Idaho Economic Development District Region III One-Day Kick-Off Workshop Speaker Biographies and Presentation Materials

Idaho Economic Development District Region III One-Day Kick-Off Workshop Speaker Biographies and Presentation Materials Friday, September 8, 2017 Imagination Lab, 2 nd Floor, Room 2302 Micron Business and Economics Building Boise State University Main Campus Boise, Idaho University Center for Economic Development Nevada Leadership Program http://www.unr.edu/business/research-and-outreach/nevada-leadership

Speaker Biographies Richard Bartholet Mr. Bartholet is currently a Research Associate with the University Center for Economic Development in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno. Richard has previously served as the Director of Research for the University of Nevada, Reno s Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Manager of the University of Nevada, Reno s Business Environmental Program. Since 2002, Mr. Bartholet has been directly involved in the ongoing redevelopment of downtown Reno, Nevada. Between 2002 and 2012, Richard served as a member of the City of Reno Redevelopment Agency s Citizen Advisory Committee and Chaired the Committee between 2008 and 2010. Richard has also served as a Board Member of the Regional Alliance for Downtown since 2010, serving as President from 2012 to 2014. In this capacity, as both a Board Member and as President of the Regional Alliance for Downtown, Richard has worked closely with City of Reno Redevelopment Agency and City of Reno staff on a number of redevelopment initiatives in downtown Reno. Beyond redevelopment, Richard has been actively involved in strategic economic development planning through the state, most recently serving on the Steering Committee of the Las Vegas Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy and as Manager of Walker Basin Economic Development Activities. Richard earned his Bachelors of Science in Business Administration from Montana State University in 1973 and his Masters of Business Administration from the University of Nevada, Reno in 1975. Thomas Harris, PhD Tom Harris is a Foundation Professor in the Department of Economics in the College of Business; State Extension Specialists in Community and Economic Development in University of Nevada Cooperative Extension; faculty Member in the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station; and the Director of the University Center for Economic Development at the University of Nevada, Reno. He obtained his Ph.D. in agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University in 1981 and has been a member of the UNR faculty since 1981. Dr. Harris is also a fellow with the Western Rural Development Center. Dr. Harris has worked extensively in the Western U. S. in estimating economic and fiscal impacts for developments in the West, estimating potential economic clusters for development, and impacts from changes in public land management and surface water allocations policies. Dr. Harris s primary areas of teaching, research and extension are rural economic development, economic impact modeling, and feasibility studies.

Speaker Biographies Christine Frei As Executive Director for Clearwater Economic Development Association (CEDA), Christine Frei works with regional leaders and CEDA staff to develop and implement regional strategies for economic diversification, community development, and increased prosperity in the Idaho counties of Latah, Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Idaho. Christine has sixteen years of experience in planning and implementation and helping businesses and communities access needed resources. She oversees a staff of seven people and serves a 21-member Board of Directors. Christine has a Bachelor of Science from Lewis-Clark State College and a Masters in Religious Education from Loyola University New Orleans. She is a certified Professional Community and Economic Developer (PCEP) and Idaho Community Development Block Grant administrator. Ronald Radil Ron Radil was appointed the Western Nevada Development District s Executive Director in February 2005. Since 1982, he has worked for multi-jurisdictional organizations in Nebraska, Kansas, and Nevada. WNDD provides technical assistance to public and private sectors regarding economic and community development with a primary focus on diversifying the economic and tax base of the nine county WNDD region: Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Humboldt, Lyon, Mineral, Pershing, Storey and Washoe. WNDD utilized the Stronger Economies Together (SET) program, including a regional SET Team in 2012, to complete its 2014 WNDD Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Sarah Toevs, Phd Dr. Sarah Toevs directs the interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Aging and is a professor in the College of Health Sciences at Boise State University. She is actively engaged in supporting community-based efforts to maximize quality of life for individuals of all ages and creating positive learning experiences for students interested in aging related issues. Sarah holds a doctoral degree from the University of Utah and has been recognized by the Boise State s Women s Center as a Woman Making History. Dr Toevs serves as a resource for many local and state entities including the Idaho Commission on Aging, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, City of Boise, and Valley Ride Transit Authority. She enjoys an extensive network of community partners through her work with the Idaho Family Caregiver Alliance, Idaho Alzheimer s Planning Group, and the Idaho Public Health Association.

Speaker Biographies Frederick Steinmann, DPPD Frederick Steinmann currently works for the University of Nevada, Reno and the University Center for Economic Development. He began his professional economic development career with the Reno Redevelopment Agency in the City of Reno, Nevada. Since then, he has worked for the Nevada Small Business Development Center, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and for the Carson Economic Development Services Department in the City of Carson, California. Frederick has also worked as a Senior Associate for David Paul Rosen & Associates, one of the elite economic development and public policy consulting firms in California. Frederick earned his Doctorate in Policy, Planning, and Development, with areas of study including economic development, public policy, public finance, and real estate development, from the University of Southern California with the successful defense of his dissertation titled, The Twilight of the Local Redevelopment Era: The Past, Present, and Future of Urban Revitalization and Urban Economic Development in Nevada and California. He also earned a Bachelor s of Science and Masters of Science in Economics from the University of Nevada, Reno. Philip Watson, PhD Dr. Philip Watson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Idaho. Dr. Watson is a natural resource and regional economist whose research focuses on the role of natural resources in the economic health of communities and evidence based economic development planning. He is a teaching and research faculty member and is jointly appointed in the Bioregional Planning Graduate Program and affiliated with the Environmental Science Graduate Program. Dr. Watson has worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, National Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and possess a quantitative background in Computer General Equilibrium (CGE) modeling, input-output analysis, benefit-cost analysis and spatial econometrics. Dr. Watson holds a B.S. from Taylor University, a Masters in Agriculture from Colorado State University, and a PhD from Colorado State University.

Presentation Material

Welcome! One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 Why are we here? Objectives Main Objective: To begin work on developing a collaborative administrative framework for Region III that meets the shared economic development needs of the ten counties and 42 municipalities that comprise Region III. Secondary Objective: To review current sociodemographic and economic trends in Region III and to develop a strong collaborative regional team. Our Presenters and Organizers Boise State University: Tim Dunnagan Ann Hubbert Kenneth Peterson Clearwater Economic Development Association: Christine Frei Idaho Department of Commerce: Jenny Hemly Jake Reynolds Region IV Development Association: Carleen Herring Joe Herring US Economic Development Administration: Frances Sakaguchi University of Idaho: James Toomey Phillip Watson University of Nevada, Reno: Richard Bartholet Thomas Harris Gregory Mosier Frederick Steinmann Western Nevada Development District Ronald Radil 1

The Agenda Use of the Stronger Economies Together (SET) IV Curriculum USDA Rural Development: The purpose of SET is to help communities and counties work together as a regional team in developing and implementing a high quality regional economic development plan that builds on the current and emerging economic strengths of their region. The Regional Team should consist of: Business and Industry Leaders Local, State, Federal and Regional Government Education Nonprofit, Voluntary & Faith-Based Groups Local Residents Composition of the Region: Ecological, Political, Administrative, Policy or Data Relevant, Economic, and Geographic The Agenda What we hope to accomplish today: 1. Overview and Review of the University Center for Economic Development s Past Assessment of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 2. Overview and Review of Current Socio-Demographic and Economic Conditions in Region III 3. Working Lunch: A Discussion Regarding the Benefits of Regional Economic Development Collaboration 4. SET Module 2, Regional Economic Development 101 5. SET Module 4, Developing Vision and Goals One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 2

Overview and Review of the University Center for Economic Development s Past Assessment of Idaho Economic Development District Region III One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 An Assessment of Idaho Economic Development District Region III University Center for Economic Development (UCED) contracted in 2015 by the US Economic Development Administration (EDA) to assess ongoing activity in Region III and identify alternative administrative and organizational approaches. Three Specific Objectives: Collect and analyze socio-economic data and trends to determine linkages between the counties in Region III and other economic development districts. Collect data and analyze past Region III organizational issues. Develop suggested organizational changes for Region III. Result was publication of UCED Technical Report 2016/17-04 An Assessment of. An Assessment of Idaho Economic Development District Region III Four Developed Alternatives: 1. Maintain the current structure of Region III but transfer administration of Region III to the two (at the time) existing resource conservation and development districts that cover the same ten-county area of Region III (Southwest Idaho RC&D and West Central Highlands RC&D). 2. Divide and assign the existing Region III counties between Region III (Clearwater Economic Development Association) and Region IV (located in Twin Falls) with the core remaining counties of Ada and Canyon counties remaining in Region III. 3. Maintain the existing Region III structure and continue to rely on existing administrative structures to implement and administer Region III s current Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for 2014 to 2018. 4. Maintain the existing Region III structure and develop an entirely new and independent regional economic development authority and eventually develop a new Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Region III. 1

One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 2

Current Socio-Demographic and Economic Conditions in Region III One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 Jurisdiction Table 2.2 Residential Population Density by Square Mile Total Residential Population 2015 Square Miles Residential Population Density per Square Mile State of Idaho 1,654,806 83,800 19.75 Ada County 434,211 1,060 409.63 Adams County 3,843 1,370 2.81 Boise County 7,058 1,907 3.70 Canyon County 207,478 604 343.51 Elmore County 25,876 1,301 19.89 Gem County 16,852 566 29.77 Owyhee County 11,301 7,697 1.47 Payette County 22,896 410 55.84 Valley County 10,103 3,733 2.71 Washington County 9,984 1,474 6.77 All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 749,602 20,122 37.25 The counties of Ada County, Canyon County, and Elmore County, which are primarily connected via the U.S. Interstate 84 corridor, are highlighted. Population Distribution Three district geographic areas (based on population density): Primary Urban Region: Ada and Canyon counties; Avg. Residential Population Density of 171.75 people per one square mile. Secondary Suburban Region: Elmore, Gem, and Payette counties; Avg. Residential Population Density of 35.17 people per one square mile. Primary Exurban Region: Adams, Boise, Owyhee, Washington, and Valley counties; Avg. Residential Population Density of 3.49 people per one square mile. 1

Journey to Work: Percentage of County Residents by County All Counties County of Residence County of Work Ada Adams Boise Canyon Elmore Gem Owyhee Payette Valley Washington Ada 92.2% 0.8% 37.3% 34.1% 9.1% 32.1% 9.5% 6.8% 2.5% 4.2% Adams 0.04% 67.9% 0.0% 0.02% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 1.0% Boise 0.3% 0.0% 53.7% 0.2% 0.03% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% Canyon 4.8% 2.8% 0.8% 60.4% 0.7% 8.8% 32.4% 6.0% 0.2% 4.5% Elmore 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 85.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gem 0.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.2% 0.4% 49.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Owyhee 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4% 0.0% 50.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Payette 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 2.3% 0.3% 48.8% 0.0% 9.0% Valley 0.1% 22.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 89.2% 0.2% Washington 0.03% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 64.8% Other Idaho Counties Outside Idaho in US 0.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 0.7% 2.7% 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% 4.2% 2.5% 0.8% 4.2% 3.0% 35.3% 2.8% 15.6% Outside of US 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.03% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Jurisdiction Table 2.3 Total Residential Population 2010 to 2015 Total Residential Population 2010 Total Residential Population 2015 Percentage Change in Total Population 2010 to 2015 State of Idaho 1,567,582 1,654,806 5.6% Ada County 392,365 434,211 10.7% Adams County 3,976 3,843-3.3% Boise County 7,028 7,058 0.4% Canyon County 188,923 207,478 9.8% Elmore County 27,038 25,876-4.3% Gem County 16,719 16,852 0.8% Owyhee County 11,526 11,301-2.0% Payette County 22,623 22,896 1.2% Valley County 9,862 10,103 2.4% Washington County 10,198 9,984-2.1% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 690,258 749,602 8.6% Jurisdiction Table 2.6 Median Age 2010 to 2014 Median Age 2010 Median Age 2014 Percent Change in Median Age 2010 to 2014 State of Idaho 34.4 35.2 2.3% Ada County 34.4 35.5 3.2% Adams County 46.1 51.3 11.3% Boise County 46.3 50.6 9.3% Canyon County 31.0 32.5 4.8% Elmore County 29.5 30.7 4.1% Gem County 41.7 43.8 5.0% Owyhee County 35.3 37.1 5.1% Payette County 36.9 38.2 3.5% Valley County 45.1 48.9 8.4% Washington County 42.9 44.3 3.3% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 38.9 41.3 6.1% 2

Jurisdiction Table 2.7 Occupancy and Vacancy Housing Characteristics 2014 Total Occupied Housing Units Total Vacant Housing Units Homeowner Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate State of Idaho 585,259 90,162 2.2% 5.9% Ada County 154,408 8,358 1.9% 3.9% Adams County 1,643 999 1.9% 14.8% Boise County 3,038 2,284 1.0% 1.1% Canyon County 64,514 5,615 2.9% 4.8% Elmore County 9,682 2,503 2.6% 13.7% Gem County 6,400 696 2.7% 9.7% Owyhee County 3,888 884 2.6% 5.6% Payette County 8,818 760 0.8% 5.7% Valley County 3,240 8,585 4.3% 13.9% Washington County 3,897 642 3.5% 4.3% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 259,528 31,326 2.4% (Average) 7.8% (Average) Table 2.8 Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Household Size Characteristics 2014 Jurisdiction Average Household Size Owner-Occupied Units Average Household Size Renter-Occupied Units State of Idaho 2.72 2.60 Ada County 2.65 2.51 Adams County 2.31 2.45 Boise County 2.25 2.18 Canyon County 3.00 2.94 Elmore County 2.61 2.69 Gem County 2.56 2.67 Owyhee County 2.89 2.90 Payette County 2.78 2.59 Valley County 2.72 3.61 Washington County 2.63 2.31 All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 2.64 (Average) 2.69 (Average) Table 2.10 Percent of Civilian Workforce At or Below Poverty Status 2014 Jurisdiction In Civilian Labor Force State of Idaho 15.6% Ada County 12.8% Adams County 14.6% Boise County 15.9% Canyon County 20.4% Elmore County 17.0% Gem County 18.1% Owyhee County 27.4% Payette County 18.5% Valley County 12.0% Washington County 15.5% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 17.2% (Average) 3

Table 2.11 Median Household Income, Median Family Income, and Per Capita Income 2014 Jurisdiction Median Household Income Median Family Income Per Capita Income State of Idaho $47,334 $56,922 $23,087 Ada County $55,805 $68,197 $28,318 Adams County $38,583 $46,789 $21,275 Boise County $41,194 $57,155 $25,562 Canyon County $43,108 $48,688 $17,954 Elmore County $43,516 $51,098 $21,016 Gem County $41,969 $49,892 $20,623 Owyhee County $32,589 $40,069 $16,733 Payette County $44,326 $52,945 $20,332 Valley County $49,722 $59,250 $23,880 Washington County $36,483 $46,539 $19,342 All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III $42,730 (Average) $52,062 (Average) $21,504 (Average) Table 2.12 Educational Attainment Levels as a Percentage of the Population 25 to 64 Years of Age 2014 Jurisdiction Less than High School Graduate High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) Some College or Associate s Degree Bachelor s Degree or Higher State of Idaho 9.9% 26.6% 37.2% 26.3% Ada County 5.5% 20.3% 36.4% 37.8% Adams County 5.1% 37.3% 35.1% 22.5% Boise County 8.2% 24.7% 40.8% 26.2% Canyon County 16.3% 30.7% 35.3% 17.7% Elmore County 13.0% 29.3% 40.1% 17.5% Gem County 10.6% 37.7% 34.7% 17.0% Owyhee County 25.4% 35.9% 29.3% 9.5% Payette County 11.0% 34.2% 39.0% 15.7% Valley County 7.7% 30.8% 28.5% 33.0% Washington County 16.1% 32.3% 36.8% 14.8% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 11.9% (Average) 31.3% (Average) 35.6% (Average) 21.2% (Average) One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 4

Idaho Economic Development Region III One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 2017 Idaho Health Ranking (darker shading = lower rank) Estimates of future health Health Behaviors Smoking Obesity Access to food Alcohol Use Clinical Care Uninsured Access (Medical, Mental, Dental) Social and Economic Factors Education Unemployment Children in Poverty Violent Crimes Physical Environment Air and Water Housing Commute Time Jurisdiction Table 2.6 Median Age 2010 to 2014 Median Age 2010 Median Age 2014 Percent Change in Median Age 2010 to 2014 State of Idaho 34.4 35.2 2.3% Ada County 34.4 35.5 3.2% Adams County 46.1 51.3 11.3% Boise County 46.3 50.6 9.3% Canyon County 31.0 32.5 4.8% Elmore County 29.5 30.7 4.1% Gem County 41.7 43.8 5.0% Owyhee County 35.3 37.1 5.1% Payette County 36.9 38.2 3.5% Valley County 45.1 48.9 8.4% Washington County 42.9 44.3 3.3% All of Idaho Economic Development District Region III 38.9 41.3 6.1% 1

The Shift in Age: the new normal Permanent change in the age composition Most of population aging has yet to occur Ratio of working adult to older adult (IDoL) 2010: 6:1 2020: 3:1 Changes in retirement income favor work over leisure Social security Pensions Savings 2

Graphic source: http://findlayfoods.com/is-the-glass-half-full-or-half-empty The Value Proposition of Shift in Age Economic Benefits Older adults are an important part of the workforce Attracting and retaining older adults is an economic development strategy Retail Health care and other services Older adults start more new businesses than younger adults Continued work later in life brings economic benefits to community and individual 3

The Value Proposition for Communities Older adults stimulate development of new companies, products and services Older adults generate tourism dollars Bruneau Overlook in Owyhee County New fully accessible attraction Scenic Opportunities Owyhee Uplands Back Country Byway Weiser River Trail Graphics: https://clikrf8.wordpress.com/tag/owyhee/; http://www.worldbiking.info/wordpress/2016/06/a-change-ofplans-bicycle-touring-on-idahos-weiser-river-trail/ The Value Proposition for Communities Social Capital Older adults provide care and resources across generations Spouse caring for spouse Grandparents caring for grandchildren Engage as volunteers and in community activities Older adults support charities, schools and churches 4

Maximizing the Value Housing and Transportation Creative Modes of Transport (Uber, Ride Share) Walkability Strategic Access to Health Services Community Health Paramedics Community Health Workers Family Caregivers Personal Care Service Workers Tele-health Maximizing the Value Social Services and Supports Area Agencies on Aging Local Non-profit Organizations Idaho Fit and Fall Proof Program Phone-based supports Idaho 2-1-1 Careline Community Involvement Volunteer opportunities Faith-based engagement Fit and Fall Proof Class Involvement in city and county decision-making Thank you BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY, CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF AGING Dr. Sarah Toevs stoevs@boisestate.edu 208 426-2452 5

IDAHO DISTRICT III: SOME ECONOMIC DIAGNOSTICS AND DIAGNOSIS PHILIP WATSON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO 5/24/2017 District III EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Wage & Salary Proprietors District III GROSS EMPLOYMENT Gross Employment by Sector in 2015 BEA estimates roughly 433,000 jobs in the region (including proprietors) Sector Gross Employment Percent of Employment Gross Employment Rank 92 Government 53,541 12.36% 1 541 Professional,scientific, and tech svcs 29,028 6.70% 2 561 Admin support svcs 28,396 6.55% 3 722 Food svcs and drinking places 28,185 6.50% 4 230 Construction 27,470 6.34% 5 531 Real estate 19,033 4.39% 6 621 Ambulatory health care 18,773 4.33% 7 622 Hospitals 15,393 3.55% 8 42 Wholesale Trade 14,861 3.43% 9 813 Religious, civic, grantmaking, and similar orgs 10,301 2.38% 10 1

District III BASE EMPLOYMENT Base Employment by Sector in 2015 Tells a different story about the importance of sectors in the region s economy Base Base Percent of Sector Employment Employment Employment Rank Households 110,606 25.52% 1 92 Government 75,656 17.46% 2 230 Construction 47,141 10.88% 3 541 Professional, scientific, and tech svcs 27,139 6.26% 4 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 26,962 6.22% 5 311 Food products manuf 22,720 5.24% 6 42 Wholesale Trade 9,892 2.28% 7 813 Religious, civic, grantmaking, and similar orgs 8,852 2.04% 8 561 Admin support svcs 8,706 2.01% 9 112 Livestock 7,017 1.62% 10 District III QUANTITATIVE SWOT How is the region performing relative to other regions and over time? Use Location Quotients (LQ) and % change in LQ LQ is a measure of relative concentration Proxy for competitive advantage Space (LQ) O W Time (Change in LQ over last 5 10 years) S T District III STRENGTH SECTORS Avg Wage of Strength Sectors: $62,974 Sector 2015 LQ 2008 LQ % Change LQ S.W.O.T Emp Avg Wage National Avg Wage Wage Diff. 334 Computer 3.856 2.17 77.75% Strength 8,567 $129,094 $129,469 $375 & oth electron 321 Wood Products 2.733 0.901 203.42% Strength 2,805 $44,346 $49,679 $5,333 112 Livestock 2.246 1.475 52.25% Strength 6,015 $48,646 $43,838 $4,808 454 Non store retailers 1.788 0.902 98.09% Strength 7,427 $29,688 $25,381 $4,306 315 Apparel 1.371 0.485 182.69% Strength 551 $21,786 $37,747 $15,961 622 Hospitals 1.368 0.970 41.08% Strength 15,394 $78,155 $79,057 $902 813 Religious grantmaking & 1.362 0.611 122.97% Strength 10,301 similar orgs $45,937 $46,496 $558 113 Forestry & Logging 1.170 0.868 34.71% Strength 389 $35,453 $47,962 $12,509 312 Beverage & Tobacco 1.154 0.730 58.15% Strength 657 $38,231 $78,914 $40,682 441 Motor veh & parts dealers 1.118 0.362 208.69% Strength 3,746 $55,525 $59,957 $4,432 452 General merch stores 1.057 0.590 79.25% Strength 7,523 $29,375 $28,154 $1,221 532 Rental & leasing svcs 1.038 0.806 28.77% Strength 1,849 $28,611 $68,254 $39,642 92 Government 1.034 0.945 9.38% Strength 53,542 $61,632 $75,422 $13,789 221 Utilities 1.025 0.822 24.65% Strength 1,611 $124,248 $144,348 $20,100 484 Truck transportation 1.022 0.246 316.05% Strength 4,959 $52,450 $57,234 $4,784 521 Monetary authorities 1.005 0.956 5.21% Strength 4,016 $59,843 $84,527 $24,684 42 Wholesale Trade 1.005 0.380 164.56% Strength 14,862 $75,677 $87,286 $11,609 2

District III WEAK SECTORS Avg Wage of Weak Sectors: $41,118 Sector 2015 LQ 2008 LQ % Change LQ S.W.O.T Emp Avg Wage National Avg Wage Wage Diff. 524 Insurance carriers & related 0.973 1.025 5.09% Weakness 6,502 $59,364 $81,113 $21,749 339 Miscellaneous mfg 0.900 7.792 88.45% Weakness 1,405 $36,790 $75,835 $39,045 624 Social assistance 0.882 1.135 22.32% Weakness 9,053 $21,738 $25,055 $3,317 711 Performing arts & spectator sports 0.857 0.999 14.28% Weakness 3,682 $9,153 $33,316 $24,163 551 Management of companies 0.793 1.162 31.78% Weakness 4,285 $94,930 $126,007 $31,077 523 Securities & other financial 0.767 1.055 27.32% Weakness 6,179 $41,136 $74,935 $33,799 448 Clothing & accessories stores 0.730 0.744 1.93% Weakness 2,696 $21,810 $26,646 $4,837 337 Furniture & related prod 0.714 1.096 34.85% Weakness 690 $25,667 $49,239 $23,572 814 Private households 0.697 0.771 9.58% Weakness 2,203 $9,807 $15,843 $6,036 487 Sightseeing transportation 0.645 1.022 36.88% Weakness 1,084 $46,779 $68,826 $22,047 493 Warehousing & storage 0.606 1.061 42.92% Weakness 1,422 $37,275 $45,980 $8,705 512 Motion picture & sound recording 0.508 0.646 21.37% Weakness 577 $11,603 $73,466 $61,863 333 Machinery Mfg 0.441 4.459 90.12% Weakness 1,158 $64,783 $82,977 $18,194 314 Textile Products 0.286 0.619 53.79% Weakness 82 $42,876 $48,464 $5,588 326 Plastics & rubber prod 0.285 0.421 32.32% Weakness 463 $42,965 $63,542 $20,578 322 Paper Manufacturing 0.274 0.924 70.39% Weakness 237 $81,160 $89,101 $7,941 335 Electircal eqpt & appliances 0.226 2.171 89.61% Weakness 208 $77,911 $84,698 $6,787 211 Oil & gas extraction 0.172 0.254 32.21% Weakness 322 $167,216 $128,890 $38,326 486 Pipeline transportation 0.170 9.163 98.15% Weakness 19 $93,216 $548,644 $455,428 331 Primary metal mfg 0.134 1.894 92.95% Weakness 124 $39,411 $78,007 $38,596 325 Chemical Manufacturing 0.133 0.253 47.37% Weakness 242 $76,525 $129,915 $53,389 District III OPPORTUNITIES Avg Wage of Opportunity Sectors: $40,476 Sector 2015 LQ 2008 LQ Percent Change SWOT 2015 EMP Ave Wage Average Wage USA Wage Difference 517 Telecommunications 1.000 0.937 6.72% Oppertunity 2,207 $56,998 $90,355 $33,357 713 Amusement gambling & recreation 0.998 0.802 24.43% Oppertunity 4,684 $15,670 $24,429 $8,759 621 Ambulatory health care 0.978 0.903 8.34% Oppertunity 18,774 $52,568 $70,357 $17,789 515 Broadcasting 0.952 0.506 88.05% Oppertunity 735 $62,160 $235,483 $173,323 722 Food svcs & drinking places 0.941 0.887 6.14% Oppertunity 28,185 $19,450 $23,411 $3,961 212 Mining 0.918 0.872 5.22% Oppertunity 522 $31,774 $78,273 $46,499 541 Professional scientific & tech svcs 0.878 0.822 6.80% Oppertunity 29,029 $58,232 $85,815 $27,583 327 Nonmetal mineral prod 0.862 0.089 865.57% Oppertunity 847 $47,600 $64,226 $16,625 562 Waste mgmt & remediation svcs 0.845 0.507 66.78% Oppertunity 843 $65,703 $67,928 $2,225 518 Internet & data process svcs 0.841 0.792 6.21% Oppertunity 856 $67,502 $103,692 $36,190 812 Personal & laundry svcs 0.828 0.649 27.60% Oppertunity 7,620 $22,348 $27,321 $4,973 623 Nursing & residential care 0.815 0.709 15.01% Oppertunity 6,448 $30,987 $37,335 $6,348 522 Credit intermediation & related 0.811 0.725 11.80% Oppertunity 2,050 $68,237 $91,335 $23,099 49A Postal service, couriers & messengers 0.806 0.357 125.67% Oppertunity 2,804 $55,092 $58,481 $3,389 446 Health & personal care stores 0.771 0.612 25.94% Oppertunity 2,226 $35,403 $42,677 $7,274 445 food & beverage stores 0.769 0.299 156.83% Oppertunity 5,097 $50,285 $31,448 $18,837 511 Publishing industries 0.768 0.261 193.84% Oppertunity 1,514 $46,897 $105,480 $58,583 332 Fabricated metal prod 0.605 0.371 63.16% Oppertunity 2,105 $44,888 $65,988 $21,100 District III THREATS Avg Wage of Opportunity Sectors: $38,386 Sector 2015 LQ 2008 LQ % Change LQ S.W.O.T Emp Avg Wage National Avg Wage Wage Diff. 115 Ag 1.717 2.074 17.24% Threat 2,143 $39,008 $36,582 $2,426 & Forestry Svcs 519 Other information services 1.573 1.769 11.08% Threat 942 $76,641 $174,939 $98,299 451 Sports hobby book & music stores 1.528 3.649 58.12% Threat 2,797 $23,879 $24,630 $751 111 Crop Farming 1.514 1.538 1.55% Threat 5,226 $53,711 $43,771 $9,940 311 Food products 1.455 1.479 1.67% Threat 6,032 $58,137 $54,419 $3,718 316 Leather & Allied 1.430 37.880 96.23% Threat 113 $25,748 $53,262 $27,514 453 Misc retailers 1.301 2.087 37.67% Threat 4,973 $22,622 $23,086 $464 443 Electronics & appliances stores 1.228 2.739 55.15% Threat 1,623 $53,284 $55,737 $2,453 230 Construction 1.179 1.344 12.34% Threat 27,470 $45,843 $56,073 $10,230 447 Gasoline stations 1.170 1.499 21.90% Threat 2,588 $30,252 $37,124 $6,871 531 Real estate 1.147 1.448 20.82% Threat 19,033 $15,630 $25,373 $9,742 444 Bldg materials & garden dealers 1.114 1.783 37.50% Threat 3,468 $42,331 $40,909 $1,422 561 Admin support svcs 1.072 1.343 20.13% Threat 28,396 $32,754 $37,293 $4,538 442 Furniture & home furnishings 1.066 1.102 3.27% Threat 1,321 $42,225 $42,699 $473 811 Repair & maintenance 1.056 1.251 15.56% Threat 7,689 $55,120 $55,315 $195 525 Funds trusts & other finan 1.021 1.366 25.24% Threat 1,574 $115,539 $44,370 $71,169 3

District III WAGES Sector Gross Employment Ave wage U.S. Average Difference 92 Government 53,541.6 $61,632 $75,422 13,790 541 Professional,scientific, and tech svcs 29,028.7 $58,232 $85,815 27,583 561 Admin support svcs 28,396.3 $32,754 $37,293 4,539 722 Food svcs and drinking places 28,185.0 $19,450 $23,411 3,961 230 Construction 27,470.0 $45,843 $56,073 10,230 531 Real estate 19,033.4 $15,630 $25,373 9,743 621 Ambulatory health care 18,773.8 $52,568 $70,357 17,789 622 Hospitals 15,393.8 $78,155 $79,057 902 42 Wholesale Trade 14,861.8 $75,677 $87,286 11,609 813 Religious, civic, grantmaking, and 10,301.0 similar orgs $45,937 $46,496 559 Overall Average Wage $47,461 $58,688 11,227 District III REGIONAL WAGES Average wages in a region vary greatly from place to place Idaho ranks 43 rd in average wage paid Much has been made of this ranking by academics, politicians, and pundits in the state However, we first must have a better understanding for what is causing this ranking State Annual mean wage (2016) National Rank Alaska $56,710 6 Washington $55,810 9 Oregon $49,710 17 US Average $49,630 Idaho $41,910 43 Montana $41,440 46 INDUSTRY MIX VERSUS WAGES The average wage in a region can be low (or high) because The jobs pay below the national average wage for the given sector Even if the industry mix is similar to the U.S. The region is over concentrated in low paying sectors Even if the average wage by sector is similar to the U.S. 4

AVERAGE WAGE DIFFERENCES WAGE EFFECT MAP INDUSTRY MIX EFFECT MAP 5

-23175.605843 - -10170.100678-10170.100677 - -3808.869064-3808.869063-2437.119078 2437.119079-9975.809418 9975.809419-20349.272292 20349.272293-38977.189791 38977.189792-69772.071703-23175.605843 - -10170.100678-10170.100677 - -3808.869064-3808.869063-2437.119078 2437.119079-9975.809418 9975.809419-20349.272292 20349.272293-38977.189791 38977.189792-69772.071703 9/2/2017 INTERACTION EFFECT WAGE DIFFERENCES Legend Legend Deschutes, OR Multnomah, OR Lane, OR 11,331 2,277 Diff 1,642 Wage 4,868 1,163 876 Mix 2,555 10,975 3,249 Interac 671 807 179 Washington, Boise County, Valley, ID Adams, ID ID Payette, ID Gem, ID ID Canyon, ID Ada, ID Elmore, ID Owyhee, ID 3,523 7,328 9,343 7,039 Wage Diff 3,770 7,971 4,123 4,671 6,786 7,231 Wage Effect 593 1,769 6,769 880 5,587 2,599 1,260 1,686 17,183 5,524 Mix Effect 405 6,151 2,230 6,089 2,476 6,107 1,920 6,714 8,746 724 Int 3,582 3,588 8,662 538 9,896 3,724 2,862 1,072 16,586 11,839 District III EDUCATION There represent the education that the jobs in the region normally require, not necessarily the actual education of the region Percent CODE Present LQ Past LQ SWOT Education Level Change Less than a High School Diploma 1 1.009 1.008 0.13% Strength High School Diploma (or GED or High School 2 1.011 1.031 1.96% Threat Equivalence Certificate) Post Secondary Certificate awarded for 3 0.992 1.041 4.69% Weakness training completed after high school Some College Courses 4 1.004 0.992 1.19% Strength Associate's Degree (or other 2 year degree) 5 1.001 0.982 1.92% Strength Bachelor's Degree 6 0.978 0.949 3.09% Oppertunity Post Baccalaureate Certificate awarded for completion of an organized program of 7 0.962 0.965 0.32% Weakness study; Master's Degree 8 0.980 0.913 7.37% Oppertunity Post Master's Certificate awarded for 9 0.981 0.937 4.69% Oppertunity completion of an organized program of study First Professional Degree awarded for completion of a program that: requires at 10 0.965 0.921 4.76% Oppertunity least 2 years of college work before entrance into the program Doctoral Degree 11 1.013 0.932 8.72% Strength Post Doctoral Training 12 1.000 0.898 11.43% Strength 6

District III EDUCATION Education Valley, ID Adams, ID Washington, ID Payette, ID Boise Gem, ID County, ID Canyon, ID Ada, ID Elmore, ID Owyhee, ID Actual % with Bachelors Degree or Higher 33.99% 20.79% 14.35% 14.96% 16.89% 24.78% 17.40% 36.39% 16.98% 9.01% Expected % with Bachelors Degree or Higher based on industry mix 19.41% 19.22% 17.34% 19.37% 18.41% 18.36% 21.67% 25.15% 24.11% 15.14% Difference 14.58% 1.57% 2.99% 4.41% 1.52% 6.42% 4.27% 11.24% 7.13% 6.13% District III CONCLUSIONS The region as a whole is economically one of the strongest in the state There are many shared concerns Infrastructure; job growth; relatively weak wages compared to U.S., but some signs of improvement Some unique challenges between the counties Education; wages by sector; industry mix; natural resource issues THANK YOU Philip Watson pwatson@uidaho.edu 7

PER CAPITA COMMUTER INCOME 8

Stronger Economies Together Module 2, Regional Economic Development 101 One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 Session Goals: SET Module 2 Examine the current economic development strategies being pursued within the region s communities or counties. Explore the region s demographic and workforce features as they pertain to Region III. Deliverable: Assessment of Region III s current activities, strengths, and concerns. High Quality Plan (HQP): Prepare a summary of key findings. Producing a High Quality Plan (HQP): The Essential Components Evidence- Based Aligned with Vision & Goals Team s Regional Plan Focused on Regional Economic Development Practical Broadly Supported 1

Elements of Economic Development Economy System for meeting the needs and wants of people in a particular geographic area Development Improvement in the well-being of residents in a particular geographic area Economic Development An expansion of the economic base through efficient allocation and use of available resources GOAL: An improved quality of life for people in the region The C.A.R.E Model Creation Encourage the formation of new businesses in the region Attraction Recruit industries or businesses to the region C.A.R.E. Retention Maintain or strengthen existing firms in the region Expansion Encourage the growth of existing firms in the region GROUP EXERCISE No. 1 With the people sitting at your table (20 Minutes): Categorize activities in your communities (county, city, organization, etc.) using the C.A.R.E Model. Use the post-it notes provided and divide one piece of flip chart paper into four quadrants (Creation, Attraction, Retention, Expansion). Make sure to note the name of the organization (county, city, etc.) that is currently implementing the written activity. For Discussion: Identify common activities and major differences. For Discussion: Examine the balance between activities in each component of the C.A.R.E model. Are current activities biased toward one or two elements (Creation, Attraction, Retention, or Expansion)? 2

Incorporating Data Analysis into your HQP Data Analysis of the Socio-Demographic and Economic Data Options: Cross-Sectional: look at the data at a fixed, single point in time. Comparative: examine the data in your community (territory) relative to other communities (territories) within Region III. Longitudinal: focus on changes in the data over time. GROUP EXERCISE No. 2 With the people sitting at your table (20 Minutes) answer these five questions for the socio-demographic and economic variables presented to you earlier: What conditions does the data describe? Example: my community s population is old. What direction of change does the data describe? Example: my community s population is getting older. What is the intensity of that change? Example: my community s population is aging at an increasing rate. How does my community (territory) compare with other communities? Example: my community is older and getting older at a greater rate than other communities. What overall picture does the data paint? Example: it will be harder to recruit businesses that depend on a younger population. One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 3

Stronger Economies Together Module 5, Developing Vision and Goals One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 SET Module 5 Session Goals: Designing a strong regional vision statement. Writing SMART goals. Deliverable: Draft a regional vision statement for Region III. Deliverable: Draft initial SMART goals for Region III. High Quality Plan (HQP): Prepare a summary of key findings. Something to Think About Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. - Japanese Proverb 1

What is Vision? Vision is the art of seeing the invisible. Johnathan Swift Vision helps focus the future on what you want to achieve. Expresses the hopes and dreams for a region. Describes what you want the region to be. What is Vision? Features of a Strong Vision Statement: Focuses on the future. Gives overall shape and direction to the future. Highlights its purposes and values. Inspires people, groups, and communities. Remains relevant for many years (beyond the scope of a strategic economic development plan). What is Vision? Five Steps in Building a Shared Vision: Step 1: Determine the focus of your vision statement. Your regional team? Economic development? Quality of life? Step 2: Seek input on hopes and aspirations for the region. Your team, key leaders and groups, area/regional residents, etc. Step 3: Determine common themes then prioritize. Determine which themes to keep and remove ideas that are less relevant. Step 4: Draft a vision statement from a key theme. Share draft with others and seek input. Step 5: Finalize your vision statement. 2

Examples of Other Vision Statements The Western Potomac Economic Partnership: The Western Potomac Economic Partnership will be a magnet for economic growth by attracting new, diverse businesses and investments from around the world. The region s economy will enjoy a global status that ensures superior job opportunities for residents. New Mexico: Develop a regionally integrated economy while honoring and protecting natural resources, rural lifestyles, "small town" values, traditions, and culture. Colorado: The Raton Basin Region is a model of economic prosperity and a healthy rural lifestyle throughout a multi-state and diverse cultural area. The Region thrives by cooperatively and collaboratively embracing cultural, economic, educational, technological, and social endeavors. GROUP EXERCISE No. 3 A Four Step Exercise in Developing a Shared Vision Statement: 1. Individually (5 Minutes): Reflect and answer the following questions: - What will Region III look like in 20 to 30 years? - How and where do people in Region III live and work? - What are your personal hopes and aspirations for Region III? 2. In Small Groups at Your Table (10 Minutes): Share your ideas and write down your conclusions on the following ideas: - Discuss your ideas from the previous step. - Determine and identify common themes. - Select the most important themes for the regional team s work. 3. Report Small Group Themes to the Whole Group (8 Minutes): - Identify common themes and opportunities. - Select the most important themes and opportunities. 4. Develop an Initial Draft of a Vision Statement (10 Minutes). Developing a SMART Goal A SMART goal is an observable and measurable outcome that you want to achieve within a specific period of time. 3

Developing a SMART Goal Consider the following elements: Regional data. Example: growing number of small businesses within the regional clusters. Economic strength (locally and regionally). Example: evidence of future growth in the clusters gives opportunity for related small business growth. Potential barriers that would impact the ability to achieve agreed upon goals. Example: lack of a trained and highly talented workforce. Local and regional assets that could be used to achieve agreed upon goals. Example: Small Business Development Center, community college, major research university, etc. Past history and past strategies what worked and what did not work and why. Example: business incubator successfully piloted in one county. Developing a SMART Goal Specific What do you want to achieve? Where will you focus your efforts? Measurable How do you plan to measure progress toward the goal? What is the end result and milestones along the way? Attainable Do you have the resources to achieve the goal? What factors might prevent achieving these goals? Relevant Is this important for your region to pursue? Does this that matter or bring benefit to the region? Time Framed When do you want to achieve your goal? What is the target date for accomplishing the goal? Developing a SMART Goal An Example of a SMART Goal: Relevant Specific Increase the survival rate of new business start-ups (less than 5 years old) from 50% to 75% in Region III by December 2019. Measurable Time-Framed Attainable 4

Developing a SMART Goal Before we begin our last exercise: Don t get bogged down in detail. Consensus is not necessary yet. GROUP EXERCISE No. 4 Develop Three SMART Goals for Region III: 1. In Small Groups at Your Table (15 Minutes): Develop three SMART Goals as a group. - Your goals should be SPECIFIC. - Your goals should be MEASURABLE. - Your goals should be ATTAINABLE. - Your goals should be RELEVANT. - Your goals should be TIME FRAMED. 2. When completed, post your three goals, all written on a single piece of flip chart paper, on the walls. 3. As an individual, use three sticky dots and place them on three goals that you are interested in pursuing (one per goal). Next Steps for Region III Initially, we will work on summarizing all this work and producing a University Center for Economic Development technical report with that summary. Assessment of Region III s current activities, strengths, and concerns. A draft strategic vision for Region III. A set of draft SMART goals for Region III. The summary will be provided to each of you for review and comment (by early 2018). Possible future workshops designed to build a new administrative and organizational structure for Region III and a possible new Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Region III. 5

One-Day Kick-Off Workshop September 8, 2017 6