May 2008

From: Glenn McRae, CFED Staff  
Date:  May 22, 2008    
 
This report on interviews with employers at the VT business expo tracks somewhat with what is being communicated in the regional meetings that CFED is having with employers around the state.
 
Vt. economy still ahead of the curve
Rutland Herald
May 22, 2008   By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON — There may be nowhere in the state where more owners and managers of businesses gather at the same time than the annual Vermont Business and Industry Expo.

On Wednesday, during the first day of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce's two-day program, many of those executives and entrepreneurs said the economic downturn — perhaps recession — does not seem to have hurt their companies — at least yet.

But many of them noted a sense of hesitation and tentativeness in economic exchanges in Vermont that worries them.

Lee Gustafson of URS, an environmental engineering and alternative energy company with its Vermont office in Rutland, said slowdowns in his work typically lag a year or two behind economic travails.  "We are keeping pretty busy," Gustafson said.

As part of a company involved in the development of wind power he would like to see an easing on regulation of the technology — and more enthusiasm for it from Gov. James Douglas, a skeptic when it comes to large-scale wind turbines.

"I think if he got behind it things would go a lot faster," Gustafson said. "It could change the whole environment."

Douglas has said he is concerned the economic and environmental impact of wind towers on the state's ridgelines would outweigh the benefit of the power they would produce.

But Gustafson said that in one project his company worked on in Massachusetts, a ski area that added a commercial wind turbine found its resort gained business rather than lost it. Some ski areas in Vermont have expressed interest in such turbines, both as a way of becoming "green" and to reduce the cost of the electricity they use, Gustafson said.

While it would seem intuitive that higher gas prices would harm the economy of a state dependent to a large degree on car tourism, Vermont may perversely benefit from fuel costs and a weak dollar.

That is because Canadian and European tourists may look to Vermont to get more for their money, and residents of large American cities may decide a tank of gas to get to Vermont is still cheaper than an airline ticket to somewhere farther away, said Tim Piper, innkeeper at The Inn at the Round Barn Farm in Waitsfield.  "We see this as possibly a very good season," Piper said.

Others said that while work for their companies is holding up — even growing — it is still tough to do business in Vermont.

Bob Carpenter and Jim Johnson of injection molding company Progressive Plastics in Williamstown said they have more work than can be done in their current facility. The company is now trying to figure out if they will expand in Vermont or outside it, they said.

"We are going like gangbusters," Carpenter said. But issues like workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and permitting are all raising the cost of doing business in Vermont, the two men said. "We have an excellent reputation, we have a state of the art facility," Carpenter said.

They also mentioned the new assessment on companies for every employee without health insurance to cover the new Catamount Health program as a concern.

Some employees have insurance through state programs or opt out of the insurance they offer at Progressive Plastics, Carpenter and Johnson said. They can't force employees to take the company's insurance coverage, yet if they don't, the company is on the hook for the Catamount assessment – about $300 a year per worker.

Douglas said Wednesday that although he supports the Catamount program — a compromise worked out with lawmakers — he did not believe the assessment was necessary at the time. Since the assessment on employers has been tweaked to exempt seasonal employees he has not heard as many complaints from business owners, he said.  "I am not sure they are happy about it, but frankly I get fewer complaints than I did," the governor said.

In at least one sector of the economy the state has felt the economic downturn.

Joe Sinagra of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Northern Vermont said new home starts in the state are down. Remodeling, often financed with loans, is also somewhat down, although not as much as new construction, Sinagra said.

Part of the problem the state's economy faces is one of perception, said Bob Zider, director of the Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center, a partnership between public and private organizations to help industry in Vermont.  "Vermont is not a bad place to do business, despite the bad rap," Zider said. Unfortunately, he added, "perceptions oftentimes become reality."

For instance, Vermont business owners have an unusual amount of access to top political leaders in the state — and they like that — Zider said.

But more and more, as companies in state get to a certain size and are bought by firms outside the Green Mountains, decisions on whether they stay or not are made by people who are not in Vermont.  "It is by the numbers," he said. "I don't know how you deal with that."

"We need to be encouraging entrepreneurship," Zider said. But the state also has to be aware of the needs of existing employers, he said.

 

From:  Glenn McRae, CFED Staff
Date: May 19, 2008
 
THURSDAY, MAY 22ND
VPT Public Square "Vermont's Creative Economy"
8:00 pm
"VPT Public Square" looks at Vermont's creative economy, highlighting success stories from communities that use their cultural assets to develop and attract innovators who will define the economy of the future.
 

FROM:  An email exchange among the CFED commissioners and staff regarding
            The organization and implementation of the regional outreach days in preparation for
            the May 19 meeting.
DATES:  May 12-14, 2008
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn McRae [mailto:
glenn@snellingcenter.org]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:20 PM
To: bbotzow; Grimes, Barbara; botzow; cvedcevp; dkurzman; dmount; fred.kenney; hinda; jkenlan; kevin.dorn; mlintermann; MNiebling; Crowley, Patti; staige.davis; willpatten
Cc: Jen Eldred; hklein; Glenn McRae; seth.bowden;
Charlie Smith

Subject: CFED public outreach meeting Burlington May 21
 
 
Subject:  CFED Regional outreach effort - May 21- Burlington
 
Directions and Additional information at:
 
Attached documents are for background.  There are two summary documents that will make for the easiest reading though you may want to glance at all of them.
 
Please RSVP for this session.
Thanks.
 
From: Grimes, Barbara [mailto:BGrimes@burlingtonelectric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:02 AM
To: Glenn McRae
Subject: RE: CFED public outreach meeting
Burlington May 21
 
I am surprised that folks like Andy Broderick of Housing Vermont and Sara Carpenter of VHFA aren’t on the list.  GMP, Vt. Gas as electric utilities and FairPoint, Burlington Telephone, Clear Channel.  Any thoughts?
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn McRae [mailto:
glenn@snellingcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:48 AM
To: bbotzow; Grimes, Barbara; botzow; cvedcevp; dkurzman; dmount; fred.kenney; hinda; jkenlan; kevin.dorn; mlintermann; MNiebling; Crowley, Patti; staige.davis;
willpatten
Cc: hklein; Glenn McRae;
Charlie Smith

Subject: CFED - Burlington Outreach session
 
Barbara raises a good question and I want to address a response to all commissioners.
I am sure we could look at the list and expand it for each session to a very large number of groups or institutions that have not been included.
 
The methodology is to be able to evenly cross the state and use a common structure for both limited small group conversations and open sessions that create opportunities to ask questions in a structured way that provides us with a different look at the task we are charged with (or to confirm what we might think we already know).  Purposely we have chosen in this round to work with and let local RDCs in consultation with other actors to help develop the invitation list and do the inviting.  We thought this was important, acknowledging the fact that there is a regional economic development infrastructure, and that they have an important existing role in planning and implementing that we need to be aligned with even as we try to expand the definition of economic development and our understanding of the social (and other) infrastructure necessary for success in economic development.
 
 We have also purposely limited the number so that in two hours we can have some form of constructive conversation.  The approach was never meant to be a comprehensive research project involving all the players or even all what one might consider major players.  There are simply too many.  The afternoon sessions are set up to bring in a cross section.  The mix will be somewhat different in each area.  The success at getting a good mix will be somewhat different in each area.
The evening session is meant to be an open public session, but included in that public is also the chance to include other employers and institutions that were not included in the afternoon.
 
Choosing this approach has been helpful in starting to tie the CFED process into the regional planning process and CEDS processes, anticipating that CFED has a long term mission to continue to relate to planning and actual work going on throughout the state and will need to work with the regions to continue to gather information and look to different possibilities for future benchmarking.
 
As we plan for the next six sessions I will appreciate hearing from Commissioners individually and as a group about their experience at these sessions and what will make them more valuable.  Our design is to take the basic process forward over the summer into the next six.  I believe that there will be some, if not a lot, of repetition, but that is valuable as we need to determine what the basic common themes are across the state.  As one commissioner mentioned it is likely that what will emerge will not be bold new ideas, but a series of common sense goals for economic development that are more measurable and can be used as a foundation to build and evaluate programs into the future.  If CFED can find these more common goals and themes and set benchmarks that will be a set ahead. 
 
If there are other expectations or questions please do surface them.
 
Thanks,
Glenn
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Grimes, Barbara
To: 'Glenn McRae' ; bbotzow ; botzow ; cvedcevp ; dkurzman ; dmount ; fred.kenney ; hinda ; jkenlan ; kevin.dorn ; mlintermann ; MNiebling ; Crowley, Patti ; staige.davis ; willpatten
Cc: hklein ; Charlie Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: CFED - Burlington Outreach session
 
Not having been at any other meeting than the one in White River Junction and hearing from all of the participants that health care, affordable housing, affordable day care and workforce education – I was just wondering if any of those types had been invited by the other RDCs.  Energy issues have been discussed for sometime and wondered if the other RDCs had invited people from that sector to the other meetings.  Broadband continues to be hotly discussed etc.
 
If we are to be inclusive and out of the box and these types are not included it just makes me wonder.
 
 
From: Will Patten [mailto:willpatten@gmavt.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:37 PM
To: Grimes, Barbara; 'Glenn McRae'; bbotzow; botzow; cvedcevp; dkurzman; dmount; fred.kenney; hinda; jkenlan; kevin.dorn; Mary Lintermann; MNiebling; Crowley, Patti; staige.davis
Cc: hklein;
Charlie Smith

Subject: Re: CFED - Burlington Outreach session
 
I've only attended three public sessions but I have been impressed with the consistency of message we heard in Brattleboro, Rutland and Middlebury. 
It is this:  to build a strong economy in Vermont, our tax dollars should be invested in infrastructure.
Communication, transportation, health care, energy solutions, education.  Over and over and over. 
 
I consider this a "bold new idea." 
 
This is not typical economic development investment strategy.
 
 
From: Mary Lintermann
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:01 PM
To: 'Will Patten'; Grimes, Barbara; 'Glenn McRae'; bbotzow; botzow; cvedcevp; dkurzman; dmount; fred.kenney; hinda; jkenlan; kevin.dorn; MNiebling; Crowley, Patti; staige.davis
Cc: hklein;
Charlie Smith
Subject: RE: CFED - Burlington Outreach session
 
I also heard a similar message.  (I attended Brattleboro, St Albans & Middlebury(part).)  However, I hear their message as a “Focus on the Basics/Fundamentals” message.  Our “bold, innovative idea” challenge is on HOW we support these infrastructure fundamentals so that they are effective, responsible (to individual needs & taxpayers), sustainable and cost-effective.
 
Looking forward to Monday’s discussion.

 


 
FROM:  Mary Lintermann, CFED Commissioner  [Mlintermann@DEWCorp.com]
Date: May 9, 2008
 
A press release was sent out today regarding the Annual Report on the first year of the VEGI program. A copy of the release is inserted below and attached and the report is attached and can be viewed at:  
 
For Immediate Release
May 09, 2008
Contact: David Mace (802) 828-5229
 
First Year of New Economic Incentive Program Successful
 Most Companies Exceeded Job Creation Targets
 
MONTPELIER, Vt. – The state’s new job creation incentive program got off to a great start as seven of the companies approved in its first year created almost 300 new jobs in 2007.
 
According to preliminary information released by the Vermont Economic Progress Council, which administers the newly reformed incentive program, the companies projected the creation of 270 new jobs and $9.5 million in new payroll in 2007, but actual job creation was 296 new jobs with $10.5 million in new payroll.
 
“We are extremely pleased with the preliminary performance reports from companies participating in the Vermont Employment Growth Incentive program,” said Karen L. Marshall, Chair of the Vermont Economic Progress Council. “The authorized incentives leverage important economic drivers: new, well-paying jobs for Vermonters, new payroll, and capital investments in our communities.”
 
“In addition, we get additional revenues to help pay for other programs,” Marshall said. “For 2007 alone, the State invested about $550 per job and got the jobs, capital investment, and a revenue return of $1,158 per job. This is truly a good investment for Vermont and reflects Governor Douglas’ commitment to job creation.”
 
Under reforms passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jim Douglas in 2006, the VEGI economic incentives are authorized based on job creation and capital investments that must occur before the company receives incentive payments over a period of years.
 
The previous program had companies earning tax credits that were applied against future tax liability. The new program allows start up companies, which may not have tax liability, to take advantage of the incentives as well as providing greater accountability.
 
A new “Green VEGI” provision proposed by Governor Douglas and approved by lawmakers this year will provide enhanced incentives for environmental technology companies.
 
During the first year of VEGI, the Council considered 17 applications, of which two were denied, 5 rescinded for various reasons, and 3 were approved but will not commence until 2008.
 
The remaining 7 projects were approved for incentives totaling $5.8 million to be earned between 2007 and 2011 and paid out between 2008 and 2016.
 
These projects are projected to create 1,000 jobs over the next five years with $37 million in new payroll and an average compensation of $48,400, and also invest over $68 million in new facilities and machinery and equipment in Vermont.
 
In 2007, these seven companies projected the creation of 270 new jobs with an average compensation of $48,400; $9.5 million in new payroll; and capital investments of over $23 million.
 
A preliminary review of the 2007 claims filed by the companies indicate the creation of 296 new jobs with an average compensation of $50,800; $10.5 million in new payroll; and $22.5 million in new capital investments.
 
Marshall noted that the Vermont Department of Taxes is in the process of examining the claims and verifying that targets have been met before incentive installments are paid. Their examination, and pending legislation, may cause adjustments to these estimates.
 
The companies receiving incentives were:
  • Monahan SFI:  The incentives allowed family-owned brush manufacturer Thomas Monahan to purchase and reopen the Specialty Filaments plant in Middlebury, putting over 100 laid off Vermonters back to work.
  • Vermont Timber Frames: After moving to New York several years ago, the incentives convinced this building component manufacturer to locate an expansion project in Vermont, reutilizing an empty industrial site in Bennington.
  • Omni Measurement Systems, Inc.: This small research and development (R&D) company was preparing to take its product from the drawing board to assembly line and could have outsourced production, but the incentives instead mean Vermont shares in the company’s success supplying our Air Force personnel with necessary equipment and reaps the new jobs, capital investment and the reutilization of an industrial building in Milton.
  • NEHP: The incentives helped this Williston manufacturer of process piping modules for the semiconductor, solar & lifescience industries jumpstart its R&D efforts to take advantage of new market potential.
  • GreenMountain Coffee Roasters:  Because of the incentives offered the company established its second Vermont facility in Essex Junction instead of outside the state, bringing more than 100 jobs there. In addition, jobs were added at the Waterbury headquarters and hiring continues at both sites.
  • Burton: The incentives helped ensure that this Vermont company did not follow in the steps of others in the winter sports equipment sector by moving their headquarters out west. Instead, a major expansion will be located in Vermont.
  •  Energizer: A new battery line that could have been installed in any of the company’s many offshore facilities will be in Vermont because of the incentives, along with many new jobs and capital investment that helps ensure the future of Energizer in St Albans.
The Council approved the applications after reviewing nine guidelines and applying a rigorous cost-benefit analysis which showed that because of the economic activity that will be generated by these projects, even after payment of the incentives the State will realize a minimum net increase in revenues of over $8 million.
 
The Council also determined that these projects would not occur or would occur in a significantly different and less desirable manner if not for the incentives being authorized.
 
The Vermont Economic Progress Council is an independent board consisting of nine Vermont citizens appointed by the governor that considers applications to the state’s economic incentive programs.
 
 
The Council is attached to the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development, whose mission is to help Vermonters improve their quality of life and build strong communities.
 
 
For more information, visit: http://www.thinkvermont.com/vepc
 
 

FROM:  Mary D. Lintermann, CFED Commissioner, mlintermann@DEWCorp.com
DATE:  May 8, 2008
 
At several of our CFED meetings, I’ve mentioned that Vermont’s future rests in HOW we think (being more innovative/creative/problem solvers).  Below is an Op-Ed by David Brooks of the New York Times & it mentions my thoughts in a more eloquent way  … “The Skills Revolution” or “Cognitive Age”.  “Thought that this was interesting reading for you all….
 
 
May 2, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
The Cognitive Age
By DAVID BROOKS
 
If you go into a good library, you will find thousands of books on globalization. Some will laud it. Some will warn about its dangers. But they’ll agree that globalization is the chief process driving our age. Our lives are being transformed by the increasing movement of goods, people and capital across borders.
The globalization paradigm has led, in the political arena, to a certain historical narrative: There were once nation-states like the U.S. and the European powers, whose economies could be secured within borders. But now capital flows freely. Technology has leveled the playing field. Competition is global and fierce.
New dynamos like India and China threaten American dominance thanks to their cheap labor and manipulated currencies. Now, everything is made abroad. American manufacturing is in decline. The rest of the economy is threatened.
 
Hillary Clinton summarized the narrative this week: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”
 
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals.
 
But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.
 
Globalization is real and important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change. Some Americans have seen their jobs shipped overseas, but global competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the HarvardBusinessSchool has observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic. Companies open plants overseas, but that’s mainly so their production facilities can be close to local markets.
 
Nor is the globalization paradigm even accurate when applied to manufacturing. Instead of fleeing to Asia, U.S. manufacturing output is up over recent decades. As Thomas Duesterberg of Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a research firm, has pointed out, the U.S.’s share of global manufacturing output has actually increased slightly since 1980.
 
The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S.
The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked.
 
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?
 
The globalization paradigm leads people to see economic development as a form of foreign policy, as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. These abstractions, called “the Chinese” or “the Indians,” are doing this or that. But the cognitive age paradigm emphasizes psychology, culture and pedagogy — the specific processes that foster learning. It emphasizes that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by increased demands on human capital. If you understand that you are living at the beginning of a cognitive age, you’re focusing on the real source of prosperity and understand that your anxiety is not being caused by a foreigner.
 
It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
 
 

Commission on the Future of Economic Development in Vermont
May 8, 2008  White River Junction, VT – thoughts on the questions
FROM:  Richard Schramm    rschramm@sover.net
 
Definition of Economic Development in Report to Legislature: Process of generating economic wealth and vitality in Vermont for the well-being of its citizens. Additions:
Equity, fairness
Generating AND DISTIRBUTING FAIRLY economic wealth
Other forms of equity too (geographic, gender, race, sexual orientation, disabilities)
 
Other forms of wealth/capital that are highly interconnected: CD is the process of creating, sustaining, restoring a variety of forms of capital (economic, human, social, physical, natural); need to see economic development as much broader than supporting business and workers
Sustainable economic development: never defined in Report to Legislature
 
Strategies
Job-centered development, linking business and workforce development
 
Role of government
Top-down versus bottom up
IF goal is improving the well-being of citizens and communities, why not shape economic development strategies from the bottom up?
Involves assessing the needs and assets locally, through local participation, and then aggregating to regional, and then to the state level.
 
Leading versus Serving
Economic development needs to be regional (an area encompassing where people live, work and shop)
Now question is what can the state do to support regional development? What is needed regionally that the State is in the position of providing
 
State focus on state-wide strategies that enhance regional goals and support for regional and local economic development efforts.
E.g. State credit card for locally owned and independent businesses in Vermont
Increased resources for regional development organizations and for organizing localities around development visions, needs/assets and strategies
 
Building the regional place-based economy
Supporting all the private, non-profit and governmental enterprises that are linked to the region by the nature of the business, ownership, and/or history.
 
Advantages
Stability (not going anywhere)
Connected to community
Higher multipliers
Socially and environmentally responsible e through direct interaction among stakeholders
More sustainable: Restores environmental and conserves non-renewable energy through reduced transportation costs
 
Strategies for building a more self-reliant sustainable economy
Develop and support community enterprises
Promote local and cooperative ownership
Build business culture of social and environmental responsibility
Produce more of what currently import (import substitution)
Increase local Value-Added
Strengthen local economic multipliers
Reduce consumptions and conserve resources
 
Example: The Upper Valley
Last week Michael Shuman, author of Going Local and The Small-Mart Revolution, spoke at a business breakfast in Hanover, sponsored by the Hanover/Lebanon Co-op, and co-sponsored by Vital Communities and Local First Vermont.
120 people participated; forms completed indicated well over 90 percent learned something from the event and would attend further such events; a small fund was financed by a local business person to form a planning group for the future
Goal was to begin a conversation among locally owned businesses and local non-profits from around the Upper Valley and ways they can support one another; strategies for enhancing the place-based economy
The strategies discussed included planning studies (plug the leaks), forming business alliances, investing (local money invested in local enterprises), purchasing (local first campaigns, debit cards, etc.), and policy-making (here’s where the State could help)
Policy Making
Examples of policy-making that would support the Upper Valley efforts
 
 
Richard Schramm
rschramm@sover.net
  
 

From:  Glenn McRae, The Snelling Center for Government.
 
H.885, as passed by the House and Senate provides direction for the continuing work of CFED.
 
 
H.885 -- AN ACT RELATING TO economic development and workforce development
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1.  FINDINGS; INTENT
(a)  The general assembly finds:
(1)  A review of several rankings for Vermont’s competitiveness and their differentiation shows very disparate results.  For example, the Beacon Hill Institute ranked Vermont twelfth and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ranked Vermont fiftieth on their economic development competitiveness index.   Each outside ranking entity chose different factors.
(2)  Within Vermont, our measurement techniques show variations.  Job and employment data in the state suffer from definitional disparities which create conflicts for those trying to use the data.  The newly established and recently released “unified economic development budget” would be improved by the consistent use of benchmarking by state agencies.  Testimony on this study before the general assembly raised concern over state agency benchmarking because of the differing data issues and measuring approaches that affect their use by state government in Vermont.
(b)  The general assembly has a responsibility for the promotion of economic development in Vermont that builds on the unique strengths and challenges of doing business in Vermont.  The general assembly is interested in what criteria it should use to evaluate the effectiveness of economic development efforts.  Many states have structures and methods for measuring the effectiveness of economic development efforts.
(c)  The commission on the future of economic development is charged with benchmarking and measuring economic development.
(d)  Therefore, it is the intent of the general assembly in adopting this act to establish a logical structure and coherent and uniform set of benchmarks for economic development in this state.
Sec. 2.  COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC
              DEVELOPMENT
In fiscal year 2009, the Commission on the Future of Economic Development (CFED) shall:
(1)  Finish all 12 public engagement sessions.
(2)  The SnellingCenter shall assemble all the products of the CFED meetings and submit them to CFED to develop meaningful, realistic, and verifiable goals and benchmarks for economic development.
(3)  The goals and benchmarks shall be submitted to the joint fiscal office, who shall work with the economists of the executive and legislative branches to:
(A)  review the techniques and products of evaluations of economic development used by other states;
(B)  use the econometrics for Vermont in developing benchmarks for the CFED goals by December 15, 2008.
(4)  Benchmarks shall be submitted to CFED for review and recommendations.
(5)  Benchmarks shall be submitted to the house committee on commerce and the senate committee on economic development, housing and military affairs on or before January 15, 2009.
(6)  CFED, with technical assistance from the joint fiscal office and the economists, shall annually review benchmarks and develop recommendations for adjustments to be submitted to the general assembly for approval.

 


 
From: Tom Licata [mailto:tomlicata@verizon.net]
Sent: May 07, 2008

This Commission needs to read and understand the underlying theme of this beautifully written
commentary from former Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern.
This commission must understand the connection of freedom and human progress.
 
The continued kowtowing to the special interest groups (VPIRG, CLF, NEA etc...), anti-business and anti-growth culture has got to end.  It is time for those in the business and intellectual community to grow a spine and stand up for the average, middleclass Vermonter rather than the elites and their perceived notion of how Vermont should look.  Roughly 75% of Vermont is either forested, farmed or conserved.  It will not turn into metro New Jersey but at the same time, it will evolve; into a place where our young people won't be driven from their home state for lack of hope and opportunity and their parents and grandparents won't be driven from their land due to oppressive taxation and regulation.
 
Vermonters For Economic Health looks forward to engaging you in such an important topic as economic and productivity growth, as these are the means to increased tax revenues and hope and prosperity for our citizens.  We look forward to this dialogue on the 21st.
 
Freedom Means Responsibility
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
March 7, 2008; Page A15
 
Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.
 
Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.
 
With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages.
 
According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition, their holders neither delinquent nor in default.   There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.   The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.
 
Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.
Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.
Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."
 
With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.
 
Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.
 
Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.
 
Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.
 
Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.
 
The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.
 
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
 

FROM:  Will Patten, CFED Commissioner [willp@vbsr.org]
DATE:  May 6, 2008
 
Eric Garland is a futurist, consultant and friend of my son Caleb.
Read what he say about Tennessee.
 
From: Eric Garland <egarland@competitivefutures.com>
Date: May 6, 2008
Subject: Future of Business in the Republic
 
You may be interested in this group below - the South Dakota  Enterprise Institute. They are clients of mine, and I think they do an  exemplary job of taking a small (population-wise) rural state and  turning it toward the knowledge economy. They say they want to be the  "Saudi Arabia of Renewable Energy" particular with their large opens spaces, wind farms, and potential to grow switchgrass for second-gen ethanol. They exhort kids and adults to start real businesses, and provide cutting edge information and financial resources for them to do so. The Executive Director is Marcia Hendrickson. Their economic intelligence unit is run by Vonnie Barnett. They know cold weather, all grew up on farms, and have an eye on the future. I think you would enjoy them as colleagues, given your similar mission.
 
I have another piece of news from the road you might find instructive.  I teach a course (http://www.scipstore.org/08annual/view_listsum.php?id=23) for the  Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals on how to manage  future trends in large organizations. I use several case studies from economic development, notably Singapore and South Korea, who had  everything going against them, but built vibrant economies that are  thriving in both the 20th century industrial economy AND the 21st century knowledge economy. I use Brazil as a bad example, a country that all the infrastructure and natural resources going for it, but turned toward military junta instead.  
I have to say, I use Vermont as a case study of people who refuse to  recognize the future. The government and business leadership over the past 15 years has refused to recognize the long-term impact of globalization and high technology on our two main industries - light manufacturing and farming - and now they are both effectively a memory. I ask my students "Is it morally or ethically OK if you ignore the future? Are you a bad manager?"
 
Upon sharing the story of Vermont, one of my course participants stood up. She said "I'm from the economic development unit of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I'd just like you to know, I've been taking your jobs."

I thought, surely she is kidding.

"Nope, I'm not kidding. My job is to target companies in Northeastern states and to entice them with a few tax breaks and cheap infrastructure to Tennessee. You should know, we always start with Vermont. It's the easiest of all the state, hands down. We know that the economic development groups there are SO incompetent, we don't even have to make many sweet deals. We offer one tax break, a little cheap electricity, and the feeling that we want their business. The state of Vermont NEVER EVEN MAKES A COUNTER OFFER! It's like taking candy from a baby."

I stare.

"Sorry to have a laugh at your expense, but if this is a mystery, it shouldn't be. Tennessee and other southern states have a concerted strategy to take Vermont's business. And it's easy."

Will, I don't really have anything more to add on this.

By the way, Caleb sent me your Op-Ed. A couple points. 

Investment in infrastructure - Yup. Good idear.   

Supply-side - Nope. Won't work. Yer right.

Act 250 - Not all red tape protects the environment, some of it just tells CEOs to look elsewhere for states that will approve permits in under six years.

Businesses as victims: See above.

Paying for healthcare, childcare, hospitals, schools, and bridges:  That comes from the state. The state is funded by businesses. See  above. Unless we're to be a welfare state of the federal government, in which case, it ain't Vermont anyway.
 
Overall: If this debate goes down the path of the Culture War,  "Chamber of Commerce vs VBSR" as was recently suggested by Brattleboro's paper, it's over. Those debates are endless and useless. See Bush, Atwater, Rove, et al.

Here's to a useful, open debate on the future of the place that raised us up.

Kind regards,
Eric Garland
 
P.S. I'll give any speech, moderate any panel, and run any of my future strategy courses in Vermont for FREE if it's to promote economic development.


From: Tom Licata [tomlicata@verizon.net]
May 3, 2008
 
From Vermonters for economic health
A statement on:
 
 

 
From:  Osborne, MariAnn [mosborne@middlebury.edu]
May 3, 2008
Entrepreneur's Forum - May 10, 2008
 
Leading the Way from Throught to Action
MIDDLEBURY SOLUTIONS GROUP
ENTREPRENEUR'S FORUM
Saturday, May 10, 2008  8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
McCardell Bicentennial Hall, Room 216, Middlebury College
A reception will follow at 3:30 p.m. in the Great Hall of Bicentennial Hall