regional economic development. play work live metro milwaukee 4 county region

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT



PLAYWORK

LIVEREGIONAL ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT


Metro Milwaukee

4 County Region

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT1 New York2 Chicago3 Los Angeles4 Boston5 Philadelphia 6 Detroit7 Washington8 Pittsburgh9 Nassau-Suffolk10 St. Louis11 Cleveland12 Baltimore13 Minneapolis14 Newark15 Houston16 Atlanta17 Dallas18 Oakland19 New haven20 San Francisco21 Seattle22 Cincinnati23 Orange County

24 Milwaukee25 Kansas City26 San Diego27 Bergen-Passaic28 Buffalo29 Miami30 Indianapolis31 New Orleans32 Riverside33 Columbus34 Tampa35 Denver36 Norfolk37 Portland38 San Jose39 Phoenix40 Harford41 Rochester42 Dayton43 San Antonio44 Louisville45 Memphis46 Providence47 Middlesex48 Charlotte49 Greensburo50 Albany

1 New York2 Los Angeles3 Chicago 4 Boston5 Philadelphia6 Detroit 7 Washington8 Houston9 Nassau-Suffolk10 Pittsburgh11 St. Louis12 Cleveland13 Atlanta14 Minneapolis15 Baltimore16 Dallas17 Newark18 Orange county19 San Diego20 Oakland21 Seattle22 Miami23 Tampa24 Phoenix25 Riverside26 New Haven27 San Francisco28 Cincinnati29 Kansas City30 Denver

31 Milwaukee32 Portland33 New Orleans34 Indianapolis35 San Jose36 Bergen-Passaic37 Buffalo38 Columbus39 Norfolk40 San Antonio41 Harford42 Rochester43 Fort Lauderdale44 Fort Worth45 Sacramento46 Charlotte47 Louisville48 Greensboro49 Dayton50 Memphis

1 Los Angeles2 New York3 Chicago4 Boston5 Philadelphia6 Detroit7 Washington8 Houston9 Atlanta10 Dallas11 Riverside12 Nassau-Suffolk13 Minneapolis14 San Diego15 St. Louis16 Orange County17 Pittsburgh18 Baltimore19 Phoenix20 Cleveland21 Oakland22 Tampa23 Seattle24 Miami25 Newark26 New Haven27 Denver28 San Francisco29 Kansas City30 Cincinnati31 Spring?32 San Jose33 Norfolk

34 Milwaukee35 Indianapolis36 Sacramento37 Fort Worth38 Columbus39 San Antonio40 Bergen-Passaic41 New Orleans42 Fort Lauderdale43 Orlando44 Buffalo45 Charlotte46 Harland47 Salt Lake City48 Rochester49 Greensboro50 Middlesex

1 Los Angeles2 New York3 Chicago4 Boston5 Philadelphia6 Washington7 Detroit8 Houston9 Atlanta10 Dallas11 Riverside12 Phoenix13 Minneapolis14 Orange County15 San Diego16 Nassau-Suffolk17 St. Louis18 Baltimore19 Seattle20 Tampa21 Oakland22 Pittsburgh23 Miami24 Cleveland25 Denver26 Newark27 Portland28 Kansas City29 San Francisco30 Fort Worth31 New Haven32 San Jose33 Orlando34 Cincinnati35 Sacramento36 Fort Lauderdale37 Indianapolis38 San Antonio39 Las Vegas40 Norfolk41 Columbus42 Charlotte

43 Milwaukee44 Bergen-Passaic45 Salt Lake City46 New Orleans47 Austin48 Greensboro49 Nashville50 Raleigh

1970 198

0 1990

2000

Top 50 Metro MarketsBy population


Comparable metro areasMMAC Benchmarking Data 2004

Comparable MetrosPopulation

2003

BusinessEstablishments

2002

Total PersonalIncome (000)

2002

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 1,159,443 27,248 $33,076,270

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1,613,465 43,493 50,843,902

Cincinnati 1,672,866 40,504 53,979,513

Columbus 1,597,271 38,345 51,144,895

Indianapolis 1,674,493 42,594 53,937,962

Kansas City 1,843,550 49,117 59,813,244

Milwaukee 1,514,313 39,731 51,798,479

Minneapolis-St. Paul 3,083,637 87,843 115,502,490

Nashville 1,288,051 33,703 41,557,201

Orlando 1,802,986 47,229 48,431,436

Pittsburgh 2,338,671 59,370 76,452,229

Portland-Vancouver 2,029,966 57,262 64,526,301

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 1,294,691 34,586 41,650,936

Sacramento 1,791,768 39,208 54,948,318

Salt Lake City-Odgen 1,385,671 36,242 37,604,161

San Antonio 1,691,774 34,479 45,906,140

Milwaukee 1,514,313 39,731 51,798,479


Metro Job Trends: 1990-2004

19901990 %

total2004

2004 % total

Change 1990-2004

% Change 1990-2004

Total Nonfarm757,50

0832,300 74,800 9.9%

Educational & health services

91,500 12.1% 131,400 15.8% 39,900 43.6%

Professional & business services

77,100 10.2% 106,700 12.8% 29,600 38.4%

Manufacturing161,50

021.3% 134,100 16.1% -27,400 -17.0%

Leisure & hospitality 58,900 7.8% 65,100 7.8% 6,200 10.5%

Financial activities 52,500 6.9% 57,300 6.9% 4,800 9.1%

Other misc. sectors 86,700 11.4% 93,200 11.2% 6,500 7.5%

Government 85,900 11.3% 91,400 11.0% 5,500 6.4%

Trade, transportation & utilities

143,500 18.9% 152,500 18.3% 9,000 6.3%


Per capita personal income MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004

Comparable Metros 1997 2002 % Change

Sacramento $25,380 $31,477 24.0%

Pittsburgh 26,293 32,609 24.0%

Nashville 26,448 32,726 23.7%

Indianapolis 26,351 32,588 23.7%

Columbus 26,342 32,370 22.9%

Minneapolis-St. Paul 30,760 37,787 22.8%

San Antonio 22,519 27,655 22.8%

Milwaukee 28,009 34,308 22.5%

Kansas City 26,765 32,762 22.4%

Salt Lake City-Ogden 22,597 27,440 21.4%

Cincinnati 26,753 32,405 21.1%

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 26,568 32,174 21.1%

Orlando 22,948 27,587 20.2%

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 23,778 28,489 19.8%

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 27,781 32,921 18.5%

Portland-Vancouver 27,711 32,214 16.2%

Milwaukee 28,009 34,308 22.5%

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTFortune 500 Headquarters per 100,000 people MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004

Comparable MetrosFortune 500

Headquarters Population

Fortune 500 HQ’s per

100,000 people

Minneapolis-St. Paul 18 3,083,637 .58

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 9 1,613,465 .56

Cincinnati 9 1,672,866 .54

Milwaukee 8 1,514,313 .53

Columbus 5 1,514,313 .31

Pittsburgh 7 2,338,671 .30

San Antonio 5 1,691,774 .30

Indianapolis 4 1,674,493 .24

Nashville 3 1,288,051 .23

Kansas City 4 1,843,550 .22

Orlando 2 1,802,986 .11

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 1 1,294,691 .08

Salt Lake City-Ogden 1 1,385,671 .07

Portland-Vancouver 1 2,029,966 .05

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 0 1,159,443 .00

Sacramento 0 1,791,768 .00

Milwaukee 8 1,514,313 .53


Performing Arts Groups per 100,000 Pop.MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004

Comparable Metros # of Performing Arts Groups

Metro Populations Performing Arts Groups per 100,000

Population

Nashville 318 1,269,846 25.04

Orlando 92 1,755,572 5.24

Minneapolis-St. Paul 157 3,056,652 5.14

Milwaukee 64 1,509,818 4.24

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 41 1,265,174 3.24

Pittsburgh 75 2,344,507 3.20

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 45 1,580,291 2.85

Portland-Vancouver 55 2,003,043 2.75

Indianapolis 43 1,655,164 2.60

Kansas City 45 1,825,694 2.46

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 28 1,161,024 2.41

Salt Lake City-Ogden 33 1,370,423 2.41

Columbus 36 1,580,011 2.28

Cincinnati 37 1,665,755 2.22

San Antonia 35 1,659,965 2.11

Sacramento 36 1,745,655 2.06

Milwaukee 64 1,509,818 4.24


Minority Owned Businesses with Employees - 1997

Comparable Metros Number of Minority

Owned Businesses

Minority Population

Minority Owned Businesses per

100,000 Minority Pop.

San Antonio 9,320 965,207 965.6

Portland-Vancouver 3,013 353,324 852.8

Orlando 4,297 574,101 784.5

Nashville 1,850 271,193 682.2

Pittsburgh 1,693 258,194 655.7

Kansas City 2,451 384,570 637.3

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 2,540 431,699 588.4

Cincinnati 1,521 271,128 561.0

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 1,133 204,878 553.0

Columbus 1,663 301,861 550.9

Minneapolis-St. Paul 2,485 454,312 547.0

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 2,052 394,227 520.5

Sacramento 2,941 581,581 505.7

Indianapolis 1,547 308,175 502.0

Salt Lake City-Ogden 1,146 229,447 499.5

Milwaukee 1,572 384,591 408.7 Milwaukee 1,572 384,591 408.7


Region Milwaukee

7 County Region


What’s The Benefit?• Standing alone Waukesha competes

with the likes of Rockford and the Quad Cities

• Together, the 7 compete with anyone


Best Practices• Review of 20 peer regions• Written reports on best practices• Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati - MMAC/GMC/City of Milwaukee on-site visits

•Buffalo-Niagara Falls

•Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill

•Cincinnati

•ColumbusIndianapolis

•Kansas City

•MILWAUKEE

•Minneapolis-St. Paul

•Nashville

•Orlando

•Pittsburgh

•Portland-Vancouver

•Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill•Sacramento

•Salt Lake City-Odgen

•San Antonio

•Baltimore

•Cleveland

•Boston

•Oakland

•Detroit


Lessons Learned• Regional approach in all cases

• A success regional strategy must include a focus on the central city

• Entities are private sector, often chambers with affiliate organizations

• Business retention, expansion, and attraction are core of ED programs

• Web-based systems are standard and expected tools

• Economic development programs with dedicated funded at $2 to $4 million


Retention/Attraction/Expansion of New Regional Income

Metro Milwaukee Region

Providers of Goods

Providers of Services

New Regional Income


Regional Economic Development Advisory Council

• Thirty Two member advisory council made up of business, economic development and government and community leaders from the region

• Co-chaired by the Mayor of Milwaukee, MMAC and GMC chairs

• Full Council meets 4 times per year to assess progress and identify results

Executive Partners

Business Milwaukee

Launch Initiatives:

• Regional call program to identify specific company issues and broad trends

• One stop business attraction and expansion

• Link the region’s inner cities to regional growth opportunities.

• Execute a regional branding and marketing effort to coordinate and unify a regional message


Regional Economic Development Advisory Council

• Seven member executive team, made up of co-chairs and other key economic development campaign leaders

• Meet quarterly to address implementation of business plan for economic development

• Build agenda for full Economic Advisory Council

Business Milwaukee

• Co-branded team staffed by MMAC/MDC, GMC and Spirit of Milwaukee to execute on the business plan supporting the retention, expansion and attraction of business in greater Milwaukee

Goal: A world-class business environment to support the retention, expansion and attraction of companies in the greater

Milwaukee region.


EconomicDevelopment 2005-2006 Objectives

Key Initiatives• Regional Identity• Business Call Program• Business Attraction and Expansion

Website• Attraction & Retention of Diverse Talent• Regional Economic Development Advisory

Council• Develop infrastructure and policies for

Regional Resource Center.• Campaign Fundraising


Deliverables

• One regional strategy• Partnership between business and local government• Fact-based policy improvements• Business attraction and marketing tool with a

common regional brand• Central city initiative linked to regional growth

A competitive, world-classbusiness location

to live, work and play.


All for One, One for All


•May 24-25, 2005, Lake Geneva

•36 Influencers•Six counties•Over 15 various industries

Hosted by Mayor of Milwaukee, GMC & MMAC


Current Regional Marketing Efforts


OzaukeeArts /Culture

Milwaukee

Convention/Tourism

Walworth

Government

Washington

BusinessMedia

Kenosha

Realtors

Waukesha

Economic Development

Talent Recruitment

Racine

Higher Education

Future Ideal Promotional Model


Connectivity• Key Words, Publicity, Joint

Promotion drive traffic to website• Website pitches a global story, yet

drives qualified leads or curious parties to specific locations – e.g. Port Washington’s website


Regional Vision“To compete as a world-class

metropolis by 2010, Milwaukee and its

surrounding communities must present one face to the

world and ourselves – free from the borders of

geography, politics and industry – dedicated to

mutual support and collaboration.”


A Regional Identity – 2005-2006 Objectives

1. Assemble team of regional leaders to develop and implement guerrilla marketing initiatives

2. Develop an intra-regional identity campaign

3. Conduct a follow-up study on the 2002 benchmark research on local and national perceptions of the region.


12

10

8

6

4

2

0

$7.1 million

$8.9 million

$12.2 millionCAMPAIGN FUNDING


FOUNDING CONTRIBUTORS (to date)

PRIVATE SECTOR

• Robert W. Baird• The Bradley Foundation• Journal Communications• Northwestern Mutual• M&I Marshall & IIsley Bank• SBC Ameritech• We Energies

PUBLIC SECTOR

• City of Milwaukee• Kenosha/Milwaukee/ Racine/Waukesha Counties• State of Wisconsin

regional economic development. play work live metro milwaukee 4 county region

Documents