St. Lawrence County Economic Development Study

St. Lawrence County

Economic Development Study

December 2015

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015

A Vision for St. Lawrence County

St. Lawrence County will be a leader among rural counties

for healthy, diversiﬁed, and sustainable economic development.

We will create a strong economy with vibrant small business

growth, increased tourism and recreation, re-purposed manufac-

turing, and sustainable and diversiﬁed agriculture, capitalizing on

our current strengths, assets, and attributes. The results will be

jobs, opportunities, and growth for our community.

The St. Lawrence County Economic Development Study Advisory Board

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................2

1. Background .......................................................................................................................4

Context and Summary of Diagnostic Findings ......................................................5

Selection and Prioritization Methodology ............................................................... 9

2. An Economic Development Blueprint for St. Lawrence County .................... 11

Vision and Portfolio of Economic Development Strategies ............................. 11

Impact Potential ............................................................................................................ 13

Investment Required and Sources of Funds ........................................................ 15

3. Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 16

Governance ....................................................................................................................16

Long-term Implementation Milestones ..................................................................17

Appendix: Supporting Materials .................................................................................. 19

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 1

Cover photos Left to Right: North Country Dairy in North Lawrence; Massena

neighborhood; boaters at Whittaker Park, Waddington, New York.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 2

Executive Summary

This Study, commissioned by the New York Power Authority

(NYPA), sets out a ﬁve-year economic development strategy

for St. Lawrence County. NYPA has a long-standing commit-

ment to the County—particularly the river communities of

Louisville, Massena, and Waddington—to ensure continued

economic development and best use of the many assets in

the region. NYPA funded this study as part of its commit-

ment under the ﬁrst 10-year review of the Relicensing

Settlement Agreement.

St. Lawrence County has faced challenging times over

the past ﬁve years. It has trailed peers and the state on

many macroeconomic indicators, including annual employ-

ment, gross domestic product growth, and poverty rates.

Industry is concentrated in non-tradable sectors like govern-

ment and healthcare, with above-average vacancy rates on

main streets. The agricultural sector is highly dependent on

volatile dairy prices, and the area’s manufacturing sector

has experienced a signiﬁcant decline.

The time for economic renewal is now. Despite recent

challenges, St. Lawrence County has many assets—partic-

ularly its abundant and low-cost power, water, and land;

high-caliber universities; and natural beauty—all of which

can serve as a base on which to build economic success in

the years ahead. Add in the many supportive trends (e.g.,

technological advances in manufacturing, heightened value

of ample water for agriculture) and an unprecedented level

of commitment from the Governor’s oce for upstate

revitalization, and St. Lawrence County has a unique

opportunity to reshape its economic future.

Through an economic development study blueprint

composed of a portfolio of mutually supportive strategies

emphasizing vibrant small business growth, increased

tourism and recreation, re-focused manufacturing, and

sustainable and diversiﬁed agriculture, St. Lawrence County

could create 1,000 to 1,900 new jobs and $105 million

to $190 million in annual incremental GDP by 2020 and

become a leader among rural counties in the region for

healthy, diversiﬁed, and sustainable economic development.

• Accelerating Agriculture and Agri-business: Through

diversiﬁcation and increased productivity, both within and

beyond the dairy business, the agricultural sector could

add 225 to 465 jobs over the next ﬁve years, and grow

GDP up to $60 million in 2020. The signature initiative,

which centers on greenhouse attraction, could create

more than 200 jobs and grow GDP by close to $18 million

in 2020.

• Renew Manufacturing: With initiatives to attract

new ﬁrms, develop the existing St. Lawrence County

workforce, and build an innovation collaboration fund, the

manufacturing sector could create 230 to 580 jobs over

the next ﬁve years, and grow GDP by close to $80 million

in 2020. The signature initiative, enhanced ﬁrm attraction,

could create more than 300 jobs and grow GDP by close

to $35 million in 2020.

Left to Right: North Country Dairy in North Lawrence; New York raised cow.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 3

• Expand Rural Small Business: By scaling existing

growth-oriented businesses, helping residents start new

small businesses, and adding entrepreneurial K-20

education curricula, small business could create more than

600 new jobs over the next ﬁve years and grow GDP by

at least $28 million by 2020. The signature initiative, the

Entrepreneur Accelerator, could create up to 150 new jobs

and grow GDP by close to $7 million by 2020.

• Revitalize Communities, Tourism, and Mindset:

Revitalization and tourism could rebuild main streets and

accelerate eorts to attract tourists, create more than

200 jobs over ﬁve years and grow GDP by more than $25

million by 2020.

This portfolio of strategies requires substantial resources

for implementation, as much as $300-400 million over

ﬁve years. The great majority of this will be private invest-

ments and performance-based tax and other investment

incentives, though other public resources will also play

an important implementation role. The amount of public

funds required (not including investment incentives) will

vary considerably depending on the pace of execution,

prioritization, and ﬁnal design of the strategies, though

could be as much as $30-40 million. St. Lawrence County

currently has access to local public sources of funds, but

they are fragmented, typically have mandated functions,

and are dicult for the average County resident to access.

In general, funds are administered by a number of invest-

ment attraction and economic development agencies

(EDAs) currently operating in St. Lawrence County.

The eort must be collective and focused. In the past, St.

Lawrence County has spread its resources thinly among

competing projects and across a host of strategies among

its many towns and villages. To make the best use of

these resources in the future, County leaders should

come together to implement a connected set of economic

development strategies and initiatives that can generate

renewal in St. Lawrence County’s economy. There is an

opportunity to streamline funding sources and enhance

current EDA capabilities, both for investment attraction

and broader delivery of economic development work.

Building on these existing funds and obtaining additional

funding through regional and state processes, there is the

potential for sucient money available to St. Lawrence

County for the public costs of implementation.

This study is organized into the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 provides the background and objectives of the

study, a description of the stakeholder- focused strategy

development processes, a summary of the diagnostic

ﬁndings and the approach to prioritization and selection of

the ﬁnal proposed strategies.

• Chapter 2 introduces an economic development blueprint

with a vision for the County and the four strategies tailored

to the County’s assets and opportunities. These mutually

reinforcing strategies will accelerate growth in two priori-

tized sectors: agriculture and manufacturing. They are also

underpinned by cross-cutting enablers focused on foster-

ing small business, and main street businesses, as well as

revitalization of tourism.

• Chapter 3 provides guidance on how to implement the

plan. This includes the overarching structures required to

create the appropriate capacity and capabilities to ensure

successful execution.

• Appendix contains a glossary, methodologies, summary

of stakeholder outreach and catalogue of potential public

funding sources.

Apprentice job-shadowing at Alcoa switchyard.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 4

1. Background

This document charts an exciting path for St. Lawrence

County’s economic growth and development. It is based on

a detailed examination of the region’s current performance

and potential, and was developed with substantial engage-

ment and input from local stakeholders. This study was

developed in two phases: a “diagnostic” research phase to

establish a common fact base and preliminary set of strate-

gies, followed by a detailed “design” phase to ﬁne-tune the

priority strategies and then craft proposed initiatives and

clear, actionable plans.

The diagnostic ﬁndings substantiated that the County has

faced dicult circumstances in recent years (e.g., declines

in manufacturing, low GDP growth), but that it also has

strong assets that can provide the foundation for vigorous

economic development in the years ahead. Critical assets in

the County include abundant, low-cost land and power, core

industries in manufacturing and agriculture, a concentration

of higher education institutions, and abundant natural assets

for outdoor activities and recreation.

Given a variety of trends supportive of rural renewal (e.g.,

technological advances supporting manufacturing growth,

changing consumer preferences and appreciation for local

produce, etc.) and an unprecedented level of commitment

from the Governor’s oce to upstate revitalization, St.

Lawrence County has a unique opportunity to reshape its

economic future.

Study objectives

For many years, NYPA has been, and continues to be,

committed to supporting economic development and

creating jobs across the North Country, speciﬁcally in

St. Lawrence County and the river communities.

NYPA is delivering on its commitment to the St. Lawrence

Local Government Taskforce to support the creation of

economic development strategies and a draft economic

development business plan for St. Lawrence County.

The study’s objective was to outline a transformational

economic development blueprint that could have a signiﬁ-

cant regional impact on the St. Lawrence County economy

and meaningful return on investment of public and private

funds in the County.

How the study was developed

The study was conducted from March to July 2015.

The work was comprised of two main phases:

• Diagnostic: Collection and review of existing studies and

data; face-to-face stakeholder engagement; expert inter-

views; best-practice and external research; quantitative

analysis and fact-based development.

• Design: Strategy and initiative development, including

creation of strategy-speciﬁc design working groups,

further expert interviews and stakeholder conversations,

case study, best practice research, and preliminary

modeling.

The principles and best practices that governed the study

work plan included:

• Locally owned: Engagement with community stake-

holders, including respected local leadership; initiative

co-development to ensure community support.

Tern habitat improvement.

Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 5

• Data-driven: Development of an analytical fact base to

create a common understanding of the opportunities and

challenges.

• Principles-based: Development and deployment of clear

criteria for investment decisions—to both endorse and

de-prioritize strategies and initiatives.

• Aspirational: Ideas and targets should be bold and trans-

formational—and accompanied by clear and ambitious

impact targets—to raise aspirations and make evident the

scale of change possible.

The design of project leadership and advisory groups, as

well as the stakeholder management processes, ensured

extensive local interaction and input, and the incorporation

of the collective expertise in the County. At the outset of the

study, an Advisory Board was convened that provided criti-

cal input throughout the duration of the eort. The Advisory

Board consisted of 20 County leaders, representing a

cross-section of government, business, and higher-educa-

tion leaders (see Appendix for complete list of participants).

In addition to ﬁve working sessions with the Board during

the study, the group provided subject matter experts for

“design teams” who oered input, along with other County

experts, to initiative design. Additionally, over the course

of the study, one-on-one meetings were held with a broad

representation of the area’s communities and leadership.

All in all, more than 130 unique stakeholders were engaged

in more than 300 interactions over the four months of the

study. This helped ensure that local insight shaped the

proposed strategies, and provided a strong basis for stake-

holder support and momentum going forward.

Context and Summary of Diagnostic Findings

A detailed diagnostic was conducted to assess the current

state and recent trends of St. Lawrence County’s strengths,

assets and opportunities. Diagnostic research included

analysis through ﬁve market “lenses”: 1. Economic sectors

and clusters, 2. Human capital, 3. Innovation and entrepre-

neurship, 4. Physical and virtual infrastructure, and 5. Public

and civic institutions (see Exhibit 1, below). Sectors refer to

deﬁned business segments of an economy, such as agricul-

ture, health care or retail trade. Clusters are geographic

concentrations of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and

associated institutions in a particular ﬁeld. Human capital

is the capabilities of a work force. Innovation and entrepre-

neurship are indicators of an economy’s ability to exploit

changes as opportunities for growth. These three drivers

(sectors, human capital and innovation) are related but

separate and each has an impact on economic growth. The

remaining two drivers, physical and virtual infrastructure and

public and civic institutions, are cross-cutting enablers that

aect the other drivers and economic growth. This analysis

was supplemented with a review of 20 peer counties and

relevant cross-cutting trends. This integrated diagnostic

provided a fact base for understanding the context and

needs of the County.

EXHIBIT 1: FIVE LENSES TO ASSESS THE COUNTY ECONOMY

EXHIBIT 1 : FIV E L ENSES T O A SSESS T HE COUN T Y ECON OMY

St. Lawrence County has endured tough times over the past several decades. A perfect storm of lower-

than-average population density, productivity, and education; concentration of economic activity in non-

tradable sectors like government and healthcare; and underutilization of plentiful physical assets has left

St. Lawrence trailing regional and national peer counties as they recover from the Great Recession.

To evaluate St. Lawrence County’s recent economic performance, a group of 20 U.S. counties was

chosen that most resemble the County. This peer group was identified using several criteria including size

and industry metrics (e.g., total GDP, GDP growth rate, population, employment, physical area, industry

concentration, etc.) as well as low urban influence. The peer group members, which include counties from

virtually all sections of the country, are listed below.

The metrics of St. Lawrence County’s economic recovery since 2009 were significantly lower than the

median of peers on GDP growth from 2009-14, and on employment growth – as shown below.

Diagnosis of performance and health: Five key market

evers drive economic growth

Enablers

1. Economic

Sectors &

Clusters

. Human

Capital

. Innovation &

Entrepreneurship

. Physical &

Virtual

Infrastructure

. Public & Civic

Institutions

Concentrations of industries,

functions, firms, and

occupations

Talent production, attraction,

retention, and matching to jobs

▪ Government efficiency

and efficacy

▪ Business and institutional

environment

▪ Tax value proposition

▪ Innovation performance

▪ Entrepreneurial ecosystem

Linkages and movement of

goods, people, and

information

ive Market Lenses

MARKET ANALYSIS

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 6

St. Lawrence County has endured tough times over the past

several decades. A perfect storm of lower-than-average

population density, productivity, and education; concen-

tration of economic activity in non-tradable sectors like

government and healthcare; and underutilization of plenti-

ful physical assets has left St. Lawrence trailing regional

and national peer counties as they recover from the Great

Recession.

To evaluate St. Lawrence County’s recent economic perfor-

mance, a group of 20 U.S. counties was chosen that most

resemble the County. This peer group was identiﬁed using

several criteria including size and industry metrics (e.g., total

GDP, GDP growth rate, population, employment, physical

area, industry concentration, etc.) as well as low urban

inﬂuence. The peer group members, which include counties

from virtually all sections of the country, are listed below.

The metrics of St. Lawrence County’s economic recovery

since 2009 were signiﬁcantly lower than the median of

peers on GDP growth from 2009-14, and on employment

growth—as shown below.

EXHIBIT 2 : ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF ST . L A WRENCE COUNTY V ERSUS PEERS

While St. Lawrence County’s economy has struggled, some of its peer counties (which started in similar

situations in 2009) were more successful economically. The historical performance of these peer counties

shows it is possible to change the trajectory of economic development. Top-performing peers had a clear

economic development strategy linked to their assets, including taking advantage of tourist attractions and

universities.

St. Lawrence County has a clear set of assets upon which it can build. It is rich in low-cost agricultural

land and plentiful water supplies, at a time when many food-producing areas are undergoing water stress

and urban pressures. Abundant low-cost, clean power is available for industry from the St. Lawrence-

FDR Power Project. St. Lawrence is highly unusual for a county of its size in boasting five colleges and

universities that specialize in complementary areas, providing ample supplies of talent, and supporting

research and entrepreneurial activity in the region. Moreover, the natural beauty of the region across all

seasons is a draw for residents and visitors alike.

Below are additional details on the diagnostic results, organized along the five market lenses. This

information was critical for the development of the strategies and initiatives for economic development in

St. Lawrence County.

Economic sectors and clusters

Peer select ion st art ed wit h all 3,0 85 US count ies, t hen priorit ized based on similarit y t o St . Lawrence

County based on factors such as GDP per capit a, population, area, indust ry mix, and distance from urban

areas. Peer group was comprised of 20 counties.

shows that a change in trajectory is possible

Source: Moody’s Analytics

-1.1

-0.5

-0.4

-0.1

0.2

0.4

0.7

0.8

1.1

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.8

2.0

3.0

3.2

4.9

Median = 1.3%

Grant County (WI)

Raleigh County (WV)

Humboldt County (CA)

Twin Falls County (ID)

Gallatin County (MT)

Mendocino County (CA)

Tehama County (CA)

Tuolumne County (CA)

Coos County (OR)

Linn County (OR)

Clearfield County (PA)

Josephine County (OR)

Riley County (KS)

Hancock County (ME)

Northumberland County (PA)

Umatilla County (OR)

Athens County (OH)

Otter Tail County (MN)

Somerset County (PA)

Lauderdale County (MS)

t Lawrence County (NY)

GDP per capita growth

CAGR, 2009-2014

Employment growth

CAGR, 2009-2014

-0.3

-0.6

1.6

0.9

0.1

-0.2

0.9

1.0

0.6

0.9

0.6

1.1

2.8

0.8

-0.3

1.4

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

Median = 0.9%

Counties without

Interstate

▪

Since 2009, St.

Lawrence County’s

annual growth rate

has trailed peers by

1.8 percentage

points on

GDP/capita, and

1.5 percentage

points on

employment growth

▪

40% of the peer

counties share St.

Lawrence County’s

lack of Interstate

access

EXHIBIT 2: ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY VERSUS PEERS

1 Peer selection started with all 3,085 US counties, then prioritized based on similarity to St. Lawrence County based on factors such as GDP per capita,

population, area, industry mix, and distance from urban areas. Peer group was comprised of 20 counties.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 7

While St. Lawrence County’s economy has struggled, some

of its peer counties (which started in similar situations in

2009) were more successful economically. The historical

performance of these peer counties shows it is possible

to change the trajectory of economic development.

Top-performing peers had a clear economic development

strategy linked to their assets, including taking advantage

of tourist attractions and universities.

St. Lawrence County has a clear set of assets upon which it

can build. It is rich in low-cost agricultural land and plentiful

water supplies, at a time when many food-producing areas

are undergoing water stress and urban pressures. Abundant

low-cost, clean power is available for industry from the

St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project. St. Lawrence is highly

unusual for a county of its size in boasting ﬁve colleges

and universities that specialize in complementary areas,

providing ample supplies of talent, and supporting research

and entrepreneurial activity in the region. Moreover, the

natural beauty of the region across all seasons is a draw for

residents and visitors alike.

Below are additional details on the diagnostic results,

organized along the ﬁve market lenses. This information was

critical for the development of the strategies and initiatives

for economic development in St. Lawrence County.

Economic sectors and clusters

More than 40 percent (and growing) of GDP and employ-

ment in St. Lawrence County is in non-tradable sectors

that serve the local population, such as government and

health care. Government (including public schools) alone

represents more than 25 percent of the local economy.

Majority tradable sectors like manufacturing and wholesale

trade, on the other hand, have undergone signiﬁcant job

losses, and growth expectations are ﬂat.

More than 40 percent (and growing) of GDP and employment in St. Lawrence County is in non-tradable

sectors that serve the local population, such as government and health care. Government (including public

schools) alone represents more than 25 percent of the local economy. Majority tradable sectors like

manufacturing and wholesale trade, on the other hand, have undergone significant job losses, and growth

expectations are flat.

EXHIBIT 3 : ST . L A W RENCE COUNT Y EMPL OYMENT

Employment of major manufacturers (e.g., Alcoa, General Motors) has shrunk, with low growth projected

to continue in the aluminum, food processing and printing sectors. Glass and paper manufacturing,

however, are core assets in which St. Lawrence is more specialized than peers and which have medium to

high expectations for growth.

Agriculture is an important part of the County’s economy, but it is undiversified and heavily reliant on

dairy farming (representing about 80 percent of agricultural sales in the County). Productivity in dairy has

improved, but is still lower than regional peers; production per cow is 17 percent less than leading New

York dairy producers. This is likely partly due to a different farm mix in the County, for example, more

small and non-modernized farms. The remaining 20 percent of agricultural sales come from crops, which

have been growing rapidly, at 16 percent a year on average. Crop production sales are also highly

concentrated, comprised mostly of hay and grains (which are common inputs to dairy production), with

an insignificant portion from fruits or vegetables.

Tourists spend approximately $112 million per year in the County, leading to about 1,250 jobs. However,

tourism expenditures have remained flat in recent years, while the region and the State have been growing

at 3-4 percent, and revenue from outdoor activities nationwide has been growing at 5 percent.

Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census, American Community Survey, Moody's Analytics, St. Lawrence County

profile

and retail trade

1 As per St. Lawrence County profile, 2011 2 Includes consulting, advertising, IT

3 Total earnings divided by total employment 4 Includes K12 Education

5 Estimated based on assumption of ~300 employees per supercenter 6 As per LinkedIn

Large employers

Sector Employees

Health-

care

~1,200

Educa-

tion

~865

Manufa-

cturing

~750

Educa-

tion

~900

Health-

care

~750

Health-

care

~900

Govt. ~1,000

Health-

care

~600

Govt.

>5,000

Retail

Trade

~900

<50

~150

~200

~300

~450

~500

~550

~650

Mining; quarrying;

and oil and gas extraction

Arts and entertainment

Real estate

Utilities

Information

Wholesale trade

Management of companies

Transportation and warehousing

Finance and insurance

Professional services

Administrative, support, and waste

Other services

~1,050

Construction

~1,350

Farm

~1,800

Education

~2,100

Manufacturing

~2,600

Accommodation and food

~3,000

Retail trade

~5,000

Healthcare

~6,450

Government

~10,350

Employment by Sector, 2013

-2%

+1%

-1%

+1%

+3%

+1%

-2%

-4%

-1%

+1%

-8%

-1%

-7%

-16%

CAGR

2009-2013

Avg salary 2013 $K

Number of employees, 2013

~30

~20

~10

~20

~35

~15

~45

~75

~15

~25

~35

~80

<10

~35

<10

~40

~115

~40

~50

EXHIBIT 3: ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT

Human capital

Since 1990, the labor force has modestly contracted, with

employment in manufacturing halving while increasing

three-fold in health care. Talent to ﬁll skilled mid-level roles

(e.g., technician with computer and soft skills) is in shortest

supply. This is partially due to recent substantial funding

reductions to workforce development eorts, which face

diculties reaching scale for in-person training due to the

County’s dispersed population. While higher education

institutions and Fort Drum are talent importers in the region,

interviews suggest high-end professionals such as doctors

or engineers are dicult to attract, particularly individuals

without existing connections to the North Country.

Higher education is a critical and core cluster that is

outsized for the scale of the County. This means the institu-

tions in the County produce more graduates than needed

in many areas—particularly in education, management,

and ﬁnance—but are addressing some key industry gaps

(e.g., agricultural and hospitality management). Despite this,

workforce educational attainment is lower than for New

York State, as a whole, and middle of the pack for North

Country counties, with only half the population completing

at least some college.

Given the trajectory of the County over the years, there is

also a need to address perceptions and outlook. As with

many regions that have experienced prolonged periods of

economic hardship, interviews revealed that the mindset of

some residents will need to be reframed to restore conﬁ-

dence and become willing to invest in the future.

Innovation and entrepreneurship

St. Lawrence County has experienced net business losses

over the last ﬁve years, with over 30 percent more business-

es closing than opening across all sectors, and the number

of per capita small businesses with 10 or fewer employees

lagging behind regional best in class by approximately 20

percent. Small-business loan volume and growth, another

indicator of small-business health, is negligible compared to

statewide ﬁgures.

Key elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, includ-

ing support for existing growth entrepreneurs (including

coaching and mentorship), rich entrepreneurial networks,

easily accessible shared support services, and foster-

ing of an entrepreneurial culture and talent pipeline, are

missing or weak. This substantially limits the potential for

small business to achieve scale. Additionally, despite the

presence of universities, innovation levels are substan-

dard. St. Lawrence County is 43rd out of 62 counties in the

state in patent production, producing half of the patents of

neighboring Jeerson County. Services that support entre-

preneurs and support innovation need to be expanded.

Fortunately, the County has a variety of assets to support

small business and entrepreneurship, including centers at

universities (Reh Center and Shipley Center at Clarkson;

Small Business Development Center at SUNY Canton), a

variety of County and regional micro-lending funds, and

State programs (e.g., Start-Up NY).

Physical and virtual infrastructure

Natural assets are plentiful and available at low cost: The

County has hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland and

timberland, land prices less than half of surrounding regions,

aordable water with low current and projected stress and

power prices lower than all nearby regions except Quebec.

Plentiful water features, ﬁshing locations and other natural

open areas are a competitive advantage, as highlighted

by the selection of the County to host the Bassmaster Elite

Series twice in the last two years.

Analytics and benchmarks highlight transportation in the

County as a challenge, with most towns more than 50 miles

from the nearest four-lane U.S. highway. In local interviews,

transportation infrastructure was not raised as a decisive

issue when making site or production decisions; however,

it may emerge as more critical when engaging with large

potential external investors depending on their industry.

Public and civic institutions

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN TSTUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 8

Students at SUNY Canton in Canton, New York.

2 U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC):

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 9

implemented to identify and prioritize the highest potential

strategies and initiatives (see Exhibit 4).

The County has been eective at securing ongoing funding

support from a number of sources at the federal, state,

and county levels. Many of those sources have restrictive

mandates, however. Furthermore, there are three dedicat-

ed economic development agencies in the County (the

St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, the

Development Authority of the North Country (DANC), and

the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority (OBPA), with

more than a dozen other entities providing some econom-

ic development services. While this shows a commitment

to economic development, at the same time it creates

signiﬁcant challenges for coordination of programs and

mobilization of resources and talent. St. Lawrence County is

the largest county by area in New York State, but it does not

have one single population center. There are ﬁve popula-

tion centers (Canton, Gouverneur, Massena, Ogdensburg

and Potsdam) in the county that have more than 4,000

residents—but they are spread out geographically. This

is a driver for the number of agencies, but there is also an

acknowledged need for continued and enhanced cooper-

ation and coordination. The county also has relatively high

levels of government per resident, which provides local

access to decision makers but also creates challenges of

duplication, coordination, and scale.

Selection and Prioritization Methodology

An iterative and interactive process combining detailed data

collection and analysis, stakeholders and expert engage-

ment, and applying a systematic evaluation “funnel” was

EXHIBIT 4: STRATEGY AND INITIATIVE SELECTION FUNNEL

While employment and GDP growth numbers are the most visible indicators of economic turnaround,

additional metrics contributed to guiding evaluation of strategies for inclusion in the blueprint. A large

number of potential initiatives to implement as part of the strategies were assessed using the following

criteria:

■ Impact

‒ Job creation: Growth or preservation of good jobs in target sectors

‒ Economic expansion: Wage growth, productivity improvement, and/or export expansion

‒ Equity and inclusion: Reaching hard-to-employ and disadvantaged populations, reducing poverty

and increasing access to services

‒ Quality of life: Improving the well-being and amenities for local communities

■ Feasibility

‒ Sustainability: Built on real assets and competitive advantages, resilient to external trends,

reinforcing other priority initiatives and strategies

‒ Alignment: Synergies with local, regional, and state priorities, programs, and funding sources;

existing local execution capacity and ownership

■ Portfolio fit

‒ Timing and risk: Appropriate mix of short-term wins and longer-term investments, as well as

mix of “safer” vs. more ambitious investments

‒ Visibility: Initiatives that might receive public attention, raise awareness and prestige for the

region, increase local excitement, and energy, and change existing mindsets

‒ Impact in Massena, Waddington, and Louisville: overall portfolio has a material, positive impact

on river communities

Goals: Aspirations

to achieve top-line

economic growth:

GDP, jobs, labor

participation,

productivity, wages/

income

Initiatives prioritized

based on Impact,

Feasibility, and

Portfolio Fit

Strategies: A broad

area to focus to drive

key outcomes

Initiatives: Specific projects

to achieve the strategic goals

Strategies and initiatives

developed based on:

▪ 

Five-market lever analysis

▪ 

Peers analysis

▪ 

Trends

▪ 

Ideation sessions

▪ 

Ideas from multiple stakeholders

▪ 

Adaptable successes

▪ 

Current in-flight initiatives

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 10

While employment and GDP growth numbers are the most

visible indicators of economic turnaround, additional metrics

contributed to guiding evaluation of strategies for inclusion

in the blueprint. A large number of potential initiatives to

implement as part of the strategies were assessed using the

following criteria:

Impact

• Job creation: Growth or preservation of good jobs in

target sectors

• Economic expansion: Wage growth, productivity

improvement, and/or export expansion

• Equity and inclusion: Reaching hard-to-employ and

disadvantaged populations, reducing poverty and

increasing access to services

• Quality of life: Improving the well-being and amenities

for local communities

Feasibility

• Sustainability: Built on real assets and competitive

advantages, resilient to external trends, reinforcing other

priority initiatives and strategies

• Alignment: Synergies with local, regional, and state

priorities, programs, and funding sources; existing local

execution capacity and ownership

Portfolio ﬁt

• Timing and risk: Appropriate mix of short-term wins and

longer-term investments, as well as mix of “safer” vs. more

ambitious investments

• Visibility: Initiatives that might receive public attention,

raise awareness and prestige for the region, increase local

excitement, and energy, and change existing mindsets

• Impact in Massena, Waddington, and Louisville:

overall portfolio has a material, positive impact on

river communities

Left to Right: North Country Dairy; boating at Whittaker Park, Waddington, New York.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 11

2. An Economic

Development Blueprint

for St. Lawrence County

A mutually reinforcing set of strategies was identiﬁed,

comprised of two sector-speciﬁc plays (in agriculture and

manufacturing), combined with two cross-cutting invest-

ments in small business and revitalization. The collective

impact of these strategies is estimated to be the creation

of 1,000 to 1,900 new jobs by 2020, close to $200 million in

annual incremental GDP at growth rates at or above the top

performers in the State.

Beyond the numbers, St. Lawrence County would have

high-performing sectors driven by leading technologies

and consumer preferences; greater levels of entrepreneur-

ship and new business creation; vibrant Main Streets and

tourist activity; and an overall culture change of positive

growth and momentum and renewed sense of pride among

long-time residents, newcomers and visitors.

Vision and Portfolio of Economic

Development Strategies

Four mutually reinforcing strategies emerged that best

satisﬁed the criteria and charted a course for St. Lawrence

County. They were designed to build upon the County’s

assets, factor in economic and technology trends, and align

with regional and State priorities. Each stands alone in its

ﬁt and potential impact on jobs and GDP, yet collectively

they reinforce one another such that the whole is greater

than the sum of its parts. The signature initiatives are the

most compelling and high-impact opportunities. Along with

the other initiatives in the strategies, they are designed to

complement existing activities taking place in the region.

2. An Economic Development Blueprint

for St . Lawrence Count y

A mutually reinforcing set of strategies was identified, comprised of two sector-specific plays (in

agriculture and manufacturing), combined with two cross-cutting investments in small business and

revitalization. The collective impact of these strategies is the creation of 1,000 to 1,900 new jobs by 2020,

close to $200 million in annual incremental GDP at growth rates at or above the top performers in the

State.

Beyond the numbers, St. Lawrence County would have high-performing sectors driven by leading

technologies and consumer preferences; greater levels of entrepreneurship and new business creation;

vibrant Main Streets and tourist activity; and an overall culture change of positive growth and momentum

and renewed sense of pride among long-time residents, newcomers and visitors.

ISION A ND PORTFOL IO OF ECONOMIC DEV EL OPMENT ST RA T EGIES

Four mutually reinforcing strategies emerged that best satisfied the criteria and charted a course for St.

Lawrence County. They were designed to build upon the County’s assets, factor in economic and

technology trends, and align with regional and State priorities. Each stands alone in its fit and potential

impact on jobs and GDP, yet collectively they reinforce one another such that the whole is greater than

the sum of its parts. The signature initiatives are the most compelling and high-impact opportunities.

Along with the other initiatives in the strategies, they are designed to complement existing activities

taking place in the region.

EXHIBIT 5 : ECONOMIC DEV EL OPMENT PORTFOLIO OF STRA T EGIES

Expand small business

 Entrepreneur

Accelerator

 Foster youth

entrepreneurship

 Provide Main St. small

business services

Revitalize communities,

tourism and mindsets

 St. Lawrence

ev italization Fund

 Fishing capital

of the world

 Main St. Consortium

 Coordinated

tourism marketing

Re-energize advanced materials

manufacturing

 Enhanced firm

ttraction

 Integrated

talent building

 Innovation

collaboration fund

Accelerate agriculture

and agri-business

 Build greenhouse

luster

 Boost dairy

productivity

 Find markets

EXHIBIT 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO OF STRATEGIES

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 12

Below is a brief summary of the strategies and signature

initiatives (in-depth descriptions are included later in the

document), followed by the aggregate impact on jobs and

GDP, funding requirements and sources and a high-level

timeline.

Accelerate agriculture and agri-business

Vision: Achieve full potential as a producer of high-value

agricultural products by diversifying into high-value outputs,

including covered horticulture; improving dairy productivity

to become the leading dairy producer in the Northeast; and

creating markets through the pursuit of dairy-processing

facilities and mechanisms to match supply of local crops

with regional demand.

Signature Initiative: Build a greenhouse cluster by identi-

fying and attracting investors to construct commercial-scale

greenhouse facilities in St. Lawrence County capable of

year-round operations.

Reenergize advanced materials manufacturing

Vision: Build and grow a targeted advanced materials

manufacturing cluster linked to county, regional, and

Canadian markets by leveraging St. Lawrence County’s

manufacturing base, engineering expertise, and natural

assets to reverse employment decline, grow existing

businesses, boost productivity, and train advanced

manufacturing talent. Advanced manufacturing involves

both new ways to manufacture existing products, and the

manufacture of new products with new advanced technol-

ogies—across engineering materials (e.g., metals, ceramic

and glasses, polymers and elastomers, and composites).

Signature Initiative: Aggressively attract advanced materi-

als companies through a focused and sustained campaign,

deﬁned roles for each player in the ecosystem, and custom-

er and performance data analytics.

Expand small business

Vision: Build a powerful entrepreneurial ecosystem that

generates economic and job growth through scaling small

businesses and increasing business formation by investing

in entrepreneurs and the supports and culture they need

to succeed.

Signature Initiative: An Entrepreneur Accelerator, which

will provide a comprehensive support program for high-

potential entrepreneurs who want to grow their businesses,

and in the process help create the best environment in rural

upstate New York for growing businesses. This support

program will include training, coaching and mentoring, and

networking with other entrepreneurs.

Revitalize communities, tourism, mindsets

Vision: Build on the County’s many natural and cultural

assets to make it an even better place to live and visit, with

increased coordination to improve Main Streets and attract

visitors, while creating vibrant communities for residents.

Signature Initiative: A $10 million St. Lawrence County

Revitalization Fund, which would provide grants and loans

to improve Main Streets, facilities, events and marketing.

Governor’s 2015 BassMaster Challenge held at St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 13

County of 44,300 to 45,800 jobs by 2020, which would

imply an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR)

of 2.1 percent to 2.8 percent. The absolute number of jobs

would be 2.4 percent to 4.4 percent above 2020

projections (in the absence of any intervention). As a

result, the unemployment rate in 2020 is estimated to be

2 percent to 3 percent lower than with no intervention.

• Should St. Lawrence County choose to focus only

on each strategy’s signature initiative, the portfolio of

strategies outlined in this Study could create 410 to

920 direct jobs by 2020.

3 Figures include a 40 percent reduction in impact for execution risks

and overlap.

4 Based on projections from Moody’s Analytics. Moody’s employment

numbers are lower than those reported by the NY Department of Labor

and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis due to a dierence in survey

methods and types of workers included.

5 Assuming labor force participation rate in 2020 is the same as it

would otherwise be with no intervention, regardless of number of

jobs created.

Impact Potential

By pursuing the strategies broadly outlined above,

St. Lawrence County can materially and positively impact

employment and GDP growth. By closing the gap to best in

class in several areas, like tourism spending or dairy produc-

tivity, and attracting new ﬁrms to establish commercial-scale

greenhouses or additive manufacturing facilities, by 2020,

St. Lawrence County could create between 1,025 to 1,900

direct jobs and increase GDP by $105 to $190 million. If

indirect and induced jobs are included, the employment

impact would increase by 250 to 500 jobs, for a total of

1,300 to 2,400.

Job growth

The County is projected to gain approximately 2,700 jobs

between 2015 and 2020 (from 39,900 current employment

up to 42,600, with no strategic interventions).

• With all initiatives implemented, the strategies and

initiatives described in this Study could create an

additional 1,025 to 1,900 direct jobs above 2020

projections. This would result in total employment in the

EXHIBIT 6 : BOTTOM-UP SIZING OF DIRECT JOBS

EXHIBIT 6: BOTTOM-UP SIZING OF DIRECT JOBS

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 14

between 2.4 percent and 2.8 percent, which far exceeds

the highest GDP growth rates in the North Country.

The priority for delivery is each strategy’s signature initia-

tive, which would grow GDP by $42 million to $83 million,

reaching a total GDP of $3.90 billion to $3.94 billion,

in 2020.

6 Moody’s Analytics, total GDP CAGR projections from 2015 to 2020

7 In general, we show GDP in real dollars (i.e., without showing the eects

of inﬂation).

8 Moody’s Analytics, total GDP CAGR projections from 2015 to 2020.

GDP growth

• Based on GDP growth rate projections

, St. Lawrence

County is projected to gain about $330 million in real

annual GDP

between 2015 and 2020 (from around

$3.52 billion to $3.85 billion), corresponding to a CAGR

of 1.8 percent. This growth rate is similar to the North

Country average of 1.76 percent projected from 2015 to

2020, but lower than the State average of 2 percent.

• By 2020, the portfolio of strategies outlined in this Study

could grow GDP by an additional $105 to $190 million,

to reach $3.96 to $4.04 billion. This would increase St.

Lawrence County’s average annual GDP growth rate to

EXHIBIT 7 : BOTTOM-UP SIZING OF GDP

EXHIBIT 7: BOTTOM-UP SIZING OF GDP

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 15

Investment Required and Sources of Funds

Should St. Lawrence County choose to pursue all the

initiatives described in this Study, it is estimated that total

investment required over ﬁve years will reach $300-400

million. This number will vary depending in the ﬁnal design,

ambition, and scale of initiatives when executed. Included

in these costs are an estimated $40-55 million in

performance-based investment incentives. Beyond

these investment incentives, another $30-40 million will

be required in public (or philanthropic) funding—mostly

to fund operating expenses critical to starting-up and

implementing the initiatives. The below exhibit is a summary

of the estimated total investments required over the ﬁve

years, split by signature and non-signature initiatives.

The ﬁnal funding needs for initiatives may vary widely

based on certain factors, such as the number of ﬁrms

that locate in the County.

St. Lawrence County is projected to have $75-115 million in

local, regional, and state public funding to allocate toward

economic development over the next ﬁve years. It is import-

ant to note, however, that many of these funds have already

been committed or have speciﬁc narrow mandates; for

example, some can only fund capital investments. However,

a preliminary analysis of signature initiative public funding

needs suggests some could be potentially addressed with

existing/projected local funds. Close coordination of the

quantity and timing of funding requests to sources and

organizations will be necessary to help ensure that signa-

ture initiative funding needs are met.

The most important local and regional public funding

sources include:

• The St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency

(SLCIDA): With about $2.1 million in funding, the SLCIDA is

one of the larger and more active economic development

agencies in the County.

• The River Valley Redevelopment Agency (RVRDA):

Administered by the SLCIDA, the RVRDA is dedicated

to furthering the quality of life of local communities

aected by the hydroelectric facilities and the residents

of St. Lawrence County as a whole. It currently has

$8.5 million available for potential use, and has available

20 megawatts (MW) of power to award.

EXHIBIT 8 : SUMMARY OF INV ESTMENT REQUIRED

St. Lawrence County is projected to have $75-115 million in local, regional, and state public funding to

allocate toward economic development over the next five years. It is important to note, however, that

many of these funds have already been committed or have specific narrow mandates; for example, some

can only fund capital investments. However, a preliminary analysis of signature initiative public funding

needs suggests some could be potentially addressed with existing/projected local funds. Close

coordination of the quantity and timing of funding requests to sources and organizations will be necessary

to help ensure that signature initiative funding needs are met.

The most important local and regional public funding sources include:

■ The St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency (SLCIDA): With about $2.1 million in

funding, the SLCIDA is one of the larger and more active economic development agencies in the

County.

■ The River Valley Redevelopment Agency (RVRDA): Administered by the SLCIDA, the RVRDA is

dedicated to furthering the quality of life of local communities affected by the hydroelectric

facilities and the residents of St. Lawrence County as a whole. It currently has $8.5 million available

for potential use, and has available 20 megawatts (MW) of power to award.

■ North Country Economic Development Fund (NCEDF): Administered by the Development

Authority of the North Country (DANC), the NCEDF is a revolving loan fund of roughly $9.4

million focused on the North Country, Herkimer County, and Akwesasne territory. The County

might expect roughly 20-25 percent of that amount, given its geographic and population sizes.

USD M

Non-signature

nitiatives

Capex

Incentives

Opex

Private

Total – non-signature initiatives 5-5.55-5.57.1-8.6 42-57

Total – all initiatives 40-55.515-15.518.8-24.8 267-367

Small business

9-11.5

Signature

nitiatives

Revitalization

010

0.8-1.1

20-25

Agriculture

~5-1001.2-1.5 25-75

Manufacturing

~30-400

1.7-2.1

180-210

Manufacturing

02.8-3.2

12-17

Small business

3.8-4.4

Agriculture

5-5.55-.5.5

.75-1

30-40

Revitalization

Total – Signature Initiatives 35-5010.012.7-16.2 225-310

Public

1 Funding from public or quasi-public agencies (e.g., state or local government, economic development agencies)

2 Funding for operational expenses (e.g., staff, marketing, grant funding, operational costs, etc.)

3 Funding for one-time capital expenses (e.g., building, equipment, capitalizing a fund, etc.)

4 Performance-based incentives to incentivize private investment (e.g., tax incentives, capital co-investments, etc.)

EXHIBIT 8: SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT REQUIRED

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 16

3. Next Steps

This section outlines the requirements of the governance

model required to drive implementation. It also articulates

the high-level long-term implementation milestones, as

well as the short-term actions required to achieve initial

momentum.

Governance

Implementation of the economic development study

requires a highly functioning governance model. While

the speciﬁc structure of the governance models can vary,

the one selected must support some important outcomes,

including:

• Alignment of key County-wide stakeholders

• Coordination of critical eorts to maximize impact for

resources

• Accountability for delivery of action and results

• Learning and evolution of the program, based on results

and the evolving context

The chosen governance structure should incorporate

four key components:

• Sponsorship. Often achieved through a committee

of inﬂuential and highly respected leaders, this element

provides: overall guidance and accountability for

implementation of the study; cross-regional coordination;

identiﬁcation and acquisition of needed resources; vocal

public advocacy; and key support for partner attraction.

• Overall program management. Provides “air trac

control” for overall implementation, including: process

management; ﬁnancial management; impact measure-

ment methodology; stakeholder coordination; and

knowledge sharing.

• Strategy management. Manages the execution and

renewal of each strategy including: initiative coordination;

partner management (where partners cut across multiple

initiatives); strategy-speciﬁc fundraising; issue identiﬁca-

tion and resolution; and opportunity identiﬁcation and

strategy evolution.

• Initiative execution. Responsible for delivering a

speciﬁc initiative, including: execution of initiative work

plan; impact data collection and tracking (based on

program management methodology); ongoing initiative

reﬁnement and design.

• North Country Economic Development Fund (NCEDF):

Administered by the Development Authority of the North

Country (DANC), the NCEDF is a revolving loan fund

of roughly $9.4 million focused on the North Country,

Herkimer County, and Akwesasne territory. The County

might expect roughly 20-25 percent of that amount, given

its geographic and population sizes.

• Northern New York Economic Development Fund:

Established via state legislation and administered by

NYPA, the Northern New York Economic Development

Fund allocates an estimated $2 million annually in grant

funding for businesses in the region.

Importantly, New York State’s Consolidated Funding

Application (CFA) is likely to be an important funding source,

given its large size and annual cycle. If St. Lawrence County

is able to win its proportional share of the average allotment

that the North Country has to date won annually, the County

should be able to win $50-60 million in CFA funding over

the next ﬁve years.

In addition to these local and regional sources, the strate-

gies can also be funded through additional State, federal

and private funds, including private investment, bank loans,

and philanthropic grants.

NYPA Hawkins Point visitor center grounds near St. Lawrence-FDR

hydroelectric project

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 17

Long-Term Implementation Milestones

Implementation should focus on hitting critical milestones

that will drive real economic impact.

High-Level Implementation Milestones

Timing

Year 1 Years 2-3 Years 4 and beyond

Accelerate agriculture

and agri-business

• Greenhouse attraction eort

launched

• Dairy processor search

launched

• Dairy Tech Fund

established with

Round 1 funding

• First large-scale greenhouse

built

• Dairy processor operating

Dairy Tech Fund receives

Round 2 funding and

disperses ﬁrst funds

• Food hub launched

• Three large-scale green-

houses built, with expanded

small-scale sites

• Best Practice Dairy

Facility launched

• Shared infra-structure

facilities built

• Food hub scaled regionally

Reenergize advanced

materials manufacturing

• Flagship campaign for

Advanced Manufacturing

ﬁrms launched with external

Global Search partner

• Software, enhanced ﬁrm

attraction methods in place

• Manufacturing talent and

skills pipeline model

developed

• One-two ﬂagship

companies attracted

• Pilot for new manufacturing

workforce programs

• Advanced Manufacturing

Innovation Fund launched

and funds three projects

• Two-three additional smaller

ﬁrms tied to cluster attracted

• Expanded number and

size of workforce programs

Expand small business

• Entrepreneurial Accelerator

launched

• Entrepreneurship culture and

targeted business formation

eorts launched

• Expanded Entrepreneurial

Accelerator program

(e.g., double of RISE Fellows)

• Pilots for Youth Entrepre-

neurship launched

• Entrepreneurial Accelerator

receives national acclaim

and funding

• In-ﬂow of entrepreneurs

• Youth Entrepreneurship

programs in 15+ Districts

Revitalize communities,

tourism and mindsets

• SLC Revitalization Fund

formed with Round 1 funding

• Initial funding of Theme 1

• SLCRF Round 2 funding

expands fund to $10M

• Theme 1 and 2 executed

• Themes 3+ executed

This high-level view emphasizes the signiﬁcance of

this eort.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 18

The eorts in early 2016 must focus on six key streams

of work:

1. Adoption of the study as a St. Lawrence County

strategy: As an initial step, the County leadership that

was involved in the study must adopt it as their strategy

for action.

2. Establishing governance and leadership for the

eort: Implementation will demand substantial leader-

ship, as well as coordinated decision-making and

action. Many of the strategies will not be universally

supported, or will require some uncomfortable chang-

es in the County. Leaders must establish a governance

model that maximizes alignment, accountability, and

mutual support—and one that reinforces a County-

wide mindset that acknowledges the interdependence

of the towns and villages.

3. Identifying funding for immediate needs and pursu-

ing longer-term resources: Initial implementation

for Year 1 will require approximately $2-4 million in

resources, which will need to be identiﬁed from what is

currently available to the County. Additionally, an eort

should be mobilized quickly to secure funding for

Year 2 and beyond.

4. Gain support from key constituencies and engag-

ing stakeholders: The Advisory Board members and

chosen strategy leaders must engage critical constit-

uencies, helping them understand the content of the

study, convincing them of the rationale and credibil-

ity of the process by which it was constructed and

discussing what implications it might have for their

actions.

5. Reﬁne the blueprint: As additional insights are

gathered through conversations with stakeholders,

they should be incorporated to ensure the program

fully reﬂects eorts to address the key strategies.

6. Launch initial implementation: All strategies have

steps that must be undertaken immediately. For

example, in the agriculture strategy, a key ﬁrst step

is convening the Greenhouse Engagement Taskforce.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 19

St. Lawrence County

Economic Development Study

Appendix: Supporting Materials

December 2015

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 20

Contents

Appendix: Glossary .......................................................................................................... 21

Appendix: Methodologies and Assumptions ......................................................... 22

Appendix: Summary of Stakeholder Outreach ...................................................... 25

Appendix: Public Funding ............................................................................................. 26

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 21

Appendix: Glossary

3D—Three dimensional

BAU—Business As Usual

BOCES—Boards of Cooperative Educational Services

CAGR—Compound Annual Growth Rate

CAMP—Center for Advanced Materials Processing

CapEx—Capital Expenditure

CFA—Consolidated Funding Application

CRA—Community Reinvestment Act

DA—Economic Development Agency

DANC—Development Authority of the North Country

DEiR—Distinguished Entrepreneurs in Residence

DOL—Department of Labor

DOT—Department of Transportation

EA—Entrepreneurial Accelerator

EIR—Entrepreneur in Residence

EL—Entrepreneurial Leaders

EN—Entrepreneur Network

ESDC—Empire State Development Corporation

FCC—Federal Communications Commission

FFIEC—U.S. Federal Institutions Examination Council

GET—Greenhouse Engagement Taskforce

GDP—Gross Domestic Product

GE—General Electric

GM—General Motors

HUD— U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

IDA—Industrial Development Agency

JA—Junior Achievement

K-12—Kindergarten through 12th Grade

K-16—Kindergarten through 4 year college

LDC –Local Development Corporation

LGTF—North Country Local Government Task Force

Mbps—Megabits per second

MED—Massena Electric District

NCEDF—North Country Economic Development Fund

NCGC—North Country Grown Cooperative

NFTE—National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship

NNY—Northern New York

NYPA—New York Power Authority

NYS—New York State

NYSERDA— New York State Energy Research

and Development Authority

OBPA—Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority

OJT—On the Job training

OpEx—Operational Expense

PMO—Project Management Oce

R&D—Research and Development

REAL—Rural Entrepreneurship through Action Learning

RIMS II—Regional Input-Output Multiplier System II

RISE—Rural Investment in Students of Excellence

ROI—Return On Investment

RVRDA—The River Valley Redevelopment Agency

SBDC—Small Business Development Corporation

SLCIDA— St. Lawrence County Industrial Development

Agency

SLCRF—St. Lawrence County Revitalization Fund

SMEs—Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

SPEC—Seaway Private Equity Corporation

STEAM—Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math

STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

SUNY—State University of New York

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOE—U.S. Department of Energy

WIB—Workforce Investment Board

YE—Youth Entrepreneurship

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 22

• Discount: an across-the-board decrease in projected jobs

and GDP created via implementation of the initiatives to

account for potential feasibility concerns and/or overlap

among jobs and/or GDP created by particular initiatives.

• Capital Expenditure (CapEx): the cost to buy or add

to the value of a ﬁxed asset with a useful life extending

beyond a year. An example for our strategies would be the

cost of building a greenhouse.

• Operating Expenses (OpEx): the ongoing cost of

maintaining or growing a business, including, but not

limited to, salary and wages, advertising, oce expenses,

supplies, maintenance, taxes, legal fees and accounting

changes. Examples for our strategies would also include

the cost of program management, global search for ﬁrms,

establishing governance, and stakeholder outreach.

• Public Funding: pools of money generated from govern-

mental local, regional, state, or national sources, either in

loan or grant form.

• Private Funding: pools of money generated from private

sources, including businesses, banks, or philanthropic

organizations.

The multiplier impact of regional activity

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis produces Regional

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) multipliers to show

how local demand shocks aect total gross output, value

added, earnings and employment in the region. The Study

uses North Country-speciﬁc RIMS II multipliers to estimate

the total economic impact of Blueprint initiatives on employ-

ment and GDP in the region.

We estimated the potential indirect and induced jobs

produced by each initiative by applying RIMS II employment

multipliers to the direct jobs created in a given industry.

If necessary, to estimate GDP, RIMS II value-added multi-

plier were applied—which shows total dollar change in

value added that occurs in all industries for each additional

dollar of output delivered to ﬁnal demand by a particular

industry—to direct sales created in that industry. This was

only necessary if the data produced sales or gross output;

if the data already produced GDP, applying the value-add-

ed multiplier was unnecessary. For example, we were

able to determine potential manufacturing GDP added via

the Blueprint initiatives by using Moody’s Analytics data

These technical notes provide an overview of our key data

sources and analytical approaches. This is not intend-

ed to be exhaustive, but to highlight the critical inputs

and assumptions. This appendix on Methodologies and

Assumptions has six sections:

• Deﬁnitions: describes our use of key terms and descrip-

tors used throughout the Study.

• The multiplier impact of regional activity: outlines how

North Country-speciﬁc multipliers were used to compute

indirect/induced employment and value added.

• Employment and GDP: outlines methodology and

assumptions behind calculating potential direct jobs and

GDP impact.

• Investment requirements: outlines methodology and

assumptions behind calculating public and private invest-

ment needs for each initiative.

• Funding sources: explains relationship between private

and public funding as well as the methodology and

assumptions used to identify potential local, regional,

state, and federal sources that could be accessed to help

provide a percentage of the public funds required for

implementation.

• Sources: lists the sources of analysis and data used for

impact, investment, and funding calculations.

Deﬁnitions:

• Jobs: In tallying potential jobs created through implemen-

tation of the study’s initiatives, both overall in chapter two

and in individual strategy sections, the Study refers to

direct jobs (i.e., jobs created directly by the organizations

and funds established and impacted through implemen-

tation of the initiatives). Indirect jobs (i.e., jobs created

to serve the industries and businesses creating direct

jobs) and induced jobs (i.e., jobs created in the broader

community as a result of new direct and indirect employee

income spent on other goods and services) are not includ-

ed when jobs are referenced.

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP): In tallying GDP, the

document refers to value added, which is the net output

of a sector after summing all outputs and subtracting all

intermediate inputs. GDP is calculated in terms of real

2009 dollars (i.e., the Study does not include inﬂation in

calculations).

Appendix: Methodologies and Assumptions

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 23

2. Potential implementation risks: Certain factors could

impede implementation of the initiatives over the

ﬁve-year time span. Examples could include unforeseen

budget/funding shortfalls, inability to attract as many

manufacturing ﬁrms or greenhouses as predicted, or

lower small business creation.

3. A maximum jobs cap based on achievable unemployment

and labor participation rates: A discount on added jobs is

necessary to ensure the predicted unemployment rate is

not unrealistic.

a. According to the Federal Reserve, the long-term

natural rate of unemployment is 5 percent to 5.2

percent.

While unemployment rates can dip below

that for a short period of time, it will rise again even

in a stable or growing economy due to workers

leaving jobs or entering the labor market. We there-

fore used the natural rate of unemployment as the

most ambitious unemployment rate this Study could

help St. Lawrence County achieve.

b. The unemployment rate is contingent on both the

number of people employed and labor-force size.

Over the past decade, St. Lawrence County’s overall

labor force has declined by 0.4 percent per year.

So, if St. Lawrence County’s labor force shrinks or

remains steady, but this eort helps the County

create jobs, there must be a theoretical maximum on

the number of jobs that can be ﬁlled. This theoret-

ical maximum, over ﬁve years, is around 1,700. To

ensure employment predications do not dramatical-

ly exceed this maximum, we applied a 40 percent

discount to the projections, resulting in total jobs

added to a maximum of 1,900. This would allow for a

slight rise in the labor force due to implementation of

these strategies (e.g., inward migration, improvement

of the labor force participation rate).

4. GDP and job growth correlation: GDP is a product of the

number of employees and average productivity. If the

number of people employed grows, GDP must grow

as well. Due to this correlation, we applied the same

40 percent discount to GDP impact as we did to

expected jobs.

1 http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14424.htm

(discussed below) and industry benchmarks. In this case,

applying the value-added multiplier was unnecessary.

However, sources of data for both dairy productivity and

annual tourism spend were in sales. So, once we deter-

mined potential added agriculture sales due to increased

dairy productivity and added tourism sales due to imple-

mentation of the Revitalization Fund, we applied the

corresponding industry-speciﬁc RIMS II value-added

multipliers to determine GDP.

Employment and GDP

In calculating direct jobs and GDP added by these initia-

tives, we ﬁrst determined which metrics, informed as much

as possible by direct, objective data for St. Lawrence

County, regional and national peer counties, and industry

benchmarks where available, were the most indicative for

current and future direct employment and GDP ﬁgures in a

given industry. We then compared St. Lawrence County’s

current status, either on an absolute or per capita basis as

well as using historical and projected compound annual

growth rates (CAGR) where available, to regional and/

or national peer county best in class and industry bench-

marks. Doing so informed the level of success possible for a

given initiative. Where appropriate and necessary, we used

assumptions (e.g., the number of commercial-scale green-

houses St. Lawrence County might attract over a ﬁve-year

period or each class size of entrepreneurs included in the

Entrepreneur Accelerator) that were rigorously tested with

internal, external, and St. Lawrence County subject matter

experts. For each initiative, we then set conservative and

aspirational employment and GDP creation goals based on

realistic levels of success.

Finally, bottom-up estimates of jobs and GDP impact

numbers were discounted by 40 percent at the strategy

level (which aggregated up to an equivalent reduction

overall) due to the following factors:

1. Potential overlap among initiatives: in a number of instanc-

es, added jobs or GDP could be claimed by two initiatives.

For example, jobs created under Manufacturing Workforce

Development training could also be claimed in a growing

business whose owner received training under the Small

Business Entrepreneur Accelerator. Another example

could be businesses created through funding provided by

the Revitalization Fund, but which also received help from

the Main Street Small Business Concierge service.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 24

Investment requirements

To project potential investment requirements for each

initiative over ﬁve years, we used known CapEx ratios to

job and/or GDP growth where available (e.g., a commer-

cial-scale greenhouse bringing 120-150 jobs will need

around $24 million in CapEx). Where possible, we also used

known OpEx ratios for particular aspects of each initiative.

Where appropriate and necessary, we employed CapEx

or OpEx assumptions—tested with internal and external

subject matter experts—to create as accurate as possible

preliminary initiative cost estimates. We then set low and

high investment requirements for each initiative based on

conservative and aspirational job and GDP impact goals

set above.

Funding sources

The initiatives outlined in this Study will require funding

from public and private sources, as well as other incentives.

Overall, is assumed a 1:10 ratio of public-to-private funding

over the course of ﬁve years. Certain initiatives will require

a greater ratio of public funding, and others will require

a greater ratio of private funding. In general, we expect

services provided as a public good and which will not

provide signiﬁcant ﬁnancial return on investment for

a private investor, such as the Entrepreneur Accelerator or

Main Street Small Business Concierge, will require a greater

ratio of public funding. Conversely, we expect initiatives

that could provide signiﬁcant ﬁnancial return on investment,

such as a commercial greenhouse, to attract higher levels

of private funding.

To identify potential local, regional, state, and federal

sources for the public funds required for implementation,

we completed extensive primary research with St. Lawrence

County, internal, and external funding subject matter

experts, as well as secondary research via proprietary data

sets and benchmarks.

Summary of main sources used

• Primary interviews with internal, external, and

St. Lawrence County subject matter experts

• Secondary research, leveraging proprietary data sets

and economic development experts

• Moody’s Analytics for historical and projected

employment in total and by industry

• Various press and industry websites for insight into

particular industry/sector benchmarks regarding

investment to jobs/GDP ratios and CapEx/OpEx needs

• USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service for dairy

productivity and employment by county

• U.S. Census statistics for total businesses and business

size by county

• Tourism Economics for historical tourism spend by county

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for industry wage data

• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis for regional

employment and value-added multipliers

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 25

Appendix: Summary of Stakeholder Outreach

Appendix: Summary of stakeholder outreach

The below list is a sample of the stakeholders engaged during the process. Many of these individuals were

engaged several times. The list is not exhaustive – and many names have surely been omitted by mistake. We

thank all those who contributed their time, attention and ideas.

EXHIBIT: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Municipal

▪

Kathryn Bamberger, Empire State Dev.

▪ Timmy Currier, Village of Massena

▪

Ruth Doyle, St. Lawrence County

▪ Joseph Gray, Town of Massena

Supervisor

▪

Mark Hall, Town of Fine Supervisor

▪ Steve Hunt, Empire State Development

▪

Patrick Kelly, St. Lawrence County IDA

▪ Edward Kowalewski, Empire State Dev.

▪

Ernie Labaff, St. Lawrence County IDA

▪ Matilda Larson, SLC Planning Office

▪

Larry Legault, Town of Louisville

▪

Joseph Lightfoot, SLC Board of

Legislators

▪

Bob McNeil, RVRDA

▪ Linda McQuinn, Town of Canton

▪

Fred Morill, Ogdensburg Bridge and

Port Authority

▪

Ed Murphy, RVRDA

▪ Brian Murray, County Planning Board

▪

Janet Otto-Cassada, Waddington

Mayo r

▪ John Pinkerton, Ogdensburg

▪

Tom Plastino, St. Lawrence County

IDA/Workforce Investment Board

▪

John Rishe, Ogdensburg Bridge & Port

Authort

▪

Leigh Rodriguez, Canton

▪ Andrea Smith, Ogdensburg

▪

Russell Strait, RVRDA

▪

Carrie Tuttle, DANC

▪ Patty van Pattern, Town of Waddington

▪

Sandy Wright, Town of Waddington

▪ Keith Zimmerman, StCountyPlanning

Office

Tony Arquiett, GM Tas kforce

Patrick Jackson, Corning

Laurie Marr, Alcoa

Education

▪

Patrick Ames, Cornell Cooperative

Extension

▪

SV Babu, CAMP

▪ Thomas Burns, SLL Boces

▪ Elisabeth Cain, CAMP

▪

Kelly Chezum, Clarkson University

▪ Tony Collins, Clarkson University

▪

Benjamin Dixon, St.Lawrence

University

▪

Erin Draper, Reh Center

▪ Matt Draper, Shipley Center

▪

Marilyn Freeman, CAMP

▪ Joe Timmerman, SUNY

Potsdam

▪

Lenore VanderZee, SU NY

Canton

▪

John Wicke, SUNY Potsdam

▪ Zvi Szafran, SU NY Canton

▪

Carl McLaughlin, Fort Drum Regional

Liaison

▪

Lindsay Tarbell, St. Regis Mohawk

Tribe

▪ Christopher Thompson, St. Regis

Mohawk Tribe

Business and industry

▪

Dave Acker, St. Lawrence Health

Sys te m

▪

Kevi n Acres, Dairy farmer

▪ Akins Family, Dairy farmers

▪

Tony Arquiett, GM Taskforce

▪

Ron Bacon, Community Bank, NA

▪ Linda Beamish, DeFelsko

▪

Mike Beamish, DeFelsko

▪ Jason Bell, Potters Industries

▪

David Bicheau, Clifton Fine

Hospital

▪

Ra y Bodish, Never Tire farm

▪ Mike Burgess, Kinney Drugs

▪

Will Chapman, ACCO

▪

Rainbow Crabtree, Nature’s

Storehouse

▪

Pat Curran, Curran Renewables

▪ Ryan Demick, Yesteryear Vintage

Doors

▪ Gary DeYoung, TII Tourism

Council

▪

Mark D zwo nczyk, SLIC

▪ Manna Doyle, Tulmar

▪

Doug Drumm, Potsdam Specialty

Paper

▪

Rus t Eaddy, Outdoors Enthusiast

▪ Kate Fish, Adirondack NC

Association

▪ Mike Frazer, Frazer Computing

▪

Blake Gendebien, Twin Mills Farms

▪

Patrick Jackson, Corning

▪ Steve Knight, United Helpers

▪

David Lucht, Corning

▪ Laurie Marr, Alcoa

▪

Don McCall, Med-Eng

▪

Jim McKenna, Regional Office

of Sustainable Tourism

▪

Pat McKeown, Vanguard

Consulting

▪

Travis McKnight, McKnight

Farms

▪ Andy McMahon, Massena

Electric

▪ Don Meissner, Fis hcap

▪

Bil l Mu rra y, CITEC

▪ Adam Paul, SLC Film Fest

▪

Ed Pcolar, Agrimark

▪ Bob Penski, Penski Staffing

▪

Marijean Remington, Atlantic

Testing

▪ Brooke Rouse, Chamber of

Commerce

▪ Robert Seamon, Clifton Fine

Hospital

▪ Mike Seymour, Outdoors Writer

▪

Greg Sharland, Alliance Energy

▪

John Simone, CT Main St.

Center

▪

Patricia Spitzley, RACER

▪ Karen St. Hilaire, Vanguard

▪

Tom Sullivan, Massena BDC

▪ David Swanson, NC Savings

Bank

▪ Leo Tilman, Capitol Peak Asset

Managers

▪

Walter Todd, Clifton Fine

Hospital

▪

Ted Totten, CIVES

▪ Denise Young, NC

Telemedicine Project

Plus over 30 more at

North Country level

Regional stakeholders

EXHIBIT: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The below list is a sample of the stakeholders engaged

during the process. Many of these individuals were engaged

several times. The list is not exhaustive—and many names

have surely been omitted by mistake. We thank all those

who contributed their time, attention and ideas.

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 26

Appendix: Public Funding

Public funding will be necessary to support the execution of

the strategies outlined in this Study. There are elements of

the strategies that will not be proﬁtable in the near-term, so

it is unlikely they can be ﬁnanced with private investment.

For these, public or philanthropic resources will need to

be mobilized. There are many potential sources of public

funding at the local, regional, state, and federal levels.

Name Objectives and Mandate Fund allocation Available

Funds

$ Millions

Geography Allocation

to County

Availability

5-year

$ Millions

County

RVRDA Administer NYPA funds

for economic development

activities and programs.

Funds are intended to further

the quality of life of local

communities impacted by

hydroelectric facilities and

the residents of St. Lawrence

County.

One-time $8.5 County 100 percent $8.5

IDA-LDC Real estate acquisition,

building construction and

rehabilitation, or machinery

and equipment acquisition

and rehabilitation, or working

capital and inventory with

adequate security for

manufacturing, industrial,

commercial and warehousing

operations.

One-time $1.1 County 100 percent $1.1

IDA Aims to promote, encour-

age, attract and develop job

opportunities and economically

sound commerce and industry

in St. Lawrence County.

One-time $2.1 County 100 percent $2.1

Greater

Massena

Economic

Development

Fund–

Loan Fund

Induce business enterprises to

establish, maintain or expand

plants, facilities or operations

in the town of Massena and

St. Lawrence County.

A loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up

to $200,000.

One-time $1.6 County 100 percent $1.6

Seaway private

Equity Corp.

(SPEC) Fund

Early-stage investment funds

to attract development of new

technologies. Fund able to

make equity investments up

to $1M, with a 1:2 match.

One-time $2.5 County 100 percent $2.5

The below table summarizes some of these. While the

aggregate amount is far greater than the public resources

required to implement this Study, many of these sources

already have existing mandates, commitments, or other

challenges complicating their immediate allocation toward

this Study’s strategies.

(continued)

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 27

Name Objectives and Mandate Fund allocation Available

Funds

$ Millions

Geography Allocation

to County

Availability

5-year

$ Millions

County

(continued)

Ogdensburg

Growth Fund–

Loan Fund

Enhance the quality of life

in Ogdensburg by fostering

cooperation between city

government, economic devel-

opment agencies and the

private sector to strengthen

businesses and create innova-

tive economic, housing, and

career development oppor-

tunities for area residents.

Loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up to

$150,000.

One-time $1 Greater

Ogdensburg

area

100 percent $1.0

Casino

Compact

The Akwesasne Mohawk

Casino on the St. Regis

Reservation regularly

provides 25 percent of net

proﬁts from its slot machines

to NYS, which distributes

12.5 percent of its cut to St.

Lawrence County. The 50%

of the resources allocated to

St. Lawrence County are no

longer allocated for economic

development.

Annual $1.5 Towns of

Massena

and Brasher

50 percent—

the allotment

to the towns

of Massena

and Brasher

$7.5

(continued)

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 28

Name Objectives and Mandate Fund allocation Available

Funds

$ Millions

Geography Allocation

to County

Availability

5-year

$ Millions

Regional

North Country

Economic

Development

Fund– Loan

Fund

Loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up to

$300,000. In some instanc-

es the total loan size can be

$500,000.

One-time $9.4 Regional 25 percent $2.35

North Country

Value Added

Agriculture

Fund– Loan

Fund

Establish/maintain agricul-

tural operations/facilities.

Loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up to

$250,000.

One-time $1 Regional 25 percent $0.25

North Country

Transforma-

tional Tourism

Community

Loan Fund

Enhance quality/quantity of

lodging in region and support

tourism-related facilities.

Loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up to

$250,000.

One-time $1 Regional 25 percent $0.25

North Country

Digital Film

Projector

Conversion

Fund– Loan

Fund

Bridge fundraising eorts

to purchase digital video

projectors. Loan fund where

applicants are eligible for

loans of up to $50,000.

One-time $0.4 Regional 25 percent $0.1

North Country

Alliance Loan

Fund

Business/employment

establishment/expansion.

Loan fund where applicants

are eligible for loans of up to

$225,000.

One-time $1.4 Regional 25 percent $0.35

Farmland

Drainage –

Loan Fund

Farmland drainage. Loan fund

where applicants are eligible

for loans of up to $20,000.

One-time $0.15 Regional 25 percent $0.04

Development

Authority Value

Added Agricul-

ture Fund – Loan

Fund

Creation of value-added

products for retail

consumption.

One-time $0.0 Regional 25 percent $0.0

Community

Development

Loan Fund

Large number of projects.

Fund where applicants are

eligible for loans of up to

$250,000.

One-time $2.0 Regional 25 percent $0.5

Point Positive Equity investments for new

or growing early-stage

companies.

One-time $1.0 Regional 25 percent $0.3

(continued)

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY • DECEMBER 2015 • 29

Name Objectives and Mandate Fund allocation Available

Funds

$ Millions

Geography Allocation

to County

Availability

5-year

$ Millions

NYPA

Northern New

York Economic

Development

Funds (NNY

Proceeds)

Details of grant fund are still

being ﬁnalized. Estimated

that annual allocation will be

approximately $2M from the

sale of excess power gener-

ation. Speciﬁc size of annual

allocation will be driven by

market factors and changes.

Annual $2 County 100 percent $10

Temporary

North Country

Discount

Program

Funds currently not available,

allocated to funding electric-

ity bill discounts for eligible

businesses and dairy farmers.

Annual $10.0 County 100 percent $30.0

State

Consolidated

Funding

Application

Funding from various State

agencies to support economic

development projects that

align with REDC strategic

plans in the areas of commu-

nity development, direct

assistance to businesses and

other organizations, water-

front revitalization, energy,

environmental improvements,

sustainability, education and

workforce development and

low-cost ﬁnancing.

Annual $51.7 Regional 25 percent $64.6

123 Main Street

White Plains, NY

10601-3170

www.nypa.gov

St. Lawrence-Franklin D. Roosevelt Power Project

Printed on recycled paper. 12/2015