewide association representing the biotech and life sciences industries
Citizen advocacy initiative organized around tax reform and good government issues.
Small business development centers at Wharton and Temple
A regional business marketing organization associated with the CEO Council
Eastern Technology Council, regional membership organization representing technology companies
The Reinvestment Fund, a community development financial institution
University City District, a Special Services District in the University City area
University City Science Center, long-time urban research park affiliated with local universities
Workforce Investment Boards in each of the 5 counties
B. COUNTY LEVEL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Montgomery County Department of Economic and Workforce Development
Gerald J. Birkelbach, Executive Director
montcoworks.montcopa.org/
The Department of Economic and Workforce Development is the lead county government agency for
economic development. The agency is in charge of retention and expansion of commerce and industry
in the county by coordinating between different government agencies and programs to provide
assistance to businesses. The agency manages the Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board,
the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, the Montgomery County Development
Corporation, PA CareerLink, the Office of Career Development, the Youth Council, and EARN, welfare
to work program. The primary resources include low interest loan programs, demographic information,
and programs to assist job seekers in obtaining employment. Notably, the department represents the
only arrangement of combining traditional economic development programs with workforce development
in Pennsylvania, as well as one of the few examples of this in the U.S.
Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board
Harvey Portner, Chairman
www.montcopa.org/montcoworks
Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board is a group of executives from businesses, unions,
schools, universities and social services who oversee Montgomery County’s job training and placement
programs. According to federal law (the Workforce Investment Act of 1998), every workforce investment
area must have a Workforce Investment Board in charge of its jobs programs. This law envisions WIBs
as “business-led boards focusing on strategic planning, policy development and oversight of the local
workforce investment system.” The Workforce Investment Board is staffed by the County’s Department
of Economic and Workforce Development.
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority
Sherry L. Horowitz, Chairperson
The Industrial Development Authority (IDA) assists manufacturing firms, non-profit (501(c)(3))
organizations, educational institutions and health care organizations, as well as water treatment plants
and pollution control facilities. The Authority aims to maintain a high level of employment and create
and maintain business opportunities. The IDA works to borrow money from private sector financing
institutions. It loans this money to Montgomery County companies to finance projects and secure
below-market interest rates on loans that are tax-exempt to the lender.
Programs Administered/Financed by Organization:
Private sector financing institutions
Montgomery County Development Corporation
Jim Sayre, President
The Montgomery County Development Corporation is the county’s official Area Loan Organization. The
MCDC provides low-interest rate financing for various types of County-based companies and non-profit
organizations. Funding is used for real estate acquisition and renovation, equipment and working
capital. MCDC administers the Pennsylvania Small Business First Fund (SBIFF) and the MicroLoan
Fund in Montgomery County. It also administers a grant through the Commonwealth’s Local Economic
Development Assistance Fund to market and promote the County’s business resources.
Pennsylvania Small Business First Fund (SBFF)
MicroLoan Fund in Montgomery County
Pennsylvania Local Economic Development Assistance Fund
Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Development
Kathy Phifer, Director
mcdhs.montcopa.org
The Department of Housing and Community Development administers funding for programs related to
housing, economic and community development. The Department works with municipalities, local nonprofit agencies, and other counties, state, and federal departments as well as developers and the
general public. It typically acts in a grantor or lender capacity. Additionally, its staff performs monitoring
and compliance functions and offers technical assistance.
Programs Administered by Organization:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Home Investment Partnerships Program
Emergency Shelter Grants
Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Program
Department of Community and Economic Development
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation
Carmen S. Italia, President
www.mcidc.com
Privately funded, MCIDC is an active participant in economic development and it is a significant
contributor to business growth in the county. Governed by a 14-member Board of Directors, MCIDC
operates under the premises of creating and retaining new jobs, which increases tax revenues, and
enhancing regional prosperity. MCIDC provides a variety of professional services to business and
industry, real estate brokers, developers and site location consultants. Financing and site location
assistance that promotes the growth of businesses is at the top of the organization’s activity list. It
administers many programs, including the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority (PIDA)
financing program and the Suburban Development Council (SDC) Revolving Loan Program, which
packages SBA 504 loans and assists businesses in obtaining state grants. MCIDC is also a source of
support information such as demographic statistics, wage rates and taxes. It publishes the Montgomery
County Business and Industry Directory and the Montgomery County Industrial Parks and Office
Complexes Directory. MCIDC also provides consulting services to communities throughout the County,
region, and state on ways to improve their respective economic development practices.
Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority Loans
Suburban Development Council (SDC) Revolving Loan Program
Suburban Development Council Expanded Bridge Program
Suburban Development Council, Inc. (SDC)
Carmen Italia, President / Tom Barbine, Vice-President
The Suburban Development Council, which is affiliated with and shares office space with the
Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation (MCIDC), provides financing to Montgomery
County companies. The SDC has its own internal financing programs and is open to consider a variety
of economic development projects.
Montgomery County Planning Commission
Kenneth Hughes, Director
planning.montcopa.org
The Montgomery County Planning Commission serves as an advisory body on land use, transportation,
the environment, water and sewer service, parks and open space, farmland preservation, storm water
management, site design, housing, zoning, development patterns, and demographic trends in the
county. Its professional planners develop county plans, model ordinances, and provide technical
assistance and services to the county’s 62 municipalities. MCPC also serves as staff to the Montgomery
County Commissioners on planning issues.
Green Fields/ Green Towns Open Spaces Program
Montgomery County Community Planning Assistance Program
Montgomery County Farmland Preservation Program
Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority
John F. Nugent, Executive Director
www.montcorda.org
The Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority is a governmental agency which is charged, by state
law, with fostering economic revitalization and affordable housing programs throughout the County, and
often implements these programs through the mechanism of public/private partnerships. Among its
activities, the Authority plans and implements community revitalization projects and programs and
manages Tax Increment Financing, PA Enterprise Zone programs, Brownfields Revitalization, state and
federal grants and loans for housing, and economic development. In addition to these activities, the
Redevelopment Authority recently financed and constructed the Norristown Parking Garage which it
also operates. The Authority’s activities are funded solely through fees for its services.
Pennsylvania Enterprise Zones Program
HUD 108 Loans
Brownfield Revitalization
Tax Increment Financing
Montgomery County Community Revitalization Board
Kenneth E. Davis, Chairperson
http://planning.montcopa.org/planning/cwp/view,a,3,q,1737.asp
The Montgomery County Community Revitalization Board is an associated board of the County
Planning Commission and is comprised of eight members appointed by the Montgomery County
Commissioners. The board meets monthly to review implementation grant applications and revitalization
plans and makes recommendations to the county commissioners for awarding revitalization program
funds through the Montgomery County Community Revitalization Program. The Program was started by
the County Commissioners in 2000 in order to create a strategic economic development program to
strengthen and stabilize the County’s older communities. The program provides “seed” money to assist
municipalities in their revitalization, redevelopment, and rebuilding with the primary goal being to help
them achieve a sustainable future in the regional economy. The program is funded at $5 million
annually though an allocation in the County’s Capital Budget from General Revenue to the County.
Montgomery County Community Revitalization Program
C. STATE AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Rose Ann Rosenthal
sep.benfranklin.org
An independent not-for-profit economic development organization, Ben Franklin Technology Partners of
Southeastern Pennsylvania (BFTP/SEP) was established in 1982 to stimulate economic growth in the
region. BFTP/SEP is part of a statewide network supported by the Pennsylvania Department of
Community and Economic Development. BFTP/SEP focuses on the following areas: Capital, Coaching,
and Community Involvement. In terms of capital, BFTP/SEP provides seed capital at the earliest stages
of projects, and continues to provide funding as projects continue to progress. Eventually, venture
capital funds may be made available as an additional source of funding. BFTP/SEP coaching provides
businesses with the one-on-one attention necessary to become competitive. Businesses are also
subject to receive customized technology assessments and TechScouts, enabling a firm to stay at the
forefront of technology. BFTP/SEP also provides its clients with partnerships and research networks,
allowing for strategic alliances and licensing opportunities to occur. In terms of community involvement,
BFTP/SEP has formed various partnerships with the Enterprise Center, a Biotechnician certification
program through the Wistar Institute and the Community College of Philadelphia, and the West Oak
Lane Charter School Community Internet Center. Additional BFTP/SEP programs include the
Nanotechnology Institute, Business Information Services, Minority Angel Investors Network (MAIN), and
the Mid-Atlantic Nanotechnology Alliance.
• BFTP/SEP Investment Group
• Ben Franklin Angel Capital Electronic Network
• Blue Rock Capital
• Eastern Technology Fund
• Emerald Stage2 Ventures
• Liberty Venture Partners
• Mid-Atlantic Venture Fund
• List of Phil. Area Financing Sources: http://www.sep.benfranklin.org/resources/fin.html
• SBIR/STTR
Biotechnology Greenhouse Corporation
Barbara S. Schillberg, CEO & Managing Director
www.bioadvance.com
The Biotechnology Greenhouse Corporation, commonly known as BioAdvance, is responsible for
fostering the growth of the life sciences in southeastern Pennsylvania. Organizationally speaking,
BioAdvance is governed by a 12-member Board of Directors. BioAdvance invests heavily in innovative
life science technologies while also moving new technologies from laboratories to more established
companies. BioAdvance is also responsible for attaining, retaining, and supporting entrepreneurs in the
various life science fields. Finally, the firm is responsible for maintaining communication between
academic, corporate, financial, and government entities. BioAdvance’s economic development
capabilities stem from a $20 million Greenhouse Fund, which allows BioAdvance to provide
entrepreneurial support for biotech companies. BioAdvance currently has 22 biotech companies in its
corporate profiles in addition to funding numerous academic research projects.
• Greenhouse Fund
• Keystone Innovation Funds
• Penn. DCED
Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center
Joe Houldin,CEO
www.dvirc.org
The Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center (DVIRC) was established in 1988 by the Pennsylvania
Department of Commerce as part of a statewide network of organizations to help small and medium
sized manufacturers in the Commonwealth. DVIRC focuses on three key programmatic areas:
consulting services, education and trainings, and regional initiatives. Regional initiatives have included
projects such as the Regional Economic Development Leadership project. In an effort to identify
common growth opportunities, the Regional Initiatives Team formed strategic partnerships with countybased economic/industrial Development agencies, industrial resource centers, local chambers,
workforce investment boards, and academic institutions. Regional initiatives have also included
legislative and government communications. Here, DVIRC works with regional and national
manufacturing groups to monitor legislative issues and advocate on matters of interest to manufacturing
companies. In regard to workforce development, the DVIRC considers the lack of a skilled workforce to
be the most critical issue facing manufacturers. In an effort to address this issue, the DVIRC Regional
Initiatives team, in conjunction with Delaware County Community College (DCCC) and Drexel
University, established the Applied Engineering Technology Dual Enrollment Program . The program
allows students to start earning college credits while still in high school that will lead to an Associates
Degree at DCCC and a full Bachelor's from Drexel University.
• Daedalus Fund (part of Daedalus Financial Group)
• Additional “financial resources” available
Eastern Technology Council
Dianne Strunk, CEO
www.easterntechnologycouncil.org
Servicing more than 600 companies, the Eastern Technology Council is one of the premier technology
and life science trade associations in the region. The Council, which is governed by a 22-member
Board of Directors, is largely responsible with enabling technology and life science firms to improve their
networking within and outside the southeastern Pennsylvania area. In order to maximize the potential
visibility of their clients, the Council has a series of industry-targeted education seminars. While the
seminars vary in content, the goal of the Council is to provide instruments for marketing and branding.
As a marketing consultant, the Council’s appeal to potential customers is increased when one realizes
that companies such as Adobe, Commerce Bank, KPMG, PECO, and Sprint are current members.
• **Must be a member to access
Economy League of Greater Philadelphia
Steve Wray, Executive Director
www.economyleague.org
Founded in 1909, the Economy League is a non-partisan, non-profit dedicated to the research and
analysis of the region’s issues with the purpose of promoting sound public policy. The League focuses
on four specific areas: the economy, governance, infrastructure and workforce development. Consistent
with this focus, the League is undertaking several initiatives. The first is a Budget Simulation, where in
the fall of 2008, the League will launch an interactive, web-based city budget simulation. Second is the
GP Leadership Exchange, which is designed to develop the region’s leaders and provide a different
perspective on major issues during a trip to Atlanta in the fall of 2008. Third is Issues PA, a nonpartisan online resource on state level issues and policies that serves as a repository of information on
public policy issues. Finally, there is World Class Greater Philadelphia, which is still being coordinated.
Innovation Philadelphia
Kelly Lee, Vice President
www.innovationphiladelphia.com
Founded in 2001, Innovation Philadelphia (IP) is a non-profit economic development organization that
serves the eleven county Tri-State region. IP’s mission statement contains several agendas which are
crucial to understanding the direction of the organization. First, IP seeks to cultivate the for-profit
creative economy in the region by providing business resources, entrepreneurial assistance and
marketing as well as networking and educational opportunities. Regionally, the for-profit creative
economy represents a $60 billion industry that generates $1.2 billion in taxes. Consistent with IP’s
mission, it undertook the following initiatives: the Development of a Creative Economy Investment Fund
(CEIF) to support the growth of businesses within the for-profit economy sector, and the formation of a
Creative Economy Leadership Council. Secondly, IP seeks to attract and retain young professionals,
aged 25-34 to the region, providing them with networking opportunities and linking them with
employment opportunities. In conjunction with this objective, IP formed the Young Professional
Consortium. Finally, IP seeks to foster entrepreneurism by hosting networking and educational events
to links regional entrepreneurs with each other
• Creative Economy Investment Fund
Knowledge Industry Partnership (now known as ‘Campus Philly’)
Jonathan Grabelle Herrmann
www.campusphilly.org
In 2003, Knowledge Industry Partnership (commonly known as K.I.P.) had its services collapsed under
a new title, currently known as Campus Philly. Despite changing names, Campus Philly has maintained
the goal of retaining college students in the Philadelphia area through their development during and
after college. Governed by an 8-member Board of Directors, Campus Philly implements a “regional
retention strategy” which promotes the entire Philadelphia region as “one big campus.” While Campus
Philly serves to provide students with educational and occupational opportunities, it also provides firms
in the Philadelphia region with a steady supply of potential employees. Due to the firm’s relationship to
the Philadelphia workforce, there are a variety of regional economic development organizations that are
affiliated with Campus Philly. Among these are the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the
Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, Innovation Philadelphia, Life Science Career Alliance,
Leadership Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board, the Philadelphia Education
Fund, Graduate! Philadelphia, and the Center City District.
Mid-Atlantic Capital Alliance
Tom Balderston, President and CEO
www.macalliance.com
The Mid-Atlantic Capital Alliance’s mission is to act as a catalyst for all stages of private equity, from
venture to buyout. Designed to cultivate a vibrant private equity and entrepreneurial community, the
Alliance’s members currently represent over $11 billion in assets. Strategically, the Alliance has created
a cadre of partners with which it works to cross-fertilize ideas, events and opportunities. These partners
include the following: Association for Corporate Growth, Philadelphia Chapter, Department of
Community and Economic Development, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Delaware Economic
Development Office, Early Stage East, Eastern Technology Council, Entrepreneurs Forum of Greater
Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Senior Executives Group, National Venture Capital Association, New
Jersey Technology Council, Pennsylvania Angel Network, Pennsylvania Investors Forum, Pennsylvania
Venture Capital Coalition, Pittsburgh Venture Capital Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Select
Greater Philadelphia. Central to the Alliance’s mission is the Annual MAC Conference, the premier
venture capital gathering and flagship event that has attracted over 10,000 participants to date.
• **Not clearly outlined, but website does state that members are able to raise capital (appears to
come from outside source)
PECO
Phil Eastman, Manager of Economic Development
www.peco.com/economic
PECO Energy is a public utility that services the power needs of southeastern Pennsylvania. Through its
economic development department, PECO works closely with county, regional and state economic
development organizations to help companies expand or relocate within southeastern Pennsylvania. It
provides real estate and market data, site searches, customized tours as well as public financing
information. In addition, PECO arranges introductions to other ED organizations, elected officials and
business and civic leaders.
• PA Business Financing Programs (reference guide)
• US SBA Loan Guaranty
• Job Creation Tax Credit Program
• Keystone Opportunity Zones
• Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance
• Tax Increment Financing
PENJERDEL Council
Collin F. McNeil, President
www.penjerdel.org
PENJERDEL Council focuses on business advocacy and supports a competitive business environment
that helps attract and retain business. The group seeks to improve the quality of life and business
competitiveness of the 11-county, tri-state region. It has traditionally operated independently of other
organizations, but will become more collaborative in the near future.
Pennsylvania Bio
Dennis “Mickey” Flynn, President
www.pennsylvaniabio.org
Pennsylvania Bio is a non-profit that advances the interests of the bioscience industry in Harrisburg and
Washington, D.C. and for its members in the Life Sciences industry. The group is in the process of
creating a 501C-3 to promote workforce development and bioscience education in the state’s their
public school systems. It has a comprehensive web site containing updates on companies and
products. Also, the organization provides targeted introductions.
Pennsylvania Downtown Center
Bill Fontana, Executive Director
www.padowntown.org
Led by its 14-member Board of Directors, the Pennsylvania Downtown Center is responsible for the
economic revitalization of Pennsylvania’s traditional communities. Geographically, the PDC works in
downtowns throughout all of Pennsylvania. The PDC believes that a healthy downtown in a given locale
has many positive externalities beyond increased initial increases in . One primary tool of the PDC is
the Pennsylvania Main Street Program, which implements a four-step plan in redeveloping a particular
downtown area. The PDC also implements such as Community Assessments, Design Analysis, Board
& Committee Training, Marketing Plan Development, and Tourism Preparedness to maximize the
effectiveness of their Field Outreach Program. The PDC also hosts various conferences and
educational workshops aimed at increasing the effectiveness of local groups and agencies in revitalizing
their downtowns.
• Main Street Program (Total or regional reported, unsure: $9,080,894 YTD)
• Elm Street Program
The Reinvestment Fund
Jeremy Nowak, President & CEO
www.trfund.com
The Reinvestment Fund is a financing organization who provides investments necessary for
neighborhood revitalization in the Mid-Atlantic region. Led by a 14-member Board of Directors, TRF
invests not only in residential or commercial properties, but also in schools and other neighborhood
resources. By forming partnerships with various investors, developers, and entrepreneurs, TRF is able
to funnel capital to various projects. TRF seeks to develop communities by opening up various
opportunities for investment from a variety of sources, while at the same time maintaining touch with the
wishes of local leaders. The latest TRF publication focuses on approaches which include arts- and
culture-related development. Since 1985, TRF has financed more than 2,200 projects with over $717
million in capital.
• Predevelopment/Acquisition/Construction Loans
• Market Tax Credits
• Small Business Loans
• Fresh Food Financing Initiative
• TRF Private Equity
Select Greater Philadelphia
Tom Morr, President & CEO
www.selectgreaterphiladelphia.com
Select Greater Philadelphia is focused on regional marketing and corporate attraction for 11-counties in
NJ, DE, and PA. The group is supported by the business community and is raising an $18 million war
chest for the next 4 years. It operates a comprehensive web site on the region, provides customized
research, funds trade show events and advertising campaigns. Select Greater Philadelphia shares
prospect leads with the counties and state Economic Development organizations.
University of Pennsylvania, Center for Greater Philadelphia
Theodore Hershberg, Director
www.cgp.upenn.edu
Founded in 1985, the Center for Greater Philadelphia (CGP) is a public policy unit of the University of
Pennsylvania. Its mission is to promote cooperation among the public and private sectors in the region.
Among the initiatives undertaken by CGP, there are several that standout in their significance. First is
the Southeastern Pennsylvania State Legisators Conference, an annual gathering of legislators from
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. Second is the Greater Philadelphia
High School Partnership which explores issues of diversity among high school students. Third, which is
now part of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, is the New Standards In
Education Project, which is an initiative to coordinate standards-based reform efforts. Finally, there is
Operation Public School, which created a value-added assessment model that serves as a diagnostic
tool for measuring the impact of teaching on student learning. This has subsequently expanded into a
national education reform initiative.
D. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BASED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
Main Line Chamber of Commerce
R. Stanley Schuck, President & CEO
www.mlcc.org
The 5-star accredited Main Line Chamber of Commerce stands as one of the better Chambers of
Commerce in the region. With over 1800 members and a 31-member Board of Directors, the Chamber
services businesses along Route 30 (Lancaster Ave) from City Avenue in Bala Cynwyd to Frazer. The
North and South boundaries of this particular corridor are generally placed at Route 202 and Route 3
(West Chester Pike). According to the Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber had an operating
budget of roughly $1.1 million. The Chamber has a plethora of services and resources based on
increasing and improving economic development within the region. Members receive health and
insurance benefits, while also receiving access to marketing tips and business education seminars. The
Chamber also works to keep its members updated on legislative and political issues that may affect their
business.
Tri-County Area Chamber of Commerce
Tim Phelps, President
www.tricountyareachamber.com
With 755 members and 13 members on the Board of Directors, the Tri-County Area Chamber of
Commerce services Northern Chester, Southeastern Berk, and Western Montgomery Counties along
with the Route 422 Corridor. Despite being spread over various regions, the Chamber services 41
municipalities within Montgomery County. According to the Chamber’s 2007 Form 990, the Chamber
had an operating budget of roughly $558,000. In terms of economic development, the Chamber has
achieved 5-star accreditation for its ability to foster business prosperity throughout the region.
Established business campuses have enabled the Chamber to provide businesses with vital resources
necessary to sustaining economic development. To maintain an excellent level of service, the
Montgomery County Department of Economic and Workforce Development is very active throughout the
various locales within the Chamber. Currently, the largest economic development project in the
Chamber belongs to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which employs 4,700 people. In addition to guiding
economic development, the Chamber posts a legislative calendar which could indicate heavy political
lobbying by businesses and individuals.
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
Kathleen Brandon, Executive Director
www.montgomerycountychamber.org
The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, led by a 24-member Board of Governers, services
over 1700 members from Fort Washington to Valley Forge, Conshohocken to Collegeville. The
operating budget for the Chamber was not available for this report. In terms of economic development,
the Chamber is rather active in its affiliations with SCORE, the Chester County Economic Development
Council, the Chester County Planning Commission, the Pennsylvania Departments of Community and
Economic Development, and the Council on Government and Public Policy. These affiliations enable
the Chamber to provide business resources that keep the region competitive with other regions. In
terms of benefits, Chamber members are offered health care benefits as well as business education
courses and networking seminars.
North Penn Chamber of Commerce
R. Michael Owens, Esq., President
www.northpenn.org
Founded in 1913 and consisting of over 1000 members, the North Penn Chamber bills itself as one of
the oldest chambers in Pennsylvania, the largest chamber in Montgomery County, and the leading
business advocate for business communities within the Greater North Penn and Indian Valley regions.
Specific communities served include: Salford, Lower Salford, upper Salford, Hatfield, North Wales,
Lower Gywnedd, Upper Gywnedd, Franconia, Telford, Lansdale, Souderton, Towamencin and Whitpain.
According to the Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber had an operating budget of roughly
$280,000. Overseen by a Board of 21 members, the Chamber consists of eight Committees, including
one for Small Business Development as well as one for Governmental Affairs and Economic
Development. Economic Development, seen as an arm to Governmental Affairs, is primarily concerned
with business attraction and retention within the member service area.
Indian Valley Chamber of Commerce
Sharon L Minninger, Executive Director
www.indianvalleychamber.com
The Indian Valley Chamber of Commerce serves approximately 450 members from the boroughs of
Hatfield, Souderton and Telford as well as the townships of Franconia, Hatfield, Hilltown, Salford, Lower
Salford, Upper Salford, Skippack, East and West Rockhill and Towamencin. According to the
Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber has an operating budget of roughly $254,000. Overseen by a
17 member Board, the Chamber consists of nine committees, including one for Economic Development
as well as Business Development. Designed to serve as a resource to the business community,
through its programmatic initiatives, the Chamber provides a forum for business interaction. In addition,
it provides educational programs, networking opportunities and member discounts.
Eastern Montgomery Chamber of Commerce
Wendy Klinghoffer, Executive Vice President
www.emccc.org
Dedicated to promoting its 700 members and the economic health of Eastern Montgomery County, the
Eastern Montgomery Chamber of Commerce serves the following nine municipalities: Abington, Bryn
Athyn, Cheltenham, Jenkintown, Lower Moreland, Upper Moreland, Rockledge, Springfield and upper
Dublin. According to the Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber’s 24-member board of directors is
responsible for an operating budget of roughly $191,000. The Chamber primarily serves as a conduit of
resources for its members with programs such as Leadership Montgomery County, the Women’s
Business Network, specialized member services and discounts, and an annual Business Expo. The
Chamber consists of various committees, including the Government & Economic Affairs Committee
which fosters economic development and educates the business community with respect to economic
issues. With respect to economic development, the Chamber, in partnership with the Abington
Township EDC, and Penn State-Abington campus, established the Business Resource Information
Center (BRIC). BRIC is designed to support emerging businesses and facilitate existing business
expansion. The Center also provides access to business, accounting, legal and financial advice as well
as physical facilities for shared start-up resources.
Perkiomen Valley Chamber f Commerce
Amy Purcell, PR Director
www.pvchamber.net
Designed to promote the business interests of its members, the Pekriomen Chamber serves the
boroughs of Collegeville, Schwenksville and Trappe as well as the townships of Limerick, Lower
Frederick, Lower Providence, Perkiomen, Skippack and Upper Providence. According to the Chamber’s
2007 Form 990, the Chamber had an operating budget of roughly $167,000. Overseen by a 16 member
Board, the Chamber is primarily geared towards providing membership benefits such as networking
opportunities., educational seminars, and various legal resources.
Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce
Meredith Baker, Operations Manager
www.hatborochamber.org
Serving Hatboro for over 40 years, the Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce is overseen by a 30member Board of Directors. According to the Chamber’s 2007 Form 990, the Chamber had an
operating budget of roughly $163,000. The Chamber promotes business development by providing its
600-plus members with benefits, including: showcasing its members, offering forums and providing a full
complement of networking activities to promote business-to-business relationships. Chamber
committees are organized to reflect the major business sectors in Greater Hatboro: Retail merchants,
Industrial/Mechanical, Hospitality, Health/ Wellness and Professional Apprentice. Complementing these
committees is the Professional Committee which is responsible for all membership programming.
Phoenixville Area Chamber of Commerce
Chuck Benz, President
www.phoenixvillechamber.org
The Phoenixville Area Chamber of Commerce, governed by an 8-member Board of Directors, serves
roughly 500 members in townships spread between Western Montgomery County and Northeastern
Chester County. Some of the Montgomery County townships influenced by the Chamber are
Collegeville, Brun Mawr, King of Prussia, Wayne, Bala Cynwyd, and Blue Bell. According to the
Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber had an operating budget of roughly $108,000. While the
Chamber does not heavily focus upon economic development, it does offer a variety of benefits to its
members. These benefits include networking luncheons and dinners, marketing assistance, group and
disability insurance, and communication/technology discounts.
Hatfield Chamber of Commerce
Denise Monaghan, President
www.hatfieldchamber.com
The Hatfield Chamber of Commerce, governed by an 11-member Board of Directors, serves roughly
625 businesses within the Hatfield Borough and Township. While the Chamber does accept members
from outside of Hatfield locale, it does not actively solicit members. The operating budget from this
Chamber was not available for this report. Economic development in the Chamber is largely governed
by the Hatfield Economic Revitalization Committee Liason. This liaison acts as the median between the
government and the local businesses, and ultimately helps to decide which developmental ideas or
plans have the greatest social benefit. Membership benefits within the Chamber include health
insurance along with other typical benefits.
Suburban Chamber of Commerce (formerly Greater Willow Grove)
Terrance Tumolo, Chairman of the Board
www.suburbanchamber.org
The Suburban Chamber of Commerce came into existence when the Greater Willow Grove Chamber of
Commerce merged with the Horsham Township Chamber of Commerce. The newly formed Suburban
Chamber of Commerce, governed by 20 Board of Directors, services roughly 380 businesses in
Montgomery and Bucks Counties. The operating budget from this Chamber was not available for this
report. While the Chamber’s mission statement is of fostering a healthy business climate, the Chamber
itself offers a rather limited number of economic development programs. Chamber resources include
pro bono consulting from SCORE, management help from SBA Management, and business marketing
advice from AllBusiness (a D&B Company). What the Chamber may lack in economic development it
makes up with its community-based initiatives like The Collaborative, which seeks to bring together
businesses and the non-profit community. The Chamber also hosts a variety of luncheons, business
card exchanges, and golf outings to further network the members within the Chamber. Chamber
membership benefits range from medical and dental insurance to car rental discounts.
Upper Perkiomen Valley Chamber of Commerce
Brian Nester, President
www.upvchamber.org
The Upper Perkiomen Chamber of Commerce, governed by an 18-member Board of Directors, serves
roughly 325 members in the boroughs of East Greenville, Green Lane, Hereford, Marlborough,
Pennsburg, Red Hill, and Upper Hanover. According to the Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber
had an operating budget of roughly $115,000. Economic development within the Chamber is governed
by the Upper Perkiomen Valley Regional Planning Commission, which works in conjunction with the
Montgomery County Planning Commission. Currently, the Chamber is looking to pursue development
under a Regional Land Use Plan. Membership benefits include insurance benefits, small business
assistance, marketing consulting, and political lobbying.
Greater Glenside Chamber of Commerce
Cathleen Breslin, Executive Director
www.glensidechamber.org
The Greater Glenside Chamber of Commerce, governed by an 18-member Chamber Board, serves the
following five communities: Ardsley, Glenside, North Hills, Roslyn and Wyncote. According to the
Chamber’s 2006 Form 990, the Chamber had an operating budget of roughly $71,000. Primarily
designed to serve as a resource for its members and to enhance the business climate of the served
communities, the Chamber offers a variety of programs, including educational seminars, business
referrals, network opportunities and member benefit savings. In order to provide its members with
adequate services, the Chamber relies upon support from the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
Opportunity, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce Executives, Worldwide Chamber of Commerce
Guide, Business Linc, and SCORE.
Spring-Ford Chamber of Commerce
Jim Ginnetti, President
www.springfordchamber.com
The Spring-Ford Chamber of Commerce serves business in the townships of Limerick, Royersford,
Spring City, and Upper Providence. The Chamber is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors.
The operating budget from this Chamber was not available for this report. While the Chamber promotes
economic development, its largest asset comes in its ability to provide a stable support network for its
members. This support is provided through networking seminars, luncheons, and golf outings intent on
maintaining communication between members.
APPENDIX D: Guide to County Programs to Address Economic Development Issues
Issue 1: Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities
Financing
Assembles and administers below market rate financing programs for redevelopment projects and
facilitates economic development programs such as Enterprise Zones, Tax-Increment Financing (TIF),
Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) Grants, and HUD 108 Loans.
Provides funding and assistance for remediation and redevelopment of Brownfields sites throughout the
County.
Facilitates funding for rehabilitation and revitalization of properties through PA Department of Community
and Economic Development.
Provides grants to the County’s older communities through its Community Revitalization Program which
serve as “seed” money that will assist municipalities in revitalization, redevelopment and rebuilding efforts.
Communities eligible to receive funding demonstrate lower median incomes, higher numbers of femaleheaded households, declining tax base, more children under 5 in poverty, more welfare recipients, and
lower levels of construction activity. Eligible projects include commercial buildings, cultural and arts
attractions, historic preservation, housing, parking improvements, public safety, signage, streetscape
improvements, and some transportation activities.
Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Development (MCDHCD)
MCDHCD administers the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and entitlement
funding from HUD for the purpose of promoting community revitalization throughout the country. Eligible
activities must either (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons (primary objective); (2) aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or (3) meet other community development needs that present a
serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community and include: acquisition,
rehabilitation, disposition, relocation, clearance, and demolition; removal of architectural barriers; historical
restoration; planning activities; public works projects and infrastructure improvements; public services;
housing activities; new construction, and economic development.
Planning/Technical Assistance
MCCRB works with older communities applying for/receiving Community Revitalization Program grants in
order to refine and revisit their revitalization plans.
MCPC oversees the Community Planning Assistance Program, which provides technical assistance to
municipalities on a fee-for-service basis. Technical assistance activities cover fields such as
comprehensive planning, zoning, land use, transportation, landscape design, and economic development.
The Redevelopment Authority provides technical assistance to municipalities through the preparation of
redevelopment plans and preparation of tax increment financing (TIF) plans.
Site Selection/Assembly/Preparation
The Redevelopment Authority works at the direction of municipalities to redevelop Brownfields sites,
including in older communities throughout the County. The Redevelopment Authority can also assemble
public financing to help complement private investment.
Issue 2: Underutilization of Existing Business Locations
Financing
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority (MCIDA)
MCIDA assists manufacturing firms, nonprofit (501(c)(3) organizations, educational institutions and health
care organizations, water treatment plants and pollution control facilities by facilitating tax-exempt loans
from private sector lending institutions at below-market rates. Eligible uses include real estate construction,
acquisition, and renovations; and new equipment acquisition and installation.
MCDC offers low-interest rate financing for industries such as hospitality/ motels/restaurants,
manufacturing and industrial, agricultural processors, export-related/advanced technology/ computerrelated services, and environmental compliance/pollution prevention for the following eligible uses: real
estate acquisition and renovation; equipment; and working capital. Financing programs include:
Small Business First Fund: Loan amounts of $200,000 or 50% of project cost at a fixed interest
rate of 4% (term length varies by purpose of loan)
MCDC Microloan Fund: Loan amounts for $5000-$30,000 fixed at the prime interest rate plus two
percentage points for a maximum 5 year term
MCIDC administers the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority (PIDA) financing program, which
provides low-interest financing for land and building acquisitions, construction and renovation resulting in
the creation or retention of jobs, as well as the Suburban Development Council (SDC) Revolving Loan
Program, which provides low interest rate loans for the acquisition, renovation, or expansion of real estate
facilities. As the local working arm of PIDA, MCIDC helps to leverage PIDA loans to secure other public
and private sources of additional business assistance.
MCIDC also helps to facilitate a wide range of other financing programs to encourage investment in
Montgomery County - program categories include loan and loan guarantee programs, venture capital,
grants, and tax credits and incentives.
Facilitates funding for rehabilitation and revitalization of properties through PA Department of Community
and Economic Development.
MCIDC helps to connect businesses looking to locate in Montgomery County with technical assistance
resources and organizations such as the following:
Industrial Resource Centers
Small Business Development Centers
The Montgomery County Community Planning Assistance Program provides technical assistance to
municipalities on a fee-for-service basis. Townships and boroughs can benefit from this program by
entering into a planning assistance contract with the commission. Technical assistance activities cover
fields such as comprehensive planning, zoning, land use, transportation, landscape design, and economic
development.
Marketing/Advocacy
MCDC administers a grant through the Commonwealth’s Local Economic Development Assistance Fund to
market and promote the County’s business resources. Several promotional materials have been produced
using this funding, including the County’s Department of Economic and Workforce Development website.
Site Selection/Land Assembly
MCIDC provides site and building location assistance to industry, real estate brokers, and consultants
interested in Montgomery County through the Commercial Property Listing database, which details the
complete listing of available industrial, office, and land properties in the County, including the following
categories: industrial/flex, office/retail, warehouse, lab, and land.
Issue 3: Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention Issues
Financing
Customized Job Training grants of up to 75% of the cost for new job creation, retention, and upgrade
training from the Commonwealth. Eligible businesses include manufacturing, industrial, agricultural
enterprises, advanced technology, and business service firms. Eligible uses include instructional costs,
supplies, consumable materials, contracted services, and relevant travel costs for local education agency
project coordinators.
Job Creation Tax Credits (JCTC) of $1,000-per-job to offset various business tax liabilities, to approved
businesses that agree to create jobs in the Commonwealth within three years.
Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
DHCD can provide funding and assistance to support workforce housing through a variety of programs,
including:
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF)
Montgomery County First Time Homebuyers Program
Montgomery County Employer Assisted Housing Program
The Redevelopment Authority's Housing Redevelopment Program (HRP) promotes affordable workforce
housing in Montgomery County by making financial assistance available to eligible developers on a project
specific basis. Assistance may include low cost loans and grants for acquisition, construction, renovation
or other development costs; closing costs and down payment assistance, and/or rental subsidies.
Montgomery County Department of Economic and Workforce Development (MCDEWD)
The Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board is staffed through MCDEWD and is a group of
executives from businesses, unions, schools, universities and social services who oversee Montgomery
County’s job training and placement programs, with a focus on strategic planning, policy development, and
oversight of the local workforce investment system.
The Employment Advancement and Retention Network (EARN) program is comprised of a staff of Job
Developers, Case Managers, Instructors and other individuals guided by both a Director and Assistant
Director of Workforce Programs. Program participants create a plan of action to gain employment and are
offered guidance for overcoming barriers to self-sufficiency. Resources deployed include The Career
Wardrobe, computer labs, life skills workshops, and individualized attention. The program is funded
through the PA Department of Public Welfare and operated by MCDEWD.
housing in Montgomery County by making technical assistance available to eligible developers on a project
specific basis.
The Montgomery County Planning Commission has made workforce housing a priority issue and has
carefully examined affordable housing and related issues in a recently produced series of six reports on the
topic. These reports offer key findings and information for developers to help them with issues of
development costs, location selection, and other factors that can discourage the creation of workforce
housing.
MCPC encourages and provides information for employers seeking to implement housing benefits to
employers though “employer-assisted housing programs;” informational resources can be found on the
Commission’s website and MCPC will work closely with employers in order to help them develop suitable
plans for their specific needs.
Marketing/Advocacy
MCPC serves as an advocate for workforce housing through out the County. The agency recently
produced six reports on the topic, developed in large part in response to a growing concern over
skyrocketing housing prices and the resulting effect on the future economic growth of the county and its
view that to attract and retain workers, an adequate supply of reasonably priced homes is essential. The
agency encourages governments, developers, and employers to examine and embrace their role in
promoting and providing more reasonably priced homes for the county’s workforce.
housing in Montgomery County by making marketing and other support services available to eligible
developers on a project specific basis.
Issue 4: Local Government Regulations and “Business Friendliness”
MCPC’s Community Planning Assistance Program provides technical assistance in the fields of
comprehensive planning, zoning, land use, transportation, landscape design, economic development, and
other disciplines on a fee-for-service basis. Townships and boroughs can benefit from this program by
entering into a planning assistance contract with our commission. Under the contract, which typically lasts
for three years, the cost of the professional planner is evenly shared between the municipality and the
county.
MCIDC provides consulting services to communities interested in expanding their economic development
efforts.
Marketing/Advocacy
MCIDC serves as a liaison with the chambers of commerce, municipalities, and other organizations
concerned with economic development.
MCIDC’s County/Government Information Center provides information from the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission's (DVRPC) Regional Information Network, including interactive mapping services
that allow visitors to access thematic data and geographic features, as well as to create customized maps
and gain access to specific features such as general mapping, economic development mapping, and
conservation planning.
Site Selection/Assembly/Preparation
MCIDC’s County/Government Information Center provides information from the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission's (DVRPC) Regional Information Network, including interactive mapping services to
assist site selectors and businesses in choosing a municipality in which to locate.
APPENDIX E: Economic Development Issues Feedback Sheet
TO:
Montgomery County Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force
Steve Nelson; Economic Development Cabinet
FROM:
Stephen Mullin, Econsult Corporation
DATE:
May 27, 2008
SUBJECT:
Montgomery County Economic Development Issues:
Initial Task Force Meeting Discussion
This revised memorandum and issues list incorporates comments and discussion points from
the first Task Force meeting, held May 14, 2008. The session was very successful in that many
of the issues were identified and discussed. This memo details the findings from the first
meeting and outlines the next steps, including a request for you to submit your top four (4)
priority issues by the end of the day, Tuesday, June 3, 2008. First, we restate the overall
objectives and tasks:
The Task Force’s action plan consists of a series of four Tasks, of which the last is deciding on and
presenting recommendations to the County Commissioners. Given the tight timeframe, and in an
effort to most efficiently utilize your scarce time, we are hoping the Task Force’s work and
deliberations can continue to be as focused and direct as possible.
Task #1 for the Task Force’s deliberation (and the subject of the initial meeting) is to identify,
discuss, and agree upon a list of key economic growth and development issues of importance to the
County now and into the future. Before the next Task Force Meeting we would like feedback
from each of the Task Force members identifying the TOP FOUR most important economic
development issues you think warrant the concerted attention of the County Government. We
ask for your submission no later than June 3, 2008.
The remaining tasks, which will be the subject of the future meetings, are:
•
Task #2: Who are the key players and what are their roles? Identify the various public and
private organizations and entities involved in economic development activities throughout the
County, and understand the existing roles of each and the specific programs they run.
•
Task #3: Assess the effectiveness of these organizations and existing programs, and identify
other potential programs or actions that could help the County better address the issues
identified in Task #1.
•
Task #4: Develop a set of recommendations for the County Commissioners to consider for
action and implementation
Montgomery County Economic Development Strategy Task Force
Meeting on Task #1
DEFINING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
One Task Force member asked how we were defining “economic development” so that the Task
Force could have a basis for identifying key issues. Economic development is a commonly used term
without a universally accepted definition. On a global scale, economic development refers to the rate
and nature of the growth of a nation’s economy, traditionally measured in gross domestic product
(GDP) per capita. The main global economic development issue is to increase GDP per capita above
subsistence level for the poorest nations.
In our case the definition is different, mostly with respect to location. At the state, county and local
levels in the United States, economic development typically refers to programs and policies
implemented by different jurisdictions to encourage (or discourage) some type(s) and level of
economic activity and investment within that jurisdiction’s borders. It is often linked to increasing
employment within the jurisdiction via expanding business activity. Economic development within
the U.S. takes as a basis that economic activity is driven primarily by market forces, so such
government programs and policies are designed to influence private sector business and investment
decision-making, especially location decisions. At the county level (except in areas where counties
perform municipal-type functions), such programs and policies are typically implemented in
conjunction with state and municipal level economic development efforts.
We ask that you review this definition before the next Task Force meeting, as we would like to
generate a definition with which there is consensus.
IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES
When thinking about which issues are most important to the county, here are some considerations to
frame your thinking.
1. Focus on County roles in dealing with these issues.
a. Overall County objectives
b. Relationships between/among the County and local, state, and federal governments
c. County cannot direct economic development, but it can offer assistance and guidance.
2. Try to stay away from dealing with specific sites – look for general issues, and the
parameters and characteristics of sites or locations that make them concerns for the County.
3. Select what you think are the most important issues – recognizing that all are important, but
that certain ones warrant particular attention by County government in the future. Note that
you may conclude an issue is important, but that it is handled well already.
4. While our list is meant to be helpful in arranging issues, it is OK to select an item that may be
a combination of different issues on the list, as well as an issue that is not explicitly included
on the list.
Please us the attached voting sheet to submit your selections to us by the end of the day on
Tuesday, June 3, so that they may be compiled and presented at the next Task Force Meeting.
May 27, 2008
Montgomery County Economic Development Strategy Task Force
Meeting on Task #1
MONTGOMERY COUNTY STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
TASK FORCE
Priority Issues for County Policy:
Please list your four (4) top economic development issues facing Montgomery County, in order
of importance (most to least important).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Changes to Definition of Economic Development:
General Comments/Feedback/Questions Regarding Task 1 Memo:
Please fax to Stephen Mullin, Econsult Corporation – #215-382-1895, or email to
mullin@econsult.com (Send any questions to this email address or call 215-382-1894).
TASK FORCE Member Name ____________________________________________
May 27, 2008
APPENDIX F: County Comparison Analysis
Montgomery County is, on the whole, doing very well economically, having ranked 22nd in the
nation in terms of highest average weekly wages in 2007. This record sets the County apart as
one of the most prosperous counties not only in Pennsylvania, but in the US as well. In order to
gain some further perspective on this relative position, we compared Montgomery County with
other counties in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Northeast regions who share similar
characteristics in terms of both economic factors and relative proximity to major cities and
metropolitan areas. To that end, we have selected a range of counties against which to draw
comparisons with Montgomery County, chosen based on size, wealth, and their position
neighboring a major city which is not incorporated into the County. In order to paint a clearer
picture of how Montgomery County stacks up to these competitor regions, we have examined the
following factors: population, governance structure, number of municipalities, relationship to
municipal governments, municipal functions filled by the county, and county role in economic
development.
It’s important to recognize that county governments operate under a wide variety of structures
and power-sharing arrangements. This becomes clear when Montgomery County is compared to
other counties of comparable size and economic strength. Through such an analysis, we are able
to see that some counties have far greater levels of resources (particularly as they relate to
economic development) relative to other counties. For the present study, we examine these
differences within the context of the four key economic development issues identified during the
completion of Task 1: economic issues facing older communities, underutilization of existing
commercial sites, workforce development, and local government’s regulations and business
friendliness.
To begin, we offer a brief summary of vital economic statistics for Montgomery County and each
of its comparable counties. These figures are included in the summary table below1 and
demonstrate the relative strength of Montgomery County as compared to other similar counties in
the US. In particular, Montgomery County demonstrates the highest per capita income of all
comparison counties, and ranks in the upper half of all counties in terms of population growth
since 2000.
1
All following findings are based on the latest reported estimates and figures as they have been reported by the
counties themselves or other data collection agencies such as the U.S. Census Department.
County
County
Population
(2007)
Population
Growth
Since 2000
Number of
Employees
in County
(2007)
Income
per Capita
(2006)
Size
County
Budget
($BB)
Montgomery (PA)
776,122
3.48%
486,800
$36,655
Baltimore (MD)
788,994
4.60%
377,000
of
Number of
Municipali
ties
Number
of School
Districts
$0.48
62
22
$31,086
$2.60
n/a
1
13
16
Butler (OH)
357,888
7.54%
148,700
$24,720
$0.76
(2006)
Montgomery (MD)
930,813
6.58%
460,900
$43,073
$4.30
19
1
Nassau (NY)
1,306,533
-2.10%
603,400
$37,932
$2.74
69
56
Norfolk (MA)
654,909
0.71%
326,000
$38,476
$0.32
(FY 2007)
28
31
St. Louis (MO)
995,118
-2.09%
611,900
$31,539
$0.50
91
25
Summit (OH)
543,487
0.11%
274,200
$24,859
$0.41
28
n/a
Westchester (NY)
951,325
3.02%
420,500
$43,780
$1.77
45
48
One clear conclusion does emerge from this simple comparison: Montgomery County, on the
whole, is a very prosperous county. Having said that, we now offer more detailed narrative
descriptions for each of the counties included above, including the role of each County in terms
of economic development, along with their relationships to municipalities and other relevant
factors pertaining to County-wide economic development efforts.
Montgomery County, PA
www.montcopa.org
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which rests northwest of the city of Philadelphia in southeast
Pennsylvania, borders Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Philadelphia Counties. The County is
currently made up of 62 municipalities and 22 school districts. The County is governed by a
three member Board of Commissioners. While the Board does elect one member to be the
Chairman, each member maintains equal voting power. The County is primarily responsible for
providing court and justice services, social and human services, voter services, and recording
deeds. In addition, the County plays a role in coordinating transportation planning and economic
development services. Each municipality is responsible for hiring a full-time police force, while
fire protection services are usually provided by volunteer companies and trash disposal is either
contracted privately or collected through municipal crews.2
Economic development in Montgomery County is heavily guided by the Department of
Economic and Workforce Development. This one department is responsible for coordinating the
efforts of various agencies such as the Montgomery County Workforce Investment Board, the
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, the Montgomery County Development
Corporation, PA CareerLink, the Office of Career Development, the Youth Council, and EARN.3
2 http://www2.montcopa.org/commerce/cwp/view,a,1512,q,51864.asp
3 http://montcoworks.montcopa.org/montcoworks/cwp/view,a,1513,q,53985,montcoworksNav,|34664|.asp
The MCDC is responsible for providing financing for businesses, while the IDA is responsible
for assisting firms with the actual construction of their facilities. Like other counties,
Montgomery County has industry clusters that have been targeted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. These industry clusters are very similar across all states, and account for nearly
69% of all employment within the Commonwealth.
Baltimore County, MD
www.baltimorecountymd.gov
Baltimore County, Maryland is considered to be one of the most efficiently organized and run
counties in the United States. The County is bordered by Craig, Floyd, Giles, Pulaski, and
Roanoke Counties. Baltimore County is one of several U.S. counties that do not have any
incorporated towns or municipal governments. The lack of municipalities is also reflected in the
lack of school districts (Baltimore County School District exists). To govern the school districts,
there are 170 public schools within various location-based consortiums that function as
“independent” entities.4 The County provides all municipal services necessary for all of the
towns under its jurisdiction. The County is led by a County Executive and a County Council,
which consists of one representative from each of the 7 council districts.5
Baltimore County has a rather extensive Economic Development program that addresses all of
the major issues at hand. The County has an extensive Commercial Revitalization Program
aimed at improving and maintaining older commercial areas within the County.6 The County
provides financial incentives including low-interest loans, free architectural services, and tax
credits. Recently, the County has promoted this revitalization with the “Re-Discover Your
Neighborhood Downtown” campaign. In terms of reusing existing commercial sites, the County
has implemented Brownfields Tax Credit legislation, enabling businesses to reuse the properties
once guidelines and standards have been met. Workforce development is addressed with
recruiting programs and training grants that are maintained through effective relationships with
the colleges and universities throughout the region. Local government assistance and business
friendliness is addressed through an efficient website and various types of financial assistance in
the form of loans and additional financial packages. The County has also implemented Enterprise
Zones, aimed at improving the potential sustainability of businesses throughout the County. In
controlling economic development, the County has been able to provide a multitude of resources
for large and small businesses alike.
Butler County (OH)
www.butlercountyohio.org
Butler County is located between Dayton and Cincinnati in southwest Ohio. The County is
comprised of 13 municipalities. There are a total of 16 school districts that have territory within
the 13 municipalities that make up Butler County. However, it should be noted that most of these
school districts are split between Butler County and the surrounding counties. The County is
governed by three elected Commissioners. The County appears to allow municipalities to
contract their necessary municipal services independently.
The Butler County Department of Economic Development is one which focuses largely upon the
significance of its geographic positioning. The revitalization of older communities appears to be
4 http://www.bcps.org/schools/
5 http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/countycouncil/index.html
6
http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/economicdev/CommRevitalization/index.html
a directive of the County’s Department of Development, not the County’s Department of
Economic Development. The reuse of existing commercial properties is not explicitly addressed
by the County, but the Department of Economic Development does list sites and buildings that
are available. Workforce development is a critical part of the Butler County region, and the
County devotes a great deal of effort to displaying the amount of resources available for its
workforce. In order to promote the region further, the Department discusses the various financial
and business incentives that may benefit a particular business. Included in these benefits are: the
Enterprise Zone Program, the Ohio Job Creation Tax Credit, the Research and Development Tax
Credit, and Ohio Export Tax Credit. There are also various loan programs designed to lower the
fixed costs of a given firms entry into the region.
Montgomery County (MD)
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
Montgomery County, located in central Maryland, is bordered by Washington, D.C. and several
counties including Frederick, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties. The County is comprised
of 19 municipalities. The County is governed by an individual County Executive and a 9member County Council.7 Each member of the County Council represents a district within
Montgomery County. Even though there are municipalities, there are no independent school
districts within the County (Montgomery County Public Schools is a school district. It is the 16th
largest in the United States. The consortia are geographically designated school groups). Instead,
there are 200 public schools located within 5 regional “consortiums.”8 The County serves as a
provider of judicial services, recorder of deeds, social and human services, and voter services.
Police services are governed by the County, while fire protection is the responsibility of the
individual municipalities. Trash collection services around the County are typically handled by
the individual municipalities within the County. While Montgomery County municipalities may
have Town Commissions, their power is rather minimal compared to the County Executive and
the County Council.
The Montgomery County Department of Economic Development is the key group behind
developing various economic initiatives. While revitalizing old communities appears to be
important to the County, it is not linked with the County’s economic development efforts. In the
same regard, the reuse of existing communities appears to be connected more with environmental
protection than with economic development. The Montgomery County Division of Workforce
Services is governed by a Workforce Investment Board, which allocates a $3 million budget to
those resources necessary to strengthening the workforce. Local governments promote business
friendliness in a variety of ways. Financially, the County offers various loans, grants, and tax
credits to potential businesses. Socially, the County is very concerned with attracting minority
and international businesses as well as small businesses.
Nassau County (NY)
www.nassaucountyny.gov
Nassau County, located in Long Island, New York, is bordered by Queens, Suffolk, and
Westchester Counties. The County is comprised of 69 incorporated municipalities. Within these
69 municipalities, there are 56 school districts. The County is governed by a single County
Executive, who is aided by the District Attorney, the County Comptroller, the County Clerk, the
7
“MC Council – About the Council.”
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltmpl.asp?url=/content/council/about/about.asp.
8
“Montgomery County Public Schools.” http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/
County Assessor, and a County Legislature comprised of 19 district representatives.9 The County
performs a multitude of municipal services, including economic development, public works, and
judicial duties. The County provides police protection, but various municipalities are permitted
municipalities to organize their own public safety departments. Fire protection is governed by the
County’s Fire Commission.
Economic development in Nassau County is very similar to other counties within New York
State. The revitalization of old communities is governed by the Office of Housing and
Intergovernmental Affairs, which seeks to provide previously underserved communities with
adequate resources to revitalize downtowns and communities. In regard to the reuse of existing
commercial properties, the County does have a rather aggressive Brownfield’s Redevelopment
Program that includes the potential redevelopment of the Grumman Property in Bethpage. The
Business Development Unit is the County’s concerted effort to maximize County attractiveness.
The BDU oversees the Empire Zone Program, the Nassau County Industrial Development
Agency, Business Development Partners, and the Grow Nassau Fund. Nassau County provides
funding for workforce training while also providing ESL & GED education, apprenticeships, and
food service managers training.
Norfolk County, MA
www.norfolkcounty.org
Norfolk County, Massachusetts is located southwest of the city of Boston, and is bordered by
Bristol, Middlesex, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties. The County is comprised of 28
municipalities. Within these 28 municipalities, there are 31 public school districts. The County’s
executive branch is headed by the County Commission, which is comprised of three elected
Commissioners. These Commissioners are balanced on the legislative end by an Advisory Board,
which is comprised of representatives of the various municipalities in the County. The programs
directly under control of the County include the County Engineering Department, Norfolk County
Agricultural High School, the Sheriff’s Department, Regional Municipal Services, the County
Treasurer’s Office, and the County Land Conservation and Open Space Management
Department.10 Each municipality is responsible for organizing and maintaining its own police
forces and fire departments. In some cases, the fire department is responsible for the operation of
ambulances and other emergency medical services.
The Norfolk County Regional Municipal Services Department serves as the primary governing
body regarding economic development within the various municipalities of Norfolk County. In
regard to the four primary issues, this department has several programs to note. The I-495/95
South Regional Technology Economic Target Area promotes business friendliness and local
government activity by offering companies tax incentives should they choose to locate in various
regions. In regard to reusing existing commercial sites, the County has initiated the Brownfields
Program to assess hazardous substance sites with the hope of potential commercial reuse.
St. Louis County (MO)
www.co.st-louis.mo.us
St. Louis County, located in eastern Missouri, is bordered by Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Charles
Counties. Within the County’s 91 municipalities, there are 25 school districts. The County
9
http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/website/AG/Nassau/elected.html
10 http://www.norfolkCounty.org/index.cfm?pid=10436
government’s charter permits for a County Executive and a 7-member County Council.11 The
County is responsible for overseeing the efficient organization and operation of each
municipality. To ensure efficiency at the local level, each municipality has a government
designed to provide police, fire, judicial, and public works services.
Economic Development around St. Louis County is governed by the County Economic Council.
The SLCEC’s Real Estate & Community Development Division addresses the primary issues of
revitalizing old communities and reusing existing commercial sites. While the program does
address older communities, the Division’s emphasis is on the rehabilitation of commercial sites.
Workforce development does not appear to be a primary directive of the SLCEC. Local
governments promote business friendliness through a myriad of financial incentives, which
include grants, loans, bonds, and tax-credits.
Summit County (OH)
www.co.summit.oh.us
Summit County, located in northeast Ohio, is bordered by Cuyahoga, Medina, Portage, Stark, and
Wayne Counties. The County is comprised of 28 municipalities. As the sole charter government
within Ohio, the County has a single elected County Executive and an 11-member County
Council.12 Despite a lack of links regarding potential services, it appears that the County permits
its municipalities to contract out services such as fire protection, police, and trash disposal. Links
to other pages on the website regarding County services were not functional.
The Economic Development section of the Summit County website is currently out of service.
Westchester County, NY
www.westchestergov.com
Westchester County, located north of New York City, is bordered by Bronx, Nassau, Putnam, and
Rockland Counties in New York. The County is made up of 45 municipalities. Within these 45
municipalities, there are 48 public school districts.13 The County is governed by a single County
Executive and a Board of Legislators that is made up of 17 district representatives.14 The County
performs a multitude of municipal services, including economic development, public works,
public safety and emergency services. The County does permit individual municipalities to
organize their own public safety departments and trash collection services.
Economic development is a rather key department within all New York State counties. The
Westchester Office of Economic Development and “Team Westchester” work in conjunction to
foster a business environment that is conducive to attracting and retaining businesses.
Westchester County offers a variety of services that seem to cover a few of the four issues. The
County does not have any particular funds or programs directed at revitalizing older communities.
In the reuse of existing commercial properties, the County runs a commercial property search
service, but does not have funds directed towards actively reusing commercial sites. Workforce
development is backed by the Westchester County Workforce Investment Board, which seeks to
11
http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/council/
http://www.co.summit.oh.us/council/index.htm
13
http://www.westchestergov.com/planning/research/Census2000/SchoolDistProfiles/schdst.htm
14
http://www.westchestergov.com/aboutwestchester_officials.htm
12
ensure the presence of a “competitive and well-trained pool of workers for employers.”15 Local
government accommodations and overall business friendliness is promoted through the financial
incentives of the Empire Zone Program and the Revolving Loan Fund. The County’s Industrial
Development Agency, along with the New York Business Development Corporation, provides
benefits to companies moving into the region.
15 http://www.westchestergov.com/business_laborandemployment.htm
APPENDIX G: County Economic Development Program Case Studies
The cases included below represent policies and programs implemented by other counties throughout the
region, state, and country which both address the gaps and needs identified within Montgomery County and
serve as examples of successful economic development activities undertaken and/or financially supported
by County government. These case studies were selected based on factors such as similarity to
Montgomery County in terms of their relationships between county and municipal governments, applicability
of programs to Montgomery County’s priority economic development issues and identified gaps and needs
in these areas, the presence of “first suburbs” within selected counties, and size (population) and nature
(rural/non-rural) of selected counties. In addition, we employed the National Association of Counties “Model
County Programs” database to identify those County-level programs which have been noted for their
successes and achievements.
Issue 1 Supporting Case Studies:
Wayne County, MI: Urban Recovery Partnership Program
Consisting of 43 communities, Wayne County, MI has a number of economic development challenges,
many of which are similar to the challenges faced by Montgomery County. They include:
•
•
•
•
•
Inequity of economic development opportunities among communities
Aging infrastructure of older communities
Lack of sufficient resources to reinvest in distressed communities
Residual environmental hazards from previous industrial development
High cost of redevelopment in older communities
Recognizing these constraints, the County initiated the Urban Recovery Partnership Program to provide
staff, technical assistance and financial resources to the distressed communities of Highland Park,
Hamtramck, Ecorse, River Rouge and Inkstar.
Henrico County, VA: Commercial Assistance Program1
Henrico County implemented the Commercial Assistance Program in 2002 as a result of its 2001
Comprehensive Revitalization Strategy. Henrico County has several older commercial areas that are
experiencing increasing commercial vacancies, physical obsolescence, changing markets, inadequate
infrastructure, and declining visual appeal. This program was developed to facilitate the rehabilitation and
revitalization of these areas. Enhancement activities provided through the Commercial Assistance Program
include:
•
•
•
•
•
1
Preparation and implementation of commercial corridor plans
Coordination and planning for infrastructure improvements
Facilitation of commercial/industrial rehabilitation grants
Design assistance for building façade improvements
Designation of Enterprise Zone corridors
http://naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Achievement_Awards&Template=/cffiles/awards/program.cfm&S
EARCHID=2006comm8
Within the Department of Revitalization, two staff members are fully dedicated to the Commercial
Assistance Program. The staff collaborate with key County agencies as well as business associations and
community groups to generate concepts, goals and tools for the Program. Over 50 businesses have taken
advantage of the program’s grant offerings.
Hamilton County OH: Project Impact2
Through Project Impact, the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC) works with
communities to develop ways to reverse population and job loss and to conserve the unique traditional,
historic, authentic and urbanized qualities of Hamilton County’s first suburbs. HCRPC launched Project
Impact (a community-driven process for results-oriented community building) to implement goals for
revitalization as adopted in Community COMPASS (the countywide comprehensive plan). Project Impact
was first offered to Hamilton County communities in 2006 and it continues to assist local communities
struggling with inadequate housing stock, aging infrastructure, shrinking tax bases, obsolete commercial
and industrial properties, and increasing social service costs. HCRPC’s role has been to bring expertise and
resources to the table, while providing communities with the tools to implement their revitalization
successes. Programs are tailored to each community to achieve tangible results within a framework of
visioning and strategic planning that sets the stage for improved regulations and procedures, residential and
commercial district improvements, and community enhancements. Based on HCRPC capacity, Project
Impact has been undertaken in six communities over the past two years with significant measurable results.
Nassau County, NY: County Visioning Fund
In 2006, Nassau County released a Strategic Visioning Plan that identified, among others, the following
economic development priorities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attracting new businesses and creating new jobs in the high-tech industry
Revitalizing downtowns
Assisting emerging minority communities
Creating housing solutions for groups in need
Protecting open space
Identifying new transit options
Developing Brownfields
In conjunction with the Plan, the County established a $1 million County Visioning Fund to encourage the
development of downtown revitalization projects. The County and town of Hempstead worked together to
identify four communities to receive a grant of $300,000 to develop their own plans tailored to their
community’s unique needs. In effect, the funds are designed to serve as seed capital. Because Nassau
County lacks zoning powers, it took a collaborative approach, working with federal, state, town, city and
village officials as well as the Nassau County Planning Federation, Chambers of Commerce and civic
groups.
2
http://naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Achievement_Awards&Template=/cffiles/awards/program.cfm&S
EARCHID=2008comm19
Baltimore County, MD: Building Investment and Building Growth Loan Programs3
The Building Investment Loan Program is designed to improve the appearance of business properties in
Commercial Revitalization Districts, with eligible activities including, but not being limited to awnings,
drywall, electrical, flooring, HVAC systems, landscaping, painting, parking areas, plumbing, siding, signs,
and store fixtures. Qualified business and property owners may apply for a maximum loan amount of
$60,000, which may be used for exterior and interior improvements. Loans are interest-free for projects
over $15,000, while loans for projects under $15,000 have a 3 percent interest rate. Loans may be repaid
over a period of up to five years.
Business Growth Loans provide direct loans or loan guarantees to new and expanding industrial and
commercial businesses, with maximum loan amounts of $250,000. Funds may be used to finance the
acquisition and improvement of land, buildings, plant and equipment and includes new construction or
facility expansion.
Prince George County, MD: Incentive Leverage Fund
With 27 municipalities and a population of 862,000, Prince George’s county is strategically located along the
eastern border of Washington, D.C. The Incentive Leverage Fund (ILF) was established by the County in
1999 in response to the State of Maryland’s requirement that local jurisdictions provide a minimum of 10
percent matching funds for County projects receiving State loans.
Procedurally, the President of the Economic Development Corporation requests the use of funds from the
County Executive. Upon his approval and a subsequent resolution by the County City Council, the funds are
disbursed. At the end of the loan term, the fund may convert to a grant provided certain employment and
investment benchmarks are met.
Recent project examples include the County’s support of the relocation of a corporate headquarters to
220,000 SF of space with the potential to employ an additional 200 people.
Allegheny County, PA: Municipal Development Division4
A key objective of the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development is maintaining the
infrastructure and other assets of its 130 municipalities. This mission is coordinated by the Municipal
Development Division, which assists in a variety of important ways, including:
3
4
•
Sewer and Water Program, which offers financing and technical assistance for
maintaining/improving drinking water, sewer, and storm water management resources.
•
Upgrades to recreational facilities, including new equipment for community playgrounds,
improvements to ball fields, and grading of potential recreation sites
http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/economicdev/Finance
http://economic.alleghenycounty.us/municipal_dev/municipal_dev.aspx
•
Safe Neighborhood Demolition Program, which can provide funding for razing of vacant and
dilapidated structures that may create visual eyesores and health hazards.
•
General Public Improvements, including financing for activities such as road reconstruction, bridge
repair, curbs and sidewalks, catch-basin repair, retaining walls and Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance projects.
Hamilton County , OH: The Planning Partnership5
The Planning Partnership is an alliance of government, planning, civic, and private organizations focused on
planning the future of Hamilton County, Ohio. With 49 local planning commissions in the county, the alliance
works to harness the collective energy and vision of its members so that mutual goals related to physical,
economic, and social issues can be planned for comprehensively and achieved collaboratively. In 1999, the
Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, in collaboration with its stakeholders, developed a
strategic plan for reorganization of the Commission. The purpose was to assure a solutions oriented
organization that fits Hamilton County’s needs in the 21st century. In May 2000, to implement its new
strategic plan (“A Plan for Planning”), the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, in collaboration
with the County Commissioners, began the process of establishing cooperation agreements with its 49 local
governments, 49 planning commissions, and key civic and private sector organizations engaged in planning
in the County. The result—the Planning Partnership—includes committees and task forces that are
successfully addressing everything form funding strategies to marketing, from stormwater management to
neighborhood revitalization.
Chesterfield County, VA Small Business Development Interactive Guide to Setting Up a Business CD6
The Small Business Development Interactive Guide to Setting up a Business CD is an interactive tool
designed to assist and support individuals starting and operating a small business. The user is guided
through a tutorial on the basics of running a successful enterprise. All forms required to start and run a
business are included on the CD in .pdf format and the final component of the CD is a built-in business plan
software system that requires no additional linked software to operate. Each guide is customized and unique
for the locality in which the entrepreneur plans to locate and operate his or her business. The guide was
developed through a collaborative effort between the Community College Workforce Alliance – a partnership
between J. Sargeant Reynolds and John Tyler Community Colleges, the Greater Richmond Partnership – a
non-profit marketing--organization, and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and the City of
Richmond.
Chester County, PA: Industry Consortiums7
Chester County’s Industry Consortiums aim to create workforce solutions by bringing together industry
specific groups designed to identify common issues and develop innovative solutions. Currently, the Chester
County Economic Development Council leads consortiums in the following industries:
5
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Achievement_Awards&Template=/cffiles/awards/program.cf
m&SEARCHID=2005comm17
6
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Achievement_Awards&Template=/cffiles/awards/program.cf
m&SEARCHID=2005comm19
7
http://www.cceconomicdevelopment.com/service_workforce.html
•
Energy, via the Smart Energy Initiative (SEI) of Southeastern PA, a public-private partnership
whose mission is to promote the growth of the "smart" energy industry by providing comprehensive
business and workforce development services in the region.
•
Technology, via the Innovative Technology Action Group (ITAG), whose mission is to create and
sustain a regional partnership in Southeastern Pennsylvania that encourages technology
companies and companies that use technology to grow their businesses. This is accomplished by
working closely with participating companies, economic development agencies, and
education/training partners to leverage workforce and business development resources on behalf
of ITAG members. TechiesDay, TechTrek, and G.E.T.T. are examples of ITAG programs.
•
Financial Services, via the Chester County Bank Academy, which partners with RMA (Risk
Management Association) to provide unique training opportunities for incumbent banking
professionals and develops co-op opportunities with local high schools and Universities.
•
Healthcare, via the Chester County Health Care Partnership, whose mission is to facilitate
networking and sharing of information with local businesses, health care organizations and
educational facilities, and which aids in collaboration for funding to develop more efficient and cost
effective work place training and recruitment to benefit the health care industry.
Suffolk County, NY: Workforce Housing Commission8
Run through the County’s Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing, the Workforce
Housing Commission is charged with, among other things, streamlining the workforce housing permitting
process, creating an inventory of potential sites for development of workforce housing and assisting the
County Executive in implementing certain key recommendations made by his transition team's workforce
housing committee, including:
8
•
Conducting a comprehensive inventory of parcels within the county to identify those appropriate for
development or redevelopment
•
Working with local municipalities to refine or develop zoning codes to stimulate the creation of
affordable housing units
•
Offering incentives to builders who agree to dedicate percentages of new development as
affordable units
•
Creation of a county Workforce Housing Website that would serve as an educational and
informational resource center for those in need of affordable housing, developers and investors
which would link visitors to sites containing information on initiatives such as down payment
assistance programs, mortgage counseling, and the county's land acquisition program to identify
which areas of the county have been targeted for preservation.
http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/departments/Housing/affordablehousing.aspx
APPENDIX H: Documents Consulted During Ongoing County Research
Reports/Studies:
•
“Action Plan for Investing in a New Pennsylvania – Identifying Opportunities for
Pennsylvania to Compete in the Global Economy,” IBM Business Consulting Services/IBM
PLI-Global Location Strategies on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005.
•
“The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania,” Clarion Associates on Behalf of 10,000 Friends of
Pennsylvania, January 2000
•
“Flight of Fight? Metropolitan Philadelphia and Its Future,” Metropolitan Philadelphia Policy
Center, September 2001
•
“Improving Access to Opportunities in the Delaware Valley Region: Coordinated Human
Services Transportation Plan,” Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, May 2007
•
“‘Little Boxes’ – Limited Horizons: A Study of Fragmented Local Governance in PA: Its
Scope, Consequences, & Reforms,” The Brookings Institution, December 2003
•
“Out of the Water: A Revitalization Plan for the Fort Washington Office Park,” Temple
University Department of Community & Regional Planning, Fall 2006
•
“Pennsylvania Global Competitiveness Initiative: An Investor Oriented Approach to
Economic Development,” IBM Business Consulting Services/IBM PLI-Global Location
Strategies on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2007.
•
“Planning Beyond Boundaries: A Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation Manual for
Pennsylvania Municipalities,” Joanne Denworth for 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania,
October 2002
•
“Preparing Allegheny County for the 21st Century,” Committee to Prepare Allegheny
County for the 21st Century
•
“Redesigning Shopping Centers in the Delaware Valley: From Greyfields to Community
Assets,” Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, August 2005
•
“Revitalizing Our Small Cities and Boroughs,” 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, 2002
•
“Valuing America’s First Suburbs: A Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs,” The Brookings
Institution, 2002
County/State Publications:
•
“Sources of Funding for Revitalization,” Montgomery County, August 2005
•
“Shaping Our Future: A Comprehensive Plan for Montgomery County,” Montgomery
County Planning Commission, 2005
– Economic Development Plan
– Vision Plan
– Land Use Plan
•
“Five Year Program Review: Montgomery County Community Revitalization Program,”
Montgomery County, December 2005
•
Montgomery County Economic Development Agencies Annual Reports, 2006 and 2007
•
Montgomery County Planning Commission Annual Report 2006
•
“Montgomery County Workforce Investment Area Industry Snapshot,” Center for Workforce
Information & Analysis, May 2007
•
“Planning Perspectives Newsletter,” Montgomery County Planning Commission, August
2005
•
“Intergovernmental Cooperation Handbook,” PA Department of Community and Economic
Development, February 2006
•
“Manual for County Commissioners,” PA Department of Community and Economic
Development, August 2003
APPENDIX I: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Keystone Principles for Growth,
Investment & Resource Conservation
Keystone Principles
PREAMBLE
The Keystone Principles & Criteria for Growth, Investment & Resource Conservation
were adopted by the Economic Development Cabinet on May 31, 2005. They were
developed by the Interagency Land Use Team, a working group of the Cabinet, over a
period of two years. The Principles & Criteria are designed as a coordinated interagency
approach to fostering sustainable economic development and conservation of resources
through the state’s investments in Pennsylvania’s diverse communities.
The Principles lay out general goals and objectives for economic development and
resource conservation agreed upon among the agencies and programs that participated in
their development. The Criteria are designed to help measure the extent to which
particular projects accomplish these goals.
The Criteria do not replace agency program guidelines or criteria. Rather, at each
agency’s discretion, they will either be integrated into existing program criteria
(preferable) or used as additional, favorable considerations in the scoring or decisionmaking process. The Principles and Criteria are designed to encourage multifaceted
project development that will integrate programs and funding sources from a variety of
state agencies into a comprehensive strategy to address issues affecting whole
communities. There are two categories of criteria:
Core Criteria, where relevant, should be given primary consideration in all investment
decisions made by Commonwealth agencies when making grants or loans to public or
private projects using agency funds.
Preferential Criteria should be used by Commonwealth agencies in all programs to which
they are applicable to evaluate projects and make decisions on grants or loans using
agency funds.
Projects are to be evaluated with the recognition that rural, suburban, and urban areas
have different characteristics and needs, and that what might work in an urban area might
not work in a rural area (the “Be Fair” standard).
The Cabinet also approved a process to implement the Principles and Criteria over the
next six months during which each agency will determine how they will integrate the
criteria into each of their programs. A committee of the Interagency Team, led by the
Governor’s Office, will review the plans and offer feedback with the goal of fine-tuning
the use of the Principles and Criteria for full implementation in the next calendar year.
PRINCIPLES:
1. REDEVELOP FIRST. Support revitalization of Pennsylvania’s many cities and
towns. Give funding preference to reuse and redevelopment of “brownfield” and
previously developed sites in urban, suburban, and rural communities for economic
activity that creates jobs, housing, mixed use development, and recreational assets.
Conserve Pennsylvania’s exceptional heritage resources. Support rehabilitation of
historic buildings and neighborhoods for compatible contemporary uses.
2. PROVIDE EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE. Fix it first: Use and improve
existing infrastructure. Make highway and public transportation investments that use
context sensitive design to improve existing developed areas and attract residents and
visitors to these places. Provide transportation choice and intermodal connections for air
travel, driving, public transit, bicycling and walking. Increase rail freight. Provide public
water and sewer service for dense development in designated growth areas. Use on-lot
and community systems in rural areas. Require private and public expansions of service
to be consistent with approved comprehensive plans and consistent implementing
ordinances.
3. CONCENTRATE DEVELOPMENT. Support infill and “greenfield” development
that is compact, conserves land, and is integrated with existing or planned transportation,
water and sewer services, and schools. Foster creation of well-designed developments
and walkable, bikeable neighborhoods that offer healthy lifestyle opportunities for
Pennsylvania residents. Recognize the importance of projects that can document
measurable impacts and are deemed “most ready” to move to successful completion.
4. INCREASE JOB OPPORTUNITIES. Retain and attract a diverse, educated
workforce through the quality of economic opportunity and quality of life offered in
Pennsylvania’s varied communities. Integrate educational and job training opportunities
for workers of all ages with the workforce needs of businesses. Invest in businesses that
offer good paying, high quality jobs, and that are located near existing or planned water
and sewer infrastructure, housing, existing workforce, and transportation access (highway
or transit).
5. FOSTER SUSTAINABLE BUSINESSES. Strengthen natural resource-based
businesses that use sustainable practices in energy production and use, agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, recreation and tourism. Increase our supply of renewable energy.
Reduce consumption of water, energy and materials to reduce foreign energy dependence
and address climate change. Lead by example: support conservation strategies, clean
power and innovative industries. Construct and promote green buildings and
infrastructure that use land, energy, water and materials efficiently. Support economic
development that increases or replenishes knowledge-based employment, or builds on
existing industry clusters.
6. RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Maintain and expand our
land, air and water protection and conservation programs. Conserve and restore
environmentally sensitive lands and natural areas for ecological health, biodiversity and
wildlife habitat. Promote development that respects and enhances the state’s natural lands
and resources.
7. ENHANCE RECREATIONAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES. Maintain and
improve recreational and heritage assets and infrastructure throughout the
Commonwealth, including parks and forests, greenways and trails, heritage parks,
historic sites and resources, fishing and boating areas and game lands offering
recreational and cultural opportunities to Pennsylvanians and visitors.
8. EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. Support the construction and
rehabilitation of housing of all types to meet the needs of people of all incomes and
abilities. Support local projects that are based on a comprehensive vision or plan, have
significant potential impact (e.g., increased tax base, private investment), and
demonstrate local capacity, technical ability and leadership to implement the project.
Coordinate the provision of housing with the location of jobs, public transit, services,
schools and other existing infrastructure. Foster the development of housing, home
partnerships, and rental housing opportunities that are compatible with county and local
plans and community character.
9. PLAN REGIONALY; IMPLEMENT LOCALLY. Support multi-municipal, county
and local government planning and implementation that has broad public input and
support and is consistent with these principles. Provide education, training, technical
assistance, and funding for such planning and for transportation, infrastructure, economic
development, housing, mixed use and conservation projects that implement such plans.
10. BE FAIR. Support equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of development.
Provide technical and strategic support for inclusive community planning to ensure
social, economic, and environmental goals are met. Ensure that in applying the principles
and criteria, fair consideration is given to rural projects that may have less existing
infrastructure, workforce, and jobs than urban and suburban areas, but that offer
sustainable development benefits to a defined rural community.
IMPLEMENTING THE KEYSTONE PRINCIPLES:
I. Core Criteria
1. Project avoids or mitigates high hazard locations (e.g., floodplain, subsidence or
landslide prone areas).
2. Project/infrastructure does not adversely impact environmentally sensitive areas,
productive agricultural lands, or significant historic resources.
3. Project in suburban or rural area: Project and supporting infrastructure are
consistent with multi-municipal or county & local comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances, and there is local public/private capacity, technical
ability, and leadership to implement project.
4. Project in “core community” (city, borough or developed area of township):
Project is supported by local comprehensive vision & plan, and there is local
public/private capacity, technical ability, and leadership to implement project.
5. Project supports other state investments and community partnerships.
II. Preferential Criteria
1. Development/Site Location
1. Brownfield or previously developed site.
2. Rehabilitation or reuse of existing buildings (including schools and historic
buildings).
3. Infill in or around city, borough, or developed area of township.
4. If greenfield site, located in or adjacent to developed area with infrastructure.
5. Located in distressed city, borough or township.
2. Efficient Infrastructure
1. Use of existing highway capacity and/or public transit access available.
2. Within ½ mile of existing or planned public transit access (rail, bus, shared ride or
welfare to work services).
3. Use of context sensitive design for transportation improvements.
4. Use/improvement of existing public or private water and sewer capacity and
services.
3. Density, design, and diversity of uses.
1. Mixed residential, commercial & institutional uses within development or area
adjacent by walking.
2. Sidewalks, street trees, connected walkways and bikeways, greenways, parks, or
open space amenities included or nearby.
3. Interconnected project streets connected to public streets.
4. Design of new water, sewer and storm water facilities follows Best Management
Practices, including emphasizing groundwater recharge and infiltration, and use
of permeable surfaces for parking and community areas.
4. Expand Housing Opportunities
1. Adopted county and multi-municipal or local municipal plans include a plan for
affordable housing; and implementing zoning provides for such housing through
measures such as inclusion of affordable housing in developments over a certain
number of units (e.g., 50), provision for accessory units, and zoning by right for
multifamily units.
2. Project provides affordable housing located near jobs (extra weight for employer
assisted housing).
3. Project adds to supply of affordable rental housing in areas of demonstrated need.
5. Increase Job Opportunities
1.
2.
3.
4.
Number of permanent jobs created and impact on local labor market.
Number of temporary jobs created and impact on local labor market.
Number of jobs paying family sustaining wages.
Increased job training coordinated with business needs and locations.
6. Foster Sustainable Businesses
1. Sustainable natural resource industry improvement or expansion: agriculture,
forestry, recreation (fisheries, game lands, boating), tourism.
2. Business or project is energy efficient; uses energy conservation standards;
produces, sells or uses renewable energy; expands energy recovery; promotes
innovation in energy production and use; or expands renewable energy sources,
clean power, or use of Pennsylvania resources to produce such energy.
3. Project meets green building standards.
4. Project supports identified regional industry cluster(s).
7. Restore/Enhance Environment
1. Cleans up/ reclaims polluted lands and/or waters.
2. Protects environmentally sensitive lands for health, habitat, and biodiversity
through acquisition, conservation easements, planning and zoning, or other
conservation measures.
3. Development incorporates natural resource features and protection of wetlands,
surface and groundwater resources, and air quality.
8. Enhance Recreational/Heritage Resources
1. Improves parks, forests, heritage parks, greenways, trails, fisheries, boating areas,
game lands and/or infrastructure to increase recreational potential for residents
and visitors.
2. Historic, cultural, greenways and/or opens space resources incorporated in
municipal plans and project plan.
3. Makes adaptive reuse of significant architectural or historic resources or
buildings.
9. Plan regionally; Implement Locally
1. Consistent county and multi-municipal plan (or county and local municipal plan)
adopted and implemented by county and local governments with consistent
ordinances.
2. County or multi-municipal plan addresses regional issues and needs to achieve
participating municipalities’ economic, social, and environmental goals. All plans
(county, multi-municipal, and local) follow standards for good planning,
including:
1. Is up-to-date.
2. Plans for designated growth and rural resource areas, and developments of
regional impact.
3. Plans for infrastructure, community facilities, and services, including
transportation, water and sewer, storm water, schools.
4. Plans for tax base and fair share needs for housing, commercial,
institutional, and industrial development.
5. Identification of high hazard areas where development is to be avoided.
6. Identification of and plans for prime agricultural land, natural areas,
historic resources, and appropriate mineral resource areas to be conserved.
7. Open space plan for parks, greenways, important natural and scenic areas
and connected recreational resources.
3. County and local ordinances implement the governing plans and use innovative
techniques, such as mixed use zoning districts, allowable densities of six or more
units per acre in growth areas, and/or clustered development by right, transfer of
development rights, specific plans, and tax and revenue sharing.
(Source: www.newpa.com)
APPENDIX J: Recommended County ED Program/Funding Matrix
Program
Recommendation
Priority
Issues
Impacted
I.1
Increase Funding for
Existing Community
Revitalization Program
Matching Grants
I, III
I.2
Main Street
Repositioning Fund
Program Type
Revolving LowInterest Loans
Matching Grants
I
Recommended Uses
Implementing
Agency(s)
“Seed” financing for existing Community
Revitalization Program (CRP) activities, plus
activities focused on marketing and promotional
campaigns for older communities throughout the
County (eligible communities will include those
currently eligible under the existing CRP
program); this is additional funding towards
projects that have already reached a certain level
and need additional funds to come to fruition and
for which private funding has not yet been
assured, but for which the County’s investment is
anticipated to spur future private sector
investments.
Community
Revitalization
Board
“Seed” funding for second stage main street and
downtown redevelopment in older boroughs and
towns (i.e., Jenkintown, Abington, Lansdale, etc.)
for projects focused on parking, rehabilitation of
existing buildings, and upgrading retail corridors
(not available to Norristown or Pottstown);
projects should build on areas already impacted
by CRP dollars to move what has already been
done to a markedly advanced stage; as with new
CRP funding, it is anticipated that funded
projects will not yet have private funding in place,
but that the County’s investment will help to spur
future private sector investments.
Community
Revitalization
Board
Funding Sources
County Capital Fund
County General
Obligation Bond
County Capital Fund
County General
Obligation Bond
Program
Recommendation
Priority
Issues
Impacted
Program Type
I.3
Matching Grants
Economically
Challenged
Communities
Renaissance Fund
I
Recommended Uses
“Gap financing” for major redevelopment projects
in most economically challenged communities
(currently Norristown and Pottstown - may be
expanded to include additional municipalities if
analysis shows adequate need), including:
– Large scale, multi-building commercial,
industrial, and residential developments
– Locating satellite campuses for colleges
and universities in downtown areas
Projects funded should already have private
sector funding involved in place, with County
investments serving to complement these private
investments
Implementing
Agency(s)
Redevelopment
Authority,
Industrial
Development
Authority
Funding Sources
HUD 108
(Pottstown only –to be
repaid via County debt
service)
County General
Obligation Bond
County Industrial
Development Bond via
IDA/RDA (to be repaid
via County debt service)
I.4
Economically
Challenged
Communities
Business Location
Incentive Fund
I
New funding targeting larger businesses with
incentives for locating in the County’s most
economically challenged communities (currently
Norristown and Pottstown but may be expanded
to include additional municipalities if analysis
shows adequate need).
MCIDC
Industrial Development
Bond (to be repaid via
County debt service)
Matching Grants
New funding to support the development of the
planning process and the formation of planning
partnerships necessary to implement large scale
development initiatives undertaken within a
framework of visionary and comprehensive
strategic planning.
County Planning
Department
County General Fund
Capital Budget
I.5
County Visionary
Fund
I, III
Program
Recommendation
Priority
Issues
Impacted
Program Type
Recommended Uses
Funding to encourage reinvestment in and reuse
of existing commercial space throughout the
County, in particular for older office and industrial
parks (built environment only); funding would be
used for major renovations and upgrades, with
substantial renovations for new uses also being
applicable in some cases.
II.1
Commercial/Industrial
Asset Redevelopment
and Reinvestment
Fund
II
Matching Grants
III.1
Local Government
Economic
Development
Enhancement
Program
III
Operational
Support
IV.1
Workforce
Development
Creativity Fund
Matching Grants
IV
Operational
Support
Implementing
Agency(s)
Department of
Economic and
Workforce
Development
Funding Sources
Industrial Development
Bond (to be repaid via
County debt service)
MCIDC
Funding for various incentives, marketing
programs, and other initiatives to be carried out
by local municipalities; some of this funding
would also be used by the County itself in
carrying out measures to improve business
friendliness (e.g., examination and possible
adjustment of existing regulations, permits,
procedures, and fees) and awareness of County
programs among municipal officials (e.g.,
business friendliness report card, symposia and
forums on economic development issues, etc.),
as well as to promote international trade
Community
Revitalization
Board
Funding for various workforce developmentrelated programs, including:
– Contracting out Career Link job placement
programs
– Enhancing/expanding training programs
available at MCCC and other colleges and
universities throughout the County
Department of
Economic and
Workforce
Development
County General
Obligation Bond
County General
Obligation Bond
CDBG/HUD 108 (To be
repaid via County debt
service)
APPENDIX K: County Visionary Fund Memo
To:
Montgomery County Strategic Economic Development Policy Task Force
Executive Committee; Montgomery County Economic Development Cabinet;
Steven Nelson
From: Morris Dean, Co-Chair
Date: August 11, 2008
RE: Policy Recommendation – County Visionary Fund
________________________________________________________________________
A County Visionary Fund should be created to support the development of the
planning process and the formation of the planning partnerships which are needed to
implement the development initiatives contemplated under Key Areas I and II. The basic
architecture of that support is outlined below.
Programs to set the stage and achieve community-changing results must be
undertaken within a framework of visionary and comprehensive strategic planning. (The
funded developments contemplated by such planning are not just more of the “Main
Street” and Community Revitalization Program improvements but those having a much
greater scale and area wide impact.) Shaping that visionary framework will involve the
following (and ultimately be set forth in definitive guidelines):
a) Begin with bringing private sector leaders into the process, and, in collaboration
with key County agencies, use them to identify an area or hub with high growth
potential, in size large enough to achieve sustainability, and capable of “seeding”
further phases;
b) Create an inventory of all businesses in the area as well as of the area’s properties
for potentially needed recycling and then analyze the competitive advantages and
reach of such businesses and enterprises;
c) Based on such analysis, (i) identify the anchor and non-anchor businesses by their
share of area employment, revenue and occupied real estate and/or by their
potential to offer the greatest growth prospects; (ii) identify the spectrum of the
high priority and promising opportunities which such growth could generate; and
(iii) focus on what is needed to upgrade the “cluster” of buildings and companies
providing such promise rather than proceeding on an isolated basis; and
d) Weigh and recommend an allied initiative and set of investments to improve the
overall environment affecting and needed to sustain such developments, such as
those involving: the transportation system, the equity and loan capital markets,
workforce training and crime prevention
e) Encourage the organization of public-private partnerships which can bring to bear
necessary enabling resources and development skills.
f) Consider multi-municipal planning, including the special zoning and other landuse benefits and the development incentives associated with the Specific Plan
process established as part of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
APPENDIX L: White Paper on MCCC Role in County Economic Development
Montgomery County Community College’s Role in Supporting the Economic Development Goals of Montgomery County Prepared by Karen A. Stout, President July 21, 2008 Background Montgomery County Community College and its two comprehensive campuses in Blue Bell (Central) and Pottstown (West) as well as satellite locations in Willow Grove, Lansdale (Mobile Air Conditioning Society), and Conshohocken (Police Academy, Fire and EMS programs) serve more than 17,000 credit and 15,000 non‐credit students annually. At the heart of the College’s mission is the provision of workforce development programs for citizens of all ages and backgrounds. The College’s nearly 90 associate degree programs prepare students for transfer and future careers as well as for careers after two years of study. Strong Associate in Applied Science programs in career areas like biotechnology, automotive technology, nursing, medical laboratory technology, radiology technology, surgical technology, engineering technology, dental hygiene, hospitality management, culinary arts and computer information systems prepare students for immediate employment upon achievement of the associate’s degree. Certificate programs, ranging in credits required from 15 to 30, are also offered in career areas like home health aide, medical assisting and office applications. More than 70 percent of the College’s graduates (including those who eventually get a baccalaureate degree) live and work in Montgomery County making the College a primary provider of the County’s workforce of the future. Through its Center for Workforce Development, the College also offers customized training programs for employers seeking to upgrade the skills of their current workforce. Since 2002, for example, the College has worked with more than 500 County‐based companies to provide on‐site incumbent worker training in areas such as strategic planning, Six Sigma, Statistical Process Control, blueprint reading, precision machining, computer applications and Spanish for managers. In addition, the College has helped these companies secure more than $5 million in state WedNet funds to help support incumbent worker training programs in basic skills and information technology. The College is part of “Team Montco,” a unique partnership with the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and the Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation (MCIDC) in working to secure and indentify companies in need of Wed Net funding. The College is also proactively working with County companies to assist them in securing Customized Job Training (CJT) grants from the state to deepen their training programs for incumbent workers. In partnership with the WIB, the College offers programs to support youth in gaining career and College‐ready skills through its Teen College and year round youth programs. The GED program, supported by the WIB and housed at the West Campus in Pottstown is a national model. Since its inception two years ago, more than 150 County residents have earned GEDs. Most are now working and many are continuing their education at the College. 1 The College is also home to one of only 17 regional CISCO Training academies in the country and it is the only Apple Authorized Training Center housed at a college or university in all of Pennsylvania. The College’s Woman‐Owned Business program, sponsored by Harleysville National Bank, is now in its fourth year. Nearly 100 women have come through the program and 20 have started companies as a result of participation. The College’s success in this area is leading to the creation of a Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the Central Campus. The Center is intended to be a hub for students and community members seeking to start their own businesses. Potential Linkages with the Emerging Economic Development Plan The College is an important player in supporting the advancement of the County’s emerging economic development agenda. The College’s program offerings, in credit and non‐credit areas, must closely link to the employment opportunities in the region to ensure a well qualified pipeline of future workers as well as to mesh with incumbent worker training needs. Specific to the Task Force’s working definition of Economic Development , the College plays a role in helping the County to “increase employment within the jurisdiction” (of Montgomery County) via the offering of these programs. The fact that the County supports such a thriving comprehensive community college is one way to “influence and facilitate private sector and investment decision‐making, especially location decisions…” Recently, for example, the College was at the table with a company considering Montgomery County as a location because of the College’s biotechnology and advanced technology programs that can supply a pipeline of trained technicians required for the company to ramp up its workforce. In counties and states across the country, the community colleges are used to attract and retain employers. North Carolina is known to be a leader in using its community colleges as an asset in marketing the state as a destination for employers. Specifically related to the five priority areas identified by the Task Force, the College has a potential and specific linkage to three: •
Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities •
Access and Transportation •
Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention Issues Economic Challenges Facing Older Communities The College’s West Campus in Pottstown has been an “anchor tenant” in the continuing efforts to revitalize Pottstown. Since 2001, enrollment at the West Campus has grown from 900 credit students to 2300 credit and 2000 non‐credit students. The College is working closely with the County and the Borough of Pottstown to develop a campus environment that physically meshes with the Borough’s master plan and that programmatically supports the education, workforce and lifelong learning needs of residents in Western Montgomery County. In addition to being an asset for Pottstown, the campus location helped the College to be more geographically accessible to more residents in the County. Of late, to support the enrollment growth, the College has lease‐purchased and renovated the old Kiwi Shoe Factory on 16 High Street and developed with the state and the county a pedestrian underpass to connect the College’s current two buildings and to connect the College to the downtown. The College is currently working 2 with the Schuylkill River State and National Heritage Area (SRNHA) to restore the “old PECO building” on College Drive to create a third campus building, the Riverfront Academic and Heritage Center, to house the College’s new environmental science program. A new University Center, in partnership with Albright College, Temple, and Pierce College is also offered at the West Campus allowing Pottstown area residents to gain associate, baccalaureate and masters degrees without leaving the Montgomery County Community College campus. The College’s art gallery at 16 High Street has become an important central gathering place for area residents. The College also spearheads the organization of the annual Riverfront Festival in October, another opportunity for the community to gather. And, the College is considering exploring a public/private partnership initiative to offer student housing in the Borough. Already, several of our new faculty is buying homes in the Borough, some supported by the County’s first time buyer program. The College’s strategic plan recognizes that for our West Campus, including our University Center, to be strong and thriving, we must also be connected to a strong and thriving Borough of Pottstown. Therefore, to support the development of a strong and thriving Borough, the College must continue to: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Strengthen connections of campus areas to one another and to the Borough’s pedestrian master plan; Engage in preservation of buildings that hold significant character and value; Develop inviting public spaces that link and intertwine the College and the Borough; Work with the SRNHA to improve Riverfront access and connections with the campus ; Eliminate physical barriers between the College and the Riverfront and the Borough (e.g. rail tracks); Work with SRNHA to improve the condition of the river by increasing awareness and stewardship through educational programs and increase recreational and cultural activities on and near the river; Take the lead in moving forward public works projects that improve Pottstown’s revitalization efforts, accessibility and image (e.g. housing initiative, parking, improvements to the Manatawny bridge, and improvements in traffic patterns into 16 High Street); Serve as a convener in bringing coherence to planning and marketing efforts and bringing important organizations to the table to harness Pottstown’s real capacity; Encourage College faculty and staff and students to play a role in Pottstown’s revitalization as well as in community service in the area; Adopt policies/develop programs to encourage community purchasing and work with the County and others to offer home ownership and improvement programs; Support the development of the Borough’s downtown retail core. Note: The above are inspired by Penn’s goals to transform West Philadelphia as presented in the book, The University and Urban Renewal, by Judith Rodin (2007, University of Pennsylvania press). Given the College’s success in Pottstown, the need for the College to continue to expand its geographic reach to ensure access to higher education for as many County residents as possible, and the draft goals from the Task Force, the following recommendations should be considered: 3 1. Invest in supporting a satellite location for the College in Norristown as a means to attract Norristown residents who might not otherwise consider college and/or postsecondary education as an option. This satellite location would NOT be full service as the current Central and West campuses are designed primarily because the College has a large, comprehensive facility in Blue Bell, only 6 miles from the Norristown downtown core. The Blue Bell site is generally accessible via mass transportation and it would be fiscally difficult to replicate the assets of the Central Campus in Norristown. However, a Norristown location, could offer important pre‐college programs like ESL, developmental mathematics and English, GED, and academic and financial aid advising as other college courses as feeder programs to the Central Campus. The location could also specialize in the delivery of workforce development oriented training programs that could help area residents gain education and employment skills for fast entry into the workforce and then for possible continuation of degree study in Blue Bell. The development of such a satellite center will require a capital and operating investment from the County and the State. Ideally, the College would seek a location in the downtown heart, with easy access to affordable parking and the mass transportation hub. Planning for the programming at the site will require extensive conversation with the Borough’s community based organizations. It should be noted that the College does offer some programs in Norristown in conjunction with the Police Athletic League, the OIC and at the Central Montgomery County Technical High School. 2. Invest in a full service location in the eastern part of Montgomery County as a means to better attract residents in this part of the County. The College’s facilities master plans of the mid‐1980’s spoke to expanding locations beyond Blue Bell to expand geographic access to County residents. As a result of this planning and lots of community conversation, the College located in Pottstown in 1997 to serve the western region of the County. The plan also called for an eastern location. Given the vision articulated by the Task Force to both develop older communities and to maximize utilization of current but vacated business locations, the potential to replicate the Pottstown Campus’ success in an older eastern area borough like Jenkintown should be considered. Programming at such a site would be more full service in that attendees would have access to full associate degree programs in a number of areas. The development of such a campus will require significant capital and operating investment from the County and the State as well as a commitment to the long term development of the site as a college campus. Ideally, the site should be located close to mass transportation access and near affordable parking. The College’s focus on the reclaiming of old properties, as is happening in Pottstown, could be replicated in such a location. 4 In both potential cases, Norristown and an eastern location such as Jenkintown, the College could follow and/or adapt the 11 principles that are driving the development of the Pottstown location. It must also be noted that to undertake either or both proposed efforts will require that the County and the State continue their investments in the renewal of the Central Campus and the continued growth of the Pottstown Campus. Neither of these efforts can be abandoned at the expense of further expansion of the College. Access and Transportation While it has been decided that this issue is largely under the realm of the County’s Planning Commission, it is important to note that geographic access to postsecondary educational opportunities is essential to building a strong and highly skilled workforce. Clearly, this need for geographic access should drive decision making for new College sites. It should also help to influence transportation decisions. The College’s Central Campus, while geographically centrally located in the County, is served by SEPTA, but it is difficult to reach for many County residents. The West Campus in Pottstown improves geographic access for residents of the western part of the County, especially those living along the Route 422 corridor. But, it too, while serviced by bus transportation is not easily accessible except by car. Given this, it is hoped that the Planning Commission consider: 1. Supporting the College in expanding SEPTA access to the campuses. Consider supporting a subsidized route linkage from the Gwynedd Valley light rail station to the Central Campus. 2. Continue to advance the concept of light rail and other alternative mechanisms to improve access along the Route 422 corridor especially into Pottstown. 3. Inform future site location conversations by advising on sites that are mass transportation accessible. Workforce Development and Labor Attraction/Retention Issues As noted in this white paper’s background statement, one significant component of the College’s comprehensive mission is the provision of workforce development programming to support the County. College programs serve all three categories of job seekers noted by the Task Force. For example, many of the “Youth/Emerging” workers are on our campuses as more than 42 percent of our student body is between the ages of 18‐21. The College works closely with the County’s K‐12 districts to ensure a smooth transition into postsecondary education. Our Upward Bound and LEAD programs reach 9th, 10th and 11th graders with pre‐
college orientation programs to help to improve high school graduation and college going rates especially in the Norristown and Pottstown school districts. Almost 800 high school students were dually enrolled with the College in 07‐08 allowing them to gain college credit while still in high school. In addition, the College serves “Transitional Workers” in a number of ways. We have a fully enrolled ESL program as well as a GED program and several certificates designed for attendees to gain quick job skills for immediate employment. Our New Choice/New Options program helps displaced homemakers, primarily women, gain job skills and confidence to re‐enter the workforce. Many students in this “Transitional” category 5 are at the College pursuing an associate degree in another field of study after a long career in another area. Interestingly, almost 30 percent of our students already have an associates or bachelors degree indicating that many are at the College in transition seeking new job skills. Finally, the College serves “incumbent workers” through its Center for Workforce Development and in partnership with the employer community through customized training offered on‐site as well as through packaged programs for employees that are offered at one of our campuses. The development of this Economic Development plan can help to sharpen the focus and purpose of much of the College’s future programming in this area as we work in a supporting role in the implementation of this plan. Given this, the Task Force should consider these recommendations: 1. Encourage the County to continue to support the College in the development of new associate degree, certificate and workforce training programs that support the emerging needs of youth/emerging workers, transitional workers and incumbent workers with funding beyond the annual operating allocation to incent the development of these new programs. These programs could help to address the shortages in areas like craft workers, technicians and machinists. 2. Continue to invest in adult literacy programs such as ESL, ABE and GED programs that are essential to preparing citizens for the workforce and future learning to advance job skill development and career advancement. These programs are especially important in Pottstown and Norristown. 3. More strategically utilize the fact that the County is home to one of the most successful and innovative community colleges in the country in its messaging to attract new employers and retain current employers. 4. Support the College’s development of a Center for Entrepreneurial Studies to support Youth/Emerging workers in starting their own businesses and Transitional workers in career change that could lead to additional start‐up businesses. In Summary The community college is a vital asset for the County in supporting the implementation of this Economic Development plan. Much of the College’s current programming supports the County’s workforce development objectives, yet there are numerous new possibilities to explore as the Task Force further develops this plan. New satellite and/ or campus locations could anchor the revitalization of targeted older communities and expand geographic access to the College for more residents. More strategic transportation patterns could improve access to the College’s current locations and thus the College’s ability to educate and train more residents for jobs. Continued and increased local investment in College programming will support the College in developing new training and degree programs to match employer needs as well as to reach new populations of potential workers with outreach programs to encourage postsecondary education attendance. 6 APPENDIX M: “The Little Town That Could” – Ambler Memo
Bernadette Dougherty
Ambler Main Street Manager 1996-2007
Ambler…The little town that could
Ambler got it name because of a train wreck. The town grew up around the train station and is growing
today because of our rail corridor and the renewed interest in developing around transit.
Ambler was established in 1888 as a company town. The company was Keasbey and Mattison, the
world’s largest manufacturer of asbestos products. For 80 years that was a good thing. The company built
400 homes, provided jobs for thousands of workers, and made Ambler an economic hub for the
surrounding communities. But for 30 years it was a very bad thing. The company’s waste created 54
acres of asbestos contaminated “mountains”, the workers and their families contracted asbestosis,
mesothelioma and other lung related diseases and in addition to health problems there were now new
economic problems for Ambler called malls.
Then in the 1980’s planners and council members in Ambler set out to spruce up Butler Avenue, Ambler’s
main thoroughfare. Trees were planted, pull-off parking was established, utilities were buried and brick
pavers were installed. The town “looked” better but it wasn’t doing better and there was no increase in
business. Why? because the business community and the residents were not part of the planning process.
Then in 1992 an open meeting was called for residents, business owners, landlords, community leaders,
government officials, church members… (now we call them stakeholders) to participate in a visioning
meeting to figure out what they wanted Ambler to look like. The meeting room was packed and there was
an energy that was palpable. An action plan was formulated, a Main Street Program was established to
engage the existing businesses and to recruit new ones and the face of Ambler began to change, slowly.
Revitalization now became a team effort, a real project created by and for the community no longer a
planning theory.
For 15 years now that first Vision Action Plan has been Ambler’s road map. It has been amended, tweaked
and used. The good old streetscape improvements have still been added each year but more importantly
Ambler has created a new niche for its economic security…Arts and Entertainment. Ambler finally
realized that it would never be a retail mecca again like in the 50’s and that was ok. It would be a different
kind of magnet. By renovating and reopening the 1928 Ambler Movie Theater with three auditoriums
showing art, independent and foreign films Ambler now draws more than 3,000 people a week to town. By
fostering the creation of the Act II Playhouse, a live performance theater, hundreds of people from the tristate area subscribe to and come to town weekly for award-winning performances. Because of these two
venues, six restaurants have made their homes in Ambler over the past 7 years, a day spa opened, specialty
shops emerged, and public/ private investments in the millions of dollars have happened. Public monies
from the Borough, County and State provided the critical seeds for future development and growth. These
public dollars have been matched and leveraged by countless dollars from private coffers. People like
Westrum, Sloane, Moulton, Fink, Greenberg, Monahan and Lutter have made conscious business decisions
to invest in Ambler because they see where Ambler is heading and what it can become. They believe in
that vision plan that was set in motion so many years ago and they continue to fuel the economic engine
with dollars and commitment to keep Ambler on track. Along the rail corridor where the former asbestos
products plant of Keasbey and Mattison once dominated the skyline, 57 new condominiums starting at
$300,000 are in pre-construction phase, five 5-story loft apartments are in land development, and most
importantly 30 acres of former asbestos dumps are finally being addressed by local governmental agencies,
concerned citizens, DEP and EPA.
Ambler’s future is no longer bleak but bright because of people, partnerships and persistence. That ability
and determination to recreate itself is the necessary ingredient for any town’s success.
APPENDIX N: LERTA Overview and Background
Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act
(LERTA)
Summary
•
Local municipalities, school districts and counties can offer tax
abatements on improvements to property for up to 10 years
Eligibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
City
County
Borough
Incorporated town
Township
School district
Eligible Uses
•
Local municipalities, school districts and counties can offer tax
abatements on improvements to property for up to 10 years
Where to Apply
•
•
Local Government taxing body
Governor's Center for Local Government Services as a technical
assistance provider
Amounts
•
Not applicable
Terms
•
•
Local government decision (up to 100% tax abatement on improvements
to property for up to 10 years)
Abatement on improvement to property
(Additional program information available upon request)
(Source: Redevelopment Authority of Bucks County, www.bcrda.com)
GUIDELINES
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE
LOCAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TAX ASSISTANCE LAW
LOCAL ECONOMIC REVITALIZXATION TAX ASSISTANCE ACT (LERTA)
Background
During 1974 the Pa. Dept. of Commerce organized a task force designed to evaluate the
State’s role in urban economic development and to recommend new or modified programs
where needed. The task force report made a series of recommendations for a new, active,
and aggressive role in urban economic development for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Once recommendation developed by the task force, with the assistance and
advice of the Pa. Council for Urban Economic Development, was the Local Economic
Revitalization Tax Assistance Act (LERTA).
A major deterrent to improving the deteriorating business property has been that
improvements result in higher property value and therefore, result in higher local property
taxes. The higher taxed often discourage business property owners from making
improvement in blighted areas. LERTA was designed to allow municipalities to overcome
this problem by implementing Article VIII, Section 2(b)(iii) of the Constitutions of Pa.
This constitutional provision authorizes the General Assembly to “establish standards and
qualifications by which local taxing authorities may make uniform special tax provisions
applicable to a taxpayer for a limited period of time to encourage improvement of
deteriorating property or areas by an individual, association, or corporation.”
Legislation had already been enacted by the General Assembly for residential property,
LERTA extended the constitutional exemption to improvements of deteriorating business
property.
This act allows local taxing authorities to exempt improvement to business property IF
SUCH PROPETY IS LOCATED IN A DETERIORATINAG AREA AS DETERMINED
BY A MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY or is subject to a governmental order requiring
the property to be vacated, condemned or demolished by reason on noncompliance with
law, ordinance, or regulations. Improvements eligible for tax exemption include, repair,
construction, or reconstruction including alteration and additions having the effect of
rehabilitating a structure so that it become habitable or acquires higher standards of safety,
health, economic use or amenity, or is brought into compliance with governing laws,
ordinances, or regulations.
Any county, city, borough, incorporated town, township, institutional district, or school
district could elect to participate in this program. Tax exemptions may be based on actual
improvement costs or uniform maximum cost set by municipal governing bodies for a
period of time not to exceed 10 years.
LERTA offers a potentially viable and effective tool for local governments to revitalize
economically deteriorated areas and to increase job opportunities, as well as increasing the
tax revenue needed to fund local governmental services.
2
GENERAL PROVISIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this program is to enable local taxing authorities to exempt improvements
to deteriorated business property from property tax increase for a limited period of time.
AUTHORITY
The Act authorized local taxing authorities to exempt improvement to certain deteriorated
industrial, commercial and other business property thereby implementing Article VIII.
Section 2(b)(iii) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
DEFINITIONS
Act – LERTA
Deteriorated Area – An area, the boundaries of which are affixed by a municipal governing
body or bodies, in which improvements to deteriorated property are eligible for tax
exemptions
Deteriorated Property – An y industrial, commercial, or other business property owned by
an individual, association or corporation, and located in a deteriorating area, as herein after
provided, or any such property which has been the subject of an order by a government
agency requiring the unit to be vacated, condemned or demolished by reason of
noncompliance with laws, ordinance or regulations.
Improvement – Repair, construction or reconstruction, including alterations and additions,
having the effect of rehabilitating a deteriorated property so that it becomes habitable or
attains higher standards of safety, health, economic use or amenity, or is brought into
compliance with laws, ordinances, or regulations governing such standards. Ordinary
upkeep and maintenance shall no be deemed as improvement.
Local Taxing Authority- A county, city borough, incorporated town, township, institution
district, or school district having authority to levy real estate property taxes.
Municipal Governing Body – A city, borough, township, or incorporated town.
Assessment Agency – Board of Assessment and revisions of taxes or other appropriate
assessment agency.
3
MUNICIPIAL GOVERNING BODY PROCEDURES
DETERIORATED AREA
Municipal governing bodies are authorized to affix the boundaries of a deteriorated area or
areas, whole or partially located within their jurisdiction
PUBLIC HEARING
At least one public hearing shall be held by the municipal governing body for the purpose
of determining deteriorated area boundaries. At the public hearing the local taxing
authorities, planning commission or redevelopment authority and other public and private
agencies and individuals, knowledgeable and interested in the improvement of deteriorated
areas shall be given the opportunity to present their recommendations concerning the
location of boundaries of a deteriorated area or areas.
CRITERIA
Municipal governing bodies shall take into account the following criteria when
determining the boundaries of a deteriorated area or areas.
1. unsafe, unsanitary and overcrowded buildings
2. vacant, overgrown and unsightly lots of ground
3. a disproportionate number of tax delinquent properties
4. defective design or arrangement of building, street or lot layouts
5. economically and social undesirable land uses
6. high incidence of persistent, unemployment or underemployment
7. high incidence of dependence upon public assistance
8 high incidence of overcrowded, unsanitary or inadequate housing
9. high incidence of crime and delinquency
10. high incidence of rejection for selective service
11. high incidence of disease disability
12 high incidence of infant mortality
13. high incidence of school dropouts or other evidence of low educational attainment
14. other generally accepted indicators of widespread social problems or poverty
conditions
UNIFORM MAXIMUM EXEMPTIONS
Municipal governing bodies are authorized to establish a maximum cost per unit to be
exempted. Such maximum cost shall uniformly apply to all eligible deteriorated property
within their jurisdiction.. If no maximum cost is established, tax exemption may be granted
on the assessment attributable to the actual cost of improvement, regardless of the dollar
amount.
ORDINANCE
Municipal governing bodies may adopt an ordinance designating the boundaries of
deteriorated area or areas, and the maximum costs of improvements allowed for exemption
purposes, if any.
4
LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION ADOPTION
Each local taxing authority may by ordinance or resolution, exempt from real property
taxation the assessed valuation of improvements to deteriorated properties in accordance
with the established provisions and limitations
The ordinance or resolution shall specify a description of each deteriorated area as
determined by the municipal governing body , as well s the cost of improvement per unit
to be exempted and the schedule of taxes exempted.
UNIFORM MAXIMUM EXEMPTIONS
Local taxing authority granting a tax exemption pursuant to the provisions of the Act may
provide for tax exemptions on the assessment attributable to the actual cost of
improvements or up to any maximum cost uniformly established by the municipal
governing body. Such maximum cost shall uniformly apply to all eligible deteriorated
property within the local taxing authority jurisdiction.
EXEMPTION SCHEDULE
Whether or not the assessment eligible for exemption is based upon actual cost or a
maximum cost, the actual amount of taxes exempted shall be in accordance with the
schedule of taxes exempted established by a local taxing authority subject to the following
limitations.
1. the length of the schedule of taxes exempted shall not exceed ten years
2. the schedule of taxes exempted shall stipulate the portion of improvements to be
exempted each year
3. the exemption from taxes shall be limited to the additional assessment valuation
attributable to the actual costs of improvements to deteriorated property or not in excess of
the maximum cost per unit established by a municipal governing body.
EXEMPTION UPON PROPERTY
The exemption from taxes authorized by the act shall be upon the property exempted and
shall not terminate upon the sale or exchange of the property
APPLICATION FORM
Each local taxing authority should adopt an exemption request form on which eligible
persons can apply for tax exemption. A copy of each completed exemption request shall
be forwarded to the assessment agency.
5
TAXPAYER PRODCEDURE
OBTAINING EXEMPTION
Any person desiring tax exemption pursuant to ordinances or resolutions adopted pursuant
to the Act, shall notify each local taxing authority granting such exemption in writing on a
form provided by it submitted at the time he secures the building permit, or if no building
permit or other notification of improvements is required, at the time he commences
construction
IMPROVEMENT COMPLETION
Eligible taxpayers should notify the assessment agency upon completion of the
improvements
RESASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION
After completing improvements, taxpayer(s) shall receive notice of the reassessment from
the assessment agency and the assessment eligible for exemption
APPEALS
Appeals from the reassessment and the amounts eligible for exemption may be taken by
the taxpayer as provided by law.
6
ASSESSMENT AGENCY PROCEDURE
EXEMPTION REQUEST
A copy of the exemption request shall be forwarded to the assessment agency by the local
taxing authority
ASSESSMENT
The assessment agency shall, after completion of the improvement, assess separately the
improvement and calculate the amounts of the assessment eligible for tax exemption in
accordance with the limits established by the local taxing authorities and notify the
taxpayer and the local taxing authorities of the reassessment and amounts of the
assessment eligible for exemption.
APPEALS
Appeals from the reassessment and the amounts eligible for the exemption may be taken
by the taxpayer or the local taxing authorities as provided by law.
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
The cost of improvement t o be exempted and the schedule of taxes exempted existing at
the time of the initial request for tax exemption shall be applicable to that exemption
request, and subsequent amendment to the ordinance, if any, shall not apply to requests
initiated prior to their adoption.
(Source: Redevelopment Authority of Bucks County, www.bcrda.com)
7
APPENDIX O: PA Municipal Planning Code – Specific Plan Section
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code
Article XI - Intergovernmental Cooperative Planning and Implementation
Agreements
Section 1106. Specific Plans.
(a) Participating municipalities shall have authority to adopt a specific plan for the systematic
implementation of a county or multimunicipal comprehensive plan for any nonresidential part of the
area covered by the plan. Such specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams and
implementing ordinances which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, extent of area and standards for land uses and facilities, including
design of sewage, water, drainage and other essential facilities needed to support the land uses.
(2) The location, classification and design of all transportation facilities, including, but not limited to,
streets and roads needed to serve the land uses described in the specific plan.
(3) Standards for population density, land coverage, building intensity and supporting services,
including utilities.
(4) Standards for the preservation, conservation, development and use of natural resources,
including the protection of significant open spaces, resource lands and agricultural lands within or
adjacent to the area covered by the specific plan.
(5) A program of implementation including regulations, financing of the capital improvements and
provisions for repealing or amending the specific plan. Regulations may include zoning, storm water,
subdivision and land development, highway access and any other provisions for which municipalities
are authorized by law to enact. The regulations may be amended into the county or municipal
ordinances or adopted as separate ordinances. If enacted as separate ordinances for the area
covered by the specific plan, the ordinances shall repeal and replace any county or municipal
ordinances in effect within the area covered by the specific plan and ordinances shall conform to the
provisions of the specific plan.
(b) (1) No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is
consistent with an adopted county or multi-municipal comprehensive plan.
(2) No capital project by any municipal authority or municipality shall be approved or undertaken,
and no final plan, development plan or plat for any subdivision or development of land shall be
approved unless such projects, plans or plats are consistent with the adopted specific plan.
(c) In adopting or amending a specific plan, a county and participating municipalities shall use the
same procedures as provided in this article for adopting comprehensive plans and ordinances.
(d) Whenever a specific plan has been adopted, applicants for subdivision or land development
approval shall be required to submit only a final plan as provided in Article V, provided that such
final plan is consistent with and implements the adopted specific plan.
(e) A county or counties and participating municipalities are prohibited from assessing subdivision
and land development applicants for the cost of the specific plan.
APPENDIX P: State and Federal Economic Development Funding Programs
Title
Agency
Purpose
Ben Franklin Technology Partners
PA Department of Community and Economic
Development
Loan, Royalty/Payback, Grants for Technology Tranfer, R&D,
Private Company and University joint research and developmetn;
Techonolgy training/entrepreneurial infrastructure
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative
(BEDI)
US Department of Housing & Urban Development
Brownfields Redevelopment: Remediation Costs, Property
Acquisition, and Conveyance for selected areas.
Building Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Financing Authority
Capital funds for real estate development projects in small and
mid-sized communities.
Business in Our Sites
Commonwealth Financing Authority
Loan and grant program to help municipalities create shovelready sites to accommodate expanding businesses.
Community Development Bank
Development
Debt financing/loans for CDFIs that focus on economic
development and job creation within the community
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
US Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Montgomery County Department of Housing and
Community Development
Neighborhood Revitalization, Economic Development, Improved
Community Facilities targeted towards underserved areas.
Community Economic Development Loan
Development
Low-interest loan funding for for-profit small businesses located
within state-designated distressed municipalities or KOZs
Community Revitalization
Development
Variety of community development goals; Infrastructure
Enhancements
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
PA Department of Transportation, Delaware Valley Development and enhancement of alternate means of
Regional Planning Commission; Montgomery County transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well
Planning Commission
as traffic flow improvements and high occupancy vehicle lanes.
Customized Job Training
Development
Specialized job training to existing or newly hired employees of
manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, R&D, advanced
technology, and business service firms and companies
Economic Development Initiative (EDI)
US Department of Housing & Urban Development
Similar to CDBG and Section 108, EDI can help cover interest
and payments on projects paid for with these programs.
Educational Improvement Tax Credit
Development
Tax credits for businesses contributing to a scholarship
organization, educational improvement organization, or prekindergarten scholarship organization
Elm Street Program
Development
Grants to help revitalize residential neighborhoods next to
downtowns.
Employment and Community Conservation
Enterprise Zone Tax Credits
Development; Montco Redevelopment Authority
Employment and Job Training Alleviating Unemployment and
underemployment. Building and Property Improvements within
state-defined Enterprise Zones.
Export Financing Program
Development
Encourages exporting of PA products or services internationally
by providing loans to for-profit small businesses (250 or less
employees)
First Industries Fund
Development
Funding to promote for-profit agriculture and tourism industries
Grants for Public Works and Economic
Development
US Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration
Creating Economic Opportunities in demonstrably distressed
areas.
Title
Agency
Purpose
Guaranteed Free Training Program
WedNetPA Training Consortium
Job training for employees for manufacturing, technology, and
other PA businesses other than point-of-sale retail.
Housing Redevelopment Assistance
Development
Flexible funding for redevelopment and reuse of blighted or
vacant property for housing.
Industrial Sites Reuse Program
Development
Environmental Studies and remediation on former industrial
properties
Infrastructure and Facilities Improvement
Program
Development
Grants funding to designated issuers of debt in order to assist
with payment of debt service
Infrastructure Development Program (IDP)
Development
Infrastructure improvements for development agencies in select
areas.
Job Creation Tax Credit
Development
Tax credits for creating new jobs for approved businesses
Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZs)
Development
State and local tax abatements for citizens and businesses in
select areas across the state.
Local Government Capital Projects Loan
Program
Development
Low-interest loans for construction or improvements to municipal
facilities
Machinery and Equipment Loan Fund (MELF)
Development
Loans to provide machinery and equipment funding to
manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, direct mining operations,
licensed hospitals, information and biotechnology companies.
Main Street Program
Development
Grants for creating and staffing a downtown economic
development organization.
Neighborhood Assistance Program
Development
Tax credits to businesses forming partnerships with nonprofits in
order to improve distressed neighborhoods
New PA Ventrue Capital Investment and
Guarantee Programs
Development
Loans for venture capital partnerships for investmetn in earlystage, job producing PA companies; guarantees to top tier
venture capital companies to stimulate investment in young
companies
New Communities Program
Development
Variety of assistance for business development and
improvements in select areas
Opportunity Grant Program
Development
Grants for development for a variety of types of firms establishing
a regional or national headquarters and creating/preserving a
significant number of jobs
PennCAP
Development
Loan guarantees to small businesses through participating local
banks
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing
Authority Taxable & Tax Exempt (PEDFA)
PA Economic Development Financing Authority
Loans through bond issue for buseinsss development, including
landand building acquisition, building renovation and new
construction, infrastructure, etc.
Pennworks (Water Supply and Wastewater
Infrastructure Program)
Development
Grant funding for municipalities and municipal authorities, IDCs,
and investor owned water or wastewater enterprises for
construction, expansion, or moving water or wastewater
infrsastructure
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority PA Department of Community and Economic
(Penn Vest)
Development
Low-interest loans to municipalities or authorities over several
years for infrastructure improvement programs.
Title
Agency
Purpose
PA Department of Environmental Protection Grant
PA Department of Environmental Protection
and Loan Programs
DEP has numerous grants and loans to assist individuals, groups
and businesses with a host of environmental issues.
Research and Development Tax Credit
PA Department of Revenue
Tax Credits to businesses with R&D expenditures in PA
Second Stage Loan
Commonwealth Financing Agency
Guarantees for bank loans to second stage manufacturers,
advanced technology, and life sciences businesses
Section 108 Loan Guarantees
US Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Montgomery County Department of Housing and
Community Development
Large scale projects designed to help low and moderate income
persons and to help combat conditions of blight.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Development
Capitalizes future property, sales, or other tax revenue to be
generated by a development in order for the development to be
financed.
Technology Development Grant
Development
Grants through Ben Franklin Technology Development
Authorityto support use of advanced e-business systems for nonprofits and community groups
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
PA Department of Transportation, Delaware Valley Development and improvement of transportation facilities,
Regional Planning Commission; Montgomery County including bridge replacements, bicycle facilities, pedestrian
Planning Commission
walkways, and intermodal transportation
Workforce Leadership Grant
Development
Grants for expansion of Community College services related to
the workforce
Source: Montgomery County Planning Commission; PA Department of Community and Economic Development

montgomery county strategic economic development policy task

Transcription

Similar documents

50 unrestricted wooded acres

recycling events for 2016

Community Bridges Flyer:Layout 1

io BY - World of Montgomery Festival 2016

Entertainment - The Montgomery County Agricultural Fair

Forum Program - Real Food for Kids

mes press - Valley Central School District

Volume 1, Issue 4 December 2015

Josiah Henson Park - Event Parking - Google Maps

Tensar® Biaxial (BX) Geogrids Case History